Conrod Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Large benefits families should certainly be discouraged, however, it is not moral nor ethical t punish the children for their parents' feckless lives and irresponsibility. I would suggest that after 3 children, all existing child related and further benefit is payable only in food and children's clothing vouchers; multiple births should be exempt of course.Shouldn't that be the case for child benefits in the first place, to prevent them becoming 'fag & lager' benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Ultimatley it is a human right to have children, and I do fear that this kind of cap would create poverty and homelessness. It is currently being proposed that benefits be capped to the equivalent of 25k per annum (or 35k after tax). How can any family continue to live in areas such as knightbridge or kensington if they do not work? This is in effect a form of social cleansing, and I do fear that certain areas of our country will in effect be barred to people who are on benefits. Do we want as system where the poorest in our society cannot afford to live in certain areas? I do agree with a benefits cap, but perhaps make it more realistic, maybe cap the benefits someone can gain to 55k per annum? That way large familys are not punished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Ultimatley it is a human right to have children, and I do fear that this kind of cap would create poverty and homelessness. It is currently being proposed that benefits be capped to the equivalent of 25k per annum (or 35k after tax). How can any family continue to live in areas such as knightbridge or kensington if they do not work? This is in effect a form of social cleansing, and I do fear that certain areas of our country will in effect be barred to people who are on benefits. Do we want as system where the poorest in our society cannot afford to live in certain areas? I do agree with a benefits cap, but perhaps make it more realistic, maybe cap the benefits someone can gain to 55k per annum? That way large familys are not punished I have to live in a place that I can afford, there are many places I can’t afford to live that I wouldn't mind living in. Why should it be different for some on benefits, they should get a set amount probably less than the minimum wage and live somewhere that they can afford. Somewhere less desirable than the places employed people on the minimum wage can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Ultimatley it is a human right to have children, and I do fear that this kind of cap would create poverty and homelessness. It is currently being proposed that benefits be capped to the equivalent of 25k per annum (or 35k after tax). How can any family continue to live in areas such as knightbridge or kensington if they do not work? This is in effect a form of social cleansing, and I do fear that certain areas of our country will in effect be barred to people who are on benefits. Do we want as system where the poorest in our society cannot afford to live in certain areas? I do agree with a benefits cap, but perhaps make it more realistic, maybe cap the benefits someone can gain to 55k per annum? That way large familys are not punished Wouldn't this dissuade people on those benfits from ever getting off their backside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I have to live in a place that I can afford, there are many places I can’t afford to live that I wouldn't mind living in. Why should it be different for some on benefits, they should get a set amount probably less than the minimum wage and live somewhere that they can afford. Somewhere less desirable than the places employed people on the minimum wage can afford. But what I am saying is that should certain areas be excluded to people on benefits? What about (for example) if someone wanted to live near Sandygate in Sheffield? they may want to live in that area as the schools are very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 But what I am saying is that should certain areas be excluded to people on benefits? What about (for example) if someone wanted to live near Sandygate in Sheffield? they may want to live in that area as the schools are very good What about people on low wages...should they ask for these to be increased so they can live in Knightsbridge or Westminster..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 But what I am saying is that should certain areas be excluded to people on benefits? What about (for example) if someone wanted to live near Sandygate in Sheffield? they may want to live in that area as the schools are very good As Truman says, if working people have to limit their housing to what they can afford, why should benefit claimants have any say over where they can afford to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Ultimatley it is a human right to have children, . .. Is that a good thing? Should people have the 'right' to have kids, even if they have no intention of paying for their own families? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Ultimatley it is a human right to have children, Is it not also people's responsibilty to ensure that they can support any kids they do have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 But what I am saying is that should certain areas be excluded to people on benefits? What about (for example) if someone wanted to live near Sandygate in Sheffield? they may want to live in that area as the schools are very good Sorry, I am totally confused by your argument here. A lot of working families wouldn't be bale to afford to live in affluent areas where the good school catchment areas are as social housing tends not to be in these areas, it's mostly private residential owned properties. Are you saying that if a family residing in the area were to fall on hard times then they shouldn't be forced to relocate if they're on benefits or that families on benefits should somehow be allowed to live in this area and others similar? That the state should pick up the tab for families to move into these areas and pay their high rents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.