Capping benefits to £26,000 a year - I think its wrong, do you?

[chem1st]

CAP - this applies to all farm land owners, it doesn't help support a monopoly of any kind (again I say that you don't know what monopoly means either, it doesn't mean something you're not part of).

Suppose he did, how is that a monopoly?

Suppose he could get a job working on that farmland, then save some money, buy some himself and benefit from selling his potatoes and from the CAP payments.

I wouldn't explain them as being

Because that's just your opinion and doesn't seem to be backed by any evidence.

Social mobility doesn't mean free entry into any market sector you can name.

How could MOS compete with the massive multinationals in the pharmaceutical industry or banking if he wanted to launch a bank or start developing drugs?

LOD could of course save some money (he'd have to do some work first), buy some land and then launch his potato business. The fact that he can buy land makes it pretty clear that there is no monopoly. If you want to see a monopoly (or nearly) try buying a diamond mine and see how far you get.

 

http://www.progress.org/banneker/chur.html

 

Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.

 

Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.

 

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position -- land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.

 

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.

 

Monopoly;

noun (plural monopolies)

1; the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service:

e.g. the state’s monopoly of radio and television broadcasting

 

2; a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service:

passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies

 

3; a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group:

electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies

 

4; the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something:

men don’t have a monopoly on unrequited love

 

Land is finite, there are landowners owners and landless peoples - ergo there is a monopoly upon land.

 

The monopoly need not be a monopoly of one man, it may be a group.

 

As it stands, there is a land monopoly.

 

Monopolists benefit from the implied value of said land, and direct subsidies such as cap payments.

 

Labour is taxed heavily, land is not.

 

A man can work and buy land, but this only allows him entrance to the monopoly, and he must pay a high price in the form of his labour.

 

The landowner takes from him his labour. The mere paper title to land allows the monopolist to extract the labour from another and this is a form of slavery.

 

For a more just society we need to tax land use, not labour.

[gemz2503]

Im ashamed to say it but my in-laws, they r claiming disability and the rest of it and as far as i can tell their not even disabled. I work 2 jobs and my partner works full time, and we technically pay their dole???? and by the end of each month were desperately struggling.

i dont think its fair when they do nothing but facebook and drink themselves to death. me and my partner pay the rent on the house at £90 each a month and his brother puts the same on gas and electric. his mother is suposed to buy food with hers and her partners disability and JSA but their is [removed] all in the house even on a good day coz he eats the food when everyones in bed and smokes weed like a chimney!

 

Its discusting how ppl can claim benefits when their not really ill, or just coz they cba to get off their backsides and get a job coz JSA pays better than a job. His mother also stole 26K out of my partners account without our knowledge and it ALL went on drugs for him and drink for them both. And she asks at least twice a week to borrow money!!! (NO MORE!!!)

 

I think this review of people claiming disability really needs to rear its head because so far i havent seen anything. I just feel as though i pay for their drugs/booze/fags etc, and i am getting to the point where im considering moving out and leaving my bf after 3 years because we cant afford our own place (not even council) because i'm having to pay their rent????

 

god it makes me sick, like ive said i have 2 jobs and we dont even make 26K a year with both our wages combined and he's fulltime.....

 

Rant over sorry

[pottedplant]

single parent on income support with 3 children (weekly rate):

 

personal allowance £ 65.00

dependant’s allowance (x3 kids) £ 57.00 x 3

family premium £ 22.00

total £ 258.00 per week

x 52 weeks £ 13,416.00 per year

 

plus:

council tax (paid by local authority) £ 800.00 (p.a)

rent (paid by local authority) £ 4,680.00 (p.a)

total net equivalent income: £ 18,896.00 per year

plus:

free dental/optical treatment & free prescriptions

 

So approx £24 000 gross (plus free school meals plus free school trips)

[FairDooz]

Its discusting how ppl can claim benefits when their not really ill, or just coz they cba to get off their backsides and get a job coz JSA pays better than a job.

 

This issue has touched a nerve with many people and the "cap" is proving very popular. It still does very little to address the issue above.

 

I could describe a similar situation as yourself. I know somebody quite close who cba to do anything other than live off others.

 

It is a huge problem though that, when you take up work, you become worse off.

 

It's just as much the system's fault as it is the benefit claimants.

 

Which government department, which party is even looking for an answer other than the very easy and popular cap?

[go4it]

 

It's just as much the system's fault as it is the benefit claimants.

 

 

The problem is with all the funny medical conditions, ADHD, various disorders etc - there are people paid to diagnose and give advice on them.

 

So we pay all this money for some fake disability, but at the same time someone is in a well paid job diagnosing the disability.

[Cyclone]

This issue has touched a nerve with many people and the "cap" is proving very popular. It still does very little to address the issue above.

 

I could describe a similar situation as yourself. I know somebody quite close who cba to do anything other than live off others.

 

It is a huge problem though that, when you take up work, you become worse off.

 

It's just as much the system's fault as it is the benefit claimants.

 

Which government department, which party is even looking for an answer other than the very easy and popular cap?

 

The unified benefits system, it's being looked at and has been for some time now. The idea being that benefits are combined for ease of administration, and when you work they are reduced in a staged way, so working always pays.

[Cyclone]

http://www.progress.org/banneker/chur.html

 

 

 

Monopoly;

 

Land is finite, there are landowners owners and landless peoples - ergo there is a monopoly upon land.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what monopoly means.

The definition is not something that is scarce, or something that Chem1st does not have.

 

The monopoly need not be a monopoly of one man, it may be a group.

That would be an oligopoly, but by definition it must be a small group.

 

As it stands, there is a land monopoly.

There is not.

 

Monopolists benefit from the implied value of said land, and direct subsidies such as cap payments.

 

Labour is taxed heavily, land is not.

 

A man can work and buy land, but this only allows him entrance to the monopoly, and he must pay a high price in the form of his labour.

 

The landowner takes from him his labour. The mere paper title to land allows the monopolist to extract the labour from another and this is a form of slavery.

 

For a more just society we need to tax land use, not labour.

We tax income, that includes the income from people you hire if owning land somehow allows you to do that.

[Tony]

The definition is not something that is scarce, or something that Chem1st does not have.

 

Land isn't even scarce.

[Rupert_Baehr]

At this time of year, I live in a country which is not renowned for its generous welfare benefits system.

 

During the warmer 6 months, I live in a country which has (IMO) an 'adequate' system. - A system which makes adequate provision, Nobody goes without food, shelter, adequate clothing or heat - but things like tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco are classed as 'luxuries - if you want those, go and earn the money to get them.

 

I thought I'd check whether more people starved in the country with low benefits than do in the country with more generous benefits.

 

Here are the results:

 

Q: How many people starve to death in America every year?

 

A: Through the inability to afford food, none found.

 

Through being a child being starved to death as punishment, none found.

 

Through an eating disorder in which one starves oneself to death, none found.

 

In the latter case, there have been a few, but no confirmed data are available. It is estimated that 1 to 3 percent of teen girls may suffer from Anorexia Nervosa and 1% of them may die sometime within 10 to 20 years after getting it.

 

(Obviously there are noted exceptions, Karen Carpenter, Brittany Murphy.)

 

And obviously some child somewhere was starved to death by abuse. And, in 300,000,000 plus people, surely someone somewhere has died for being unable to afford food - though actually, there would have had to be drug or mental illness problems for that, as there are food programs in every town.

 

Basically, starvation is so infrequent for any reason that it does not register statistically .

 

Q: How many people starve to death in Germany every year?

 

Couldn't find any data. Probably about 0.(With the exception of the statistically-insignificant and infrequent child abuse death.)

 

Q: How many people starve to death in the UK every year?

 

Couldn't find any data there either - Probably about 0. (With the exception of the statistically-insignificant and infrequent child abuse death.)

 

Why is it that countries with more generous welfare payments do not have a higher standard of living than those which are more generous?

 

In each of the three countries I mentioned, about 15% of the population live below the National Poverty line.

 

It seems that:

 

If you give people generous welfare payments, about 15% will be at or below the national poverty line. (UK)

 

If you give people strictly-controlled welfare payments (enough to live on, but few luxuries), about 15% will be at or below the national poverty line. (DE)

 

If you give people very little in the way of welfare benefits, about 15% will be at or below the national poverty line. (USA)

 

Benefit caps certainly affect those who are subjected to them and they may also affect the economy (if it's not cost-effective for people to work, many will not work) but they don't seem to have an effect either way on the number of people who are living in poverty.

 

Arguably, therefore, benefits should be capped to 'encourage' people to take work - even low-paid work. If benefit levels do not affect significantly the number of people living in poverty, reduce benefits.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Land isn't even scarce.

 

Depends which definition you use. Any resource which is finite is a scarce resource.

 

They're not making much land nowadays (blame that on Maggie, she stopped land making in the UK 25 years ago!)