chem1st Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 In 2 years the 5 children cap will be introduced. After the 5th child your benefit claim will be maxed out and capped. This affects practically everyone. The unemployed claim. Workers claim. Workers often claim more! (Some workers receive more in WTC than they do in dole; the in-work benefit payment exceeds the out of work benefit payment) The following link shows the changes in graphical format. http://blog.cix.co.uk/gmorgan/2012/02/02/the-real-comparisons-for-capping/ It is curious that the family on average earnings may easily receive more in benefits than in net earnings when that seems to have been the justification for capping those out of work. Not many earn enough to have enough earnings to not have to rely on benefits in the form of tax credits in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 In 2 years the 5 children cap will be introduced. After the 5th child your benefit claim will be maxed out and capped. This affects practically everyone. It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Shark Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 ...wibble... You are a total reactionary looney aren't you... ...note to self, ignore chem1st in future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone. Should be ended. You breed em' you feed em. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone. A reasonable idea, shame we're hell bent on doing the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 It would be more accurate to say that it affects practically no-one. The vast majority of families have less than six children. Maybe so. But there hasn't been a cap like this in the UK for a long time. Before the welfare state come about, people often had large families, and could afford to feed them on manual workers' wage (when they were far less productive!). The graphs in the article allude to the point which is often overlooked... It is curious that the family on average earnings may easily receive more in benefits than in net earnings when that seems to have been the justification for capping those out of work. Income is determined not by hard work, not by skill, it is by the state, depending upon family size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone. Why should the state determine income and breeding ability? Surely people should be free to have as many children as they wish? (And access to the land required to feed them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Good news IMO. I'd like to see it reduced much further, to two, and then to one. We need to reduce the population before resources are gone. I'd go further, for new claimants. If we had a universal benefit which declined for every child that you had beyond two, that might encourage people to have small families and help us to regain control of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Should be ended. You breed em' you feed em. Angel. How much of workforce is employed in agriculture? The amount that produce more than enough to feed us all? It is but a few per cent! Consider also that the workforce is also less than half the population! UK nearly 30 million workers, over 60 million people! Feeding people is easy, people can feed themselves if only they have access to the land they need to work to provide for themselves and produce wealth for wider society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.