My view is, if you had read and understood what was written in the last sentence of my previous post, you would not be stating the bleeding obvious, re DWP guidelines! And as I am not familiar with their pamphlets/guidelines etc, I was indeed gob smacked that you could receive 32k.

Would it not be a hell of a lot cheaper, if all Agencies simply handed out a Cosco card to those with a large state subsidised family, enabling them to bulk buy, and possibly leading to increased job vacancies created by this hitherto untapped market??

Bulk buying of garlic bread....it's the future!

That would a reasonable point, and I recall the "poverty trap" when I studied economics many moons ago, but the report states"

[i"She currently receives around £31,200 a year – £2,600 a month – through a combination of housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credits and income support."[/i

Given that if she was working she may well receive a similar amount (certainly the child benefit and possibly reduced amounts of housing benefit and child tax credits), then the motivation to work may be there as she could end up with more than the £32K.

Which previous post?

If you have a beef with the amounts available, take it up with your MP, and don't pick on the people who claim what they are permitted, under the law, to claim.

So that means we will always have around 2 million on benefits for the foreseeable future. I presume you are OK with these people receiving benefits while they look for work?



What would you suggest would motivate her to apply for these jobs? Simply reducing her benefit? The threat of prison maybe?

A job on minimum wage for 40 hours a week for 48 weeks a year gives you just over £12K a year outside London so if her benefits were cut to less than that so she was incentivised to look for work would that suit you?

The fact she then wouldn't have enough to pay the rent or live off would be by the by??? If not then you must be in favour of her wage being topped up to a level that would be adequate for that. In which case you are simply subsidising employers profits.

And of course we are assuming she could even get a job that was full time on minimum wage that wasn't casual or on a zero hours contract/temporary work.

There are alternatives to the austerity that even the IMF, that bastion of lefty thinking, thinks is holding back growth.



Yes. You keep repeating this one example. And you keep telling us all how dreadful it is – and demanding that we all go 'how dreadful!' too and throw up our little handies into the air.

Are you really so stupid that you 'think' that there is a mass number of situations exactly like this?

I don't think you are that stupid. In which case, you are clinging to this one example for precisely the same reasons as the rag that published it – as a way of attacking a far wider number of people, and without offering any sort of an actual response to the issue beyond that throwing of your mitts into the air in horror and demanding that everyone else do the same and, when they don't, effectively changing tack to attack them for not following your example.

Oh, behave yourself M. It is a matter of complete indifference to me personally, that a quango of bolshie Left wingers and a couple of the bewildered and lost souls you find posting on the Sin Bin, do not agree with me.

I was genuinely surprised that sort of money was available, and yes, the slant of the article, 20 years without a job etc did nothing to mitigate that feeling. I always smile though when people take the time to point out the obvious, ie, "this is an extreme example, blah blah....." and then post as an example a salary on minimum wage! So one dimensional don't you think? As is measuring your response, not to the contents of the article, but to the newspaper which published it.

There's nowt so queer as folk.

Poor little lambikins.

Thankfully you don't come into the "bewildered and lost souls you find posting on the Sin Bin", eh?





The [iMail[/i is a publication that sexualises underage girls, lies about goodness knows what else and perverts still other stories in order to provide the daily dose of 'shock and scandal' that Rothermere openly wanted as selling points. If you 'think' that such a rag is an acceptable source of pretty much anything, it reflects rather more on you than anyone who considers it a rag.

And of course, this is yet another way of illustrating that you can do a knee-jerky little reaction but have absolutely no suggestion beyond that. You cannot even offer up a suggestion of what you think should happen in such as case as this lone example you've found – and yopu have been specifically asked that question (not by me).

Mind, [iMail[/i readers are not renowned for their ability to think past the propaganda.

Well this is quite insightful as it points to ignorance on your part. Not of how much is available so much but what the costs are such as housing benefit. Unless she is in an area where the governments experiment of paying housing benefits direct to claimants is going on (and failing) she won't even see the housing benefit as it goes direct to the landlord. So she won't get £32K a year paid to her anyway and that will be a large part of that cost.

Your taxes line the landlords pockets, not hers.



That is ironic coming from you. You moan she isn't incentivised to work yet when the reality of what that would mean is pointed out to you all you can do is "smile" because clearly, you haven't got a clue.

Most people recognise that the system isn't working, and this is reflected by the fact the majority are in favour of welfare reform.

You got a link to back that up?

I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.

£8580 per annum paid direct to the landlord.

£4524 per annum paid as child benefit, a non means tested benefit that every parent in the country gets, even David Cameron.

£15024 per annum paid as child tax credit, a benefit which at that level is income based and not contributory, the actual figure dependant on the number of under 16s or under 18s in full time education living at the property in the parental care of the claimant, a figure that is carefully calculated according to stringent rules and not just handed out willy-nilly as anyone who has ever claimed it will confirm.

The Mail claim that she gets £303 a month in income support which cannot be correct as this is paid at a maximum of £56 per week, income support is for those exceptional circumstances when a person or family are literally living below the poverty line, you have to be working less than 16 hours per week (or not at all), pregnant or a carer or a single parent with a child under 5, and have no other source of earned income, it can be claimed by the homeless, you do not qualify if you are claiming job seekers allowance - in other words its for the destitute and those who cannot work through circumstances other than disability and its the claiming of income support that then entitles you to the full rate of income based child tax credits.


So she starts off with no income and no support from her estranged husband, the state pays for her rent after she is evicted from her own house and because with young children she is a priority for social housing, and then gives her £56 a week income support which then entitles her to the child tax credit, the child benefit is paid as a matter of course whether she was a millionaire or penniless.

She does herself no favours by claiming that she can't survive on less but even so I can see that it would be a challenge to raise seven children on £1900 a month, its do-able though.

The proposed cap of £26k will remove £5000 straight out of the household cash budget because I don't suppose for one minute that the landlord will agree to shoulder some of that reduction, so £1400 a month to raise seven children and pay all of the utility bills etc etc (bear in mind that the house will be occupied right through the day with a young child and will need heating in the winter), its probably pitched at a level that most would think reasonable but it will be tight.

I think he may mean the majority of right-wing nutjobs and those too thick to see behind the Wail and Sun's agendas

I'd additionally ask what someone means by "isn't working".

In what way? How would they change it? etc – not least when we have such high levels of unemployment and underemployment.

No, I mean ordinary right thinking members of society.

Quote ="Chris28"You got a link to back that up? I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.'" I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/

Quote ="Chris28"You got a link to back that up? I don't necessarily disagree, but you need to back up statements about what you claim the "majority" wnat.'" I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/

Oh FFS don't start with polls again.

Quote ="Ajw71"I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/'" As an aside, I went to see Derren Brown last week, and he quoted a historical figure (can't remember who) who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" "Multiple opinion polls out there" isn't that. The reason you had this discussion with Kosh is that you're making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up. He saw it, and plenty of others can see it.

Quote ="Ajw71"I have had this exact same discussion with Kosh a few weeks ago. There are multiple opinion polls out there suggesting general support for welfare reform. The few posters on this forum who oppose welfare reform do so mainly for two reasons 1. An inherent hatred of the Conservative party and all reforms they attempt or 2. They are ideologically opposed to any reform of the welfare state because they are socialist leaning. Some are both. This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/'" As an aside, I went to see Derren Brown last week, and he quoted a historical figure (can't remember who) who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" "Multiple opinion polls out there" isn't that. The reason you had this discussion with Kosh is that you're making outlandish claims with no evidence to back them up. He saw it, and plenty of others can see it.

What an earth are you on about? Have you read anything I have just posted?

He even said words to the effect of 'I haven't disputed it'. I'll find his exact quote if you like really insist I trawl through old posts.

Or 3. They hate to see a welfare system that is in its third generation of supporting the weakest, most disadvantaged, the disabled, the sick and those fallen on hard times, ruined and torn asunder by political dogma and without opposition, worse still being justified by highlighting the extremes of bad use of welfare in order to justify punishing the vast majority for having the audacity to ask for help, its the sign of a truly civilised country when assistance is available to all - social help does not automatically equate to socialism and its not something to be politically afraid of as if your party should not support it, cutting social assistance whilst at the same time making private company profits from the cutting is despicable, truly despicable.

I'm on about you posting stuff without any back up. Again. I read exactly what you posted too

In fact the vast majority if people don't agree with welfare reform in the way it is happening. There, I've done it too

Nothing is being 'torn asunder' so maybe you should calm it with the sensationalist propaganda that you so often accuse me of.

Once again your post seems to suggest that I and other are opposed to the welfare state period. "its the sign of a truly civilised country when assistance is available to all". Not the case.

Given that the "Benefit Cap" is now being rolled out to all local authorities with the much-touted figure of £26k in total per annum, how long will it be before a family on the maximum figure suffer a death in that family group and then realise that the Bereavement Allowance is also included in that maximum figure and you won't be granted it ?

As well as having eager hacks sharpening their pencils for the first housing evictions under the "bedroom tax" rules, they are going to be standing in line around mortuary doors soon waiting for the first unemployed single parent to not have the means to bury a child or parent.

I suppose its progress though...

You don't think that the rights of disabled people are being "torn asunder" ?

You don't think that housing benefit payment rules are being "torn asunder" with a completely out-of-the-blue never-even-hinted-at rule on the number of spare bedrooms and subsequent penalties for having one or for not following government guidance on which of your children should be sleeping in which room ?

You don't think that the long established rules on which benefits and how much you can claim are being "torn asunder" by a randomly placed Benefits Cap which effectively draws a red pen through years worth of benefits legislation saying "I know we carefully calculated this before but now we're just paying you this random figure instead".




Not the case ?

You don't think that a civilised country should help its disadvantaged ?

At all, or just a bit, or just enough so that they don't storm the suburbs or beg on the streets outside your office, or just die inconveniently in your way ?


What counts as a civilised country in your mind ?

Quote ="Ajw71" This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/'" No it doesn't. Fraser Nelson has never been nice, he's never had a humane thing to say about anyone who is less able or advantaged than himself. He is the archetypal 'right-wing nutjob' I referred to. As for my opinion on tories, look no further than my sig. I reckon when Kosh sees what you've written, you'll be in for a barrel-load

Quote ="Ajw71" This article puts it very nicely. blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-right/'" No it doesn't. Fraser Nelson has never been nice, he's never had a humane thing to say about anyone who is less able or advantaged than himself. He is the archetypal 'right-wing nutjob' I referred to. As for my opinion on tories, look no further than my sig. I reckon when Kosh sees what you've written, you'll be in for a barrel-load

Quote ="cod'ead"No it doesn't. Fraser Nelson has never been nice, he's never had a humane thing to say about anyone who is less able or advantaged than himself. He is the archetypal 'right-wing nutjob' I referred to. As for my opinion on tories, look no further than my sig. I reckon when Kosh sees what you've written, you'll be in for a barrel-load'" Not really. I haven't misquoted him. He said on Sat April 6th 2013 at 5.42 pm. "I didn't even contest the point about majority support - it's not exactly fresh information after all" viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547815&tsmp=1371073622&start=110 Exactly the opposite of what Chris was bleating on about.

Quote ="cod'ead"No it doesn't. Fraser Nelson has never been nice, he's never had a humane thing to say about anyone who is less able or advantaged than himself. He is the archetypal 'right-wing nutjob' I referred to. As for my opinion on tories, look no further than my sig. I reckon when Kosh sees what you've written, you'll be in for a barrel-load'" Not really. I haven't misquoted him. He said on Sat April 6th 2013 at 5.42 pm. "I didn't even contest the point about majority support - it's not exactly fresh information after all" viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547815&tsmp=1371073622&start=110 Exactly the opposite of what Chris was bleating on about.