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

[Ms Macbeth]

Whilst there is case for trying to make people take responsibility for their own situation, and for making work more attractive than benefits, we must remember that genuinely sick and disabled people are also being targeted.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people

 

The rhetoric about scroungers is hurting the most vulnerable, many of whom have to try and cope alone on already limited incomes. There isn't much help for people with 'hidden' disabilities, these include some serious mental health conditions as well as some chronic illnesses.

 

Neither I, nor any of my family receive disability related benefits, so I have no personal axe to grind. I just retain a wee bit of empathy, and I'd like to think IDS won't forget those people either.

[kidley]

Another informative post Rupert Baehr (289) Thank You, if i have read and understood this correctly it says that it doesn't matter how much money a person gets statistics will be the same?

[chem1st]

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.

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

There is not.

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

 

You don't understand what land monopoly is.

 

You'd argue a small cat wasn't 'light' in comparison to a one tonne car, because you have a 60W 'light' in your room.

[chem1st]

 

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.

 

The reason people don't have incentive to work is that they might earn £1, and then lose up to £1.17 in benefits. That's before they have spent money travelling to work in the first place.

 

EMTR's are what needs to be cut.

[Cyclone]

You don't understand what land monopoly is.

 

 

On the contrary

 

mo·nop·o·ly/məˈnäpəlē/

 

Noun:

• The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
  
• The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".
  

 

You don't understand what this word means.

 

Exclusive means to a single person or organisation.

 

There is no monopoly on land, it is owned by millions of different individuals, organisations and governments.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Another informative post Rupert Baehr (289) Thank You, if i have read and understood this correctly it says that it doesn't matter how much money a person gets statistics will be the same?

 

When I started looking, I was trying to get an idea how benefits (or the lack of them) affected people. I chose 3 countries. The US (low benefits) Germany (Higher benefits, some of which are reduced after 6 months) and the UK (comparatively generous benefits.)

 

I wasn't too surprised to see that nobody starved to death in any of those countries. - They are, after all, developed counties (Though plenty of people do starve each year in certain other countries.

 

Then I raised the barrier to the National Poverty line - and I found that notwithstanding the variations in levels of benefits, the percentage living at or below the national poverty line was broadly the same.

 

There were a few figures which I had expected. - In Switzerland, 7% live below the poverty line, in Swaziland, it's nearly 70%

 

But in Thailand (what are benefits like there?) the figure was 10%. (Most of the data I got were about 5 or 6 years old.)

 

It does seem that benefits have a lesser impact on poverty than do other factors. But what are those other factors?

[retrogo]

On the contrary

 

 

 

You don't understand what this word means.

 

Exclusive means to a single person or organisation.

 

There is no monopoly on land, it is owned by millions of different individuals, organisations and governments.

 

When it comes to ownership of land the only true owner of land is the crown who in title own the whole UK.

 

When an exchange of land happens your are purchasing an interest in the land, hence the authorities still have a say in how that land is used because the crown still has title.

[jxxxxm]

the DSS now do frown upon claiments using their passports more then 4 weeks of the year l have been told. And with the age of the microchip l hope there is someone somewhere keeping a check. Skeggy looking good again.

[anywebsite]

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.

 

It's 'being looked at' for many years now. A negative income tax wont be implemented because of the drastic cuts in administration costs. It'd mean the minister in charge of the DWP would have to give up a lot of his budget/power.

[anywebsite]

On the contrary

 

 

 

You don't understand what this word means.

 

Exclusive means to a single person or organisation.

 

There is no monopoly on land, it is owned by millions of different individuals, organisations and governments.

 

A particular piece of land can only be owned by one person or organisation.

 

Land monopoly has a more specific definition though ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_monopoly It occurs when a particular class of people or an entity corners the whole market on land, like they have done in the UK for centuries.