Tory Benefit Cap

Lord Foul wrote:if they chased down all the scummy buggers who practice the vile "tax avoidance" and made em pay the propper amount the gains would likely be 10x the cost of benefits....

whilst not illegal tax avoidance is more immoral than prostitution

Handy Andy wrote:They have the same problem in America , but on a grander scale.
Trump wants people to pay their taxes.
But he pays none himself.

Lord Foul wrote:people wouldnt have a choice if the law was made sufficiently strict and properly enforced.....

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... less immigration is the solution...

Can't be - less immigration does not mean more homes - the problem is now, not tomorrow. Now if more people were to die of cold this winter....

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Can't be - less immigration does not mean more homes - the problem is now, not tomorrow. Now if more people were to die of cold this winter....

Less means less demand.

We need to stop adding to the problems by reducing numbers coming in!

Lord Foul wrote:
if they chased down all the scummy buggers who practice the vile "tax avoidance" and made em pay the propper amount the gains would likely be 10x the cost of benefits....

whilst not illegal tax avoidance is more immoral than prostitution

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But sadly... labour opened up the taps on mass immigration from 1997... and mord houses were built under one year of Thatcher than under the whole total 13 years of labour...


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-apologise-for-social-housing-failure-8932797.html

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes I know...

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... that was about getting some councils to balance their books...


And still more housing built under one year of Thatcher than on the whole 13 years of labour...!!!


Thatcher did not prevent labour govt...

Lord Foul wrote:the point however is this...

whenthey got into power, did the subsequent labour govt REVERSE thatchers policies vis council house building....

did they hell....they encouraged  "housing associations" with its obvious extra layers of parasites, and private landlords

Lord Foul wrote:the point however is this...

whenthey got into power, did the subsequent labour govt REVERSE thatchers policies vis council house building....

did they hell....they encouraged  "housing associations" with its obvious extra layers of parasites, and private landlords

Tommy Monk wrote:
The article is clear!

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Open thine eyes/

You do realise that a lot of pregnancies are planned and then things can simply go wrong?

Tommy Monk wrote:


From the Standard article...


"...At a conference organised by think tank the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, Mr Copley spoke about his role as Labour’s housing spokesman on the London Assembly.

He said: “As a Labour politician one of the things that really galls me is that there’s this statistic that more council homes were built in the last year of Thatcher’s government than were built in the 13 years of Labour government, and that’s something I think as a Labour Party we need to apologise for.” Official figures show only 6,330 council houses were completed from 1998 to 2010, compared with 17,710 in 1990 alone, which was Baroness Thatcher’s final year as prime minister. In one Labour year, 2004, the number fell to just 130 council homes completed..."

eddie wrote:Yes it's what I keep being told....I am rather using up money I shouldn't be.
I have a couple of little ideas up my sleeve though to make money.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes I do keep getting told to seek help but...I like to do things my way.
I guess I should seek help at some point.

Having pride is a great thing to have Eddie, but I agree with Ziz.
Rather than use up your savings accept financial help whilst you need it....you and your OH have paid into a system in the past and that system  is designed to help people....so find out what you are entitled to and accept it.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:If ya cannot face the truth then explain the truth as you see it.

It is not mandatory to become pregnant and expect me to pay for anyones lust, lack of intelligence and decency, have you heard of CONDOMS and THE PILL?

I believe some who WILL NOT SEE are more than likely to be raiding the benefit system.

Open thine eyes/

You do realise that a lot of pregnancies are planned and then things can simply go wrong?

You know, people these days just don't make the effort.    Marriages/relationships don't just stroll along on their own and when you choose to bring a life into the world you have certain responsibilities that should not be shunned.  What amazes me in this day and age is that it's so easy to marry/divorce/cheat on each other and yet all that free contraception and they keep having kids they can't afford or commit fully to.   All those feckless men should be made to pay for each and every child they spawn.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:No idea, can they?

I don't know.

They wouldn't need them if housing costs weren't so high - they would get to keep more of the income that they actually earned instead of expecting others to pay for them.

If they can't, it's absurd for people to bleat on about only getting £345 per week in benefits or whatever, and moaning that they actually have to pay something towards the rent.

Syl wrote:No doubt you will be shouted down for bringing different races into this but.....it's rarer than hens teeth to see a young Asian girl with several children and no husband.
Yes the men spread themselves about....(often with underage white girls, but that's another matter) but the girls do not.

Lord Foul wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You know, people these days just don't make the effort.    Marriages/relationships don't just stroll along on their own and when you choose to bring a life into the world you have certain responsibilities that should not be shunned.  What amazes me in this day and age is that it's so easy to marry/divorce/cheat on each other and yet all that free contraception and they keep having kids they can't afford or commit fully to.   All those feckless men should be made to pay for each and every child they spawn.

and all those feckless women, who should learn to keep their legs together.....
as soon as issues like this raise their heads out come the "all men are monsters" brigade in full cry.....as said elsewhere...it takes two to tango.....

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know.

They wouldn't need them if housing costs weren't so high - they would get to keep more of the income that they actually earned instead of expecting others to pay for them.

If they can't, it's absurd for people to bleat on about only getting £345 per week in benefits or whatever, and moaning that they actually have to pay something towards the rent.

Generally though, those people people with children will have higher housing costs and living costs because they have a family to keep and will need a larger house than someone who lives on their own with no kids.

A one bedroom flat for your single working person, depending on where they live might set them back for example £500 per month, whereas a 3 bedroom house could be somewhere in the region of £800.  

This would mean your single person having about £600 per month left to pay whatever else they need to pay and only have themselves to keep whereas your single mother with kids on £345 per week would have £580 but she has kids to keep too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Generally though, those people people with children will have higher housing costs and living costs because they have a family to keep and will need a larger house than someone who lives on their own with no kids.

A one bedroom flat for your single working person, depending on where they live might set them back for example £500 per month, whereas a 3 bedroom house could be somewhere in the region of £800.  

This would mean your single person having about £600 per month left to pay whatever else they need to pay and only have themselves to keep whereas your single mother with kids on £345 per week would have £580 but she has kids to keep too.

I would say the flat would cost more than that, and why should they have to live in a flat anyway? Also, they have to pay council tax and travel costs.  

The point is that they earned the money by working, so they should have more disposable income, but it's not much more is it?

A person under 25 would earn even less than that.

Tommy Monk wrote:A one bed flat near me is around £900-1000 a month to rent...

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say the flat would cost more than that, and why should they have to live in a flat anyway? Also, they have to pay council tax and travel costs.  

The point is that they earned the money by working, so they should have more disposable income, but it's not much more is it?

A person under 25 would earn even less than that.

Like I said, it depends on where they live.  A flat in London will be way more than that, in other parts of the country flats can be easily found much closer to that, some even below £400 per month in the north of the country.

They do have more disposable income, they only have themself to keep which means any money they earn after paying the usual is theirs.  

Spindleshanks wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:A one bed flat near me is around £900-1000 a month to rent...

Which is why i said it depends where a person lives.

Not everyone lives in or near London or bigger cities where housing is invariably more expensive.

Ziz wrote:Caring for a family is not sod all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:Caring for a family is not sod all.

It's a lifestyle choice. Most people have to have a job otherwise they can't live.

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a lifestyle choice. Most people have to have a job otherwise they can't live.

Raising children benefits society - we need young people to support the old - saves importing immigrants too.

And caring for a family is not doing sod all.

Syl wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Raising children benefits society - we need young people to support the old - saves importing immigrants too.

And caring for a family is not doing sod all.

Caring for a family is certainly a worthwhile 'job'.
The old fashioned way was that women had babies and brought them up and men worked to provide.
Times changed and both parents worked and hired child minders.
Now some people expect the state (ie you and me) to raise their children....something went wrong somewhere.