Benefits cap ruling today

[gomgeg]

Or perhaps as clearly the claimants were both single MOTHERS that the pathetic excuses for men that banged them up and then walked away leaving a child with no support or income is the actual problem here. Maybe if more men actually took a bit more responsibility when it comes to their offspring we'd have considerably less single mothers out there who are unable to work as childcare would cost more than they'd be able to get in wages. Because it's perfectly possible that these woman had good jobs before their child's dad walked out leaving them as the sole carer of their kid...and with childcare costs in London being an average of £70 per day, that's more than minimum wage, therefore the mothers can't actually afford to pay for that childcare so are forced to quit their jobs. Funny how you seem to think that the childcare is 'her' problem and not 'his'. Sums you up really.

That sums you up as well, where did I mention childcare. As a matter of fact yes the father should be paying for the kids. It's called personal responsibility, but I suppose you've never heard of that. Sums you up really.

[Cyclone]

Oh I understand that, but is there any evidence to the contrary.

You've made the assertion, you prove it happens.

 

If I were a betting man, I would say its a safe bet that some do.

 

Do you think that no benefits recipients ever spend any of their money in gambling establishments?

I already painted a scenario where it's entirely reasonable for them to do so, having saved deliberately for it.

Perhaps you think that poor people should be miserable all the time, you seem to subscribe to the undeserving poor mindset.

 

Yes but this case has wide reaching effects. The Judge did not say "in this case" the cap was harmful. He merely stated the cap was harmful. Its the £25,000 a year cap I cant understand as it's so close to the national average salary.

 

If the cap harms someone, then the cap is harmful. It doesn't need qualifying.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:03 ----------

 

It's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than somebody working forty hours a week on minimum wage. what about trying something different and don't have kids until you can afford them.

The other week on radio they were discussing the manifestos and the Tory proposal to stop free school meals. A woman from Sheffield rang up and bleated on about how she would suffer financially, well why not think about that before having them, anyway what's child credit and other children's benefits for?

I expect she also wants someone to go round and wipe her backside for her.

 

Because everyone who is on benefits with kids got that way without a job or a plan.

Nobody ever loses their job, or their partner, or gets pregnant without planning it.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:04 ----------

 

Sums you up really.

 

Sums a lot of people who are making the argument about the undeserving poor tbh.

[sgtkate]

That sums you up as well, where did I mention childcare. As a matter of fact yes the father should be paying for the kids. It's called personal responsibility, but I suppose you've never heard of that. Sums you up really.

 

So if the fathers are paying maintenance then that is taken off their benefits, so still doesn't really change anything the single mother who is still stuck not being able to work because childcare costs more than she could earn.

 

How can childcare not be relevant here? What do you think happens to a child when it's parent(s) go to work? A magic fairy pops up and looks after it all day with no costs? So to go to work you have to have some form of childcare. Lots of people don't live near family or have family that can help so you have to pay nursery fees which in some places can cost more than you'd earn on minimum wage per day, so going to work would actually cost you money. Do you understand this? Whereas clearly if one of the parents hadn't left then there would either be 2 incomes so they could afford childcare if they wanted to continue a career or one of them could stay at home. The fact that they are single parents (of either gender, I was wrong to target men solely, mothers walk out too leaving fathers in the same crap place) IS the problem as it reduces your choices down to null.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:11 ----------

 

You've made the assertion, you prove it happens.

I already painted a scenario where it's entirely reasonable for them to do so, having saved deliberately for it.

Perhaps you think that poor people should be miserable all the time, you seem to subscribe to the undeserving poor mindset.

 

If the cap harms someone, then the cap is harmful. It doesn't need qualifying.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:03 ----------

 

 

Because everyone who is on benefits with kids got that way without a job or a plan.

Nobody ever loses their job, or their partner, or gets pregnant without planning it.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:04 ----------

 

 

Sums a lot of people who are making the argument about the undeserving poor tbh.

 

They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get a job that costs them more in childcare than they earn so they all starve to death. It's their fault after all.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Hello? Is this the Daily Mail forum? I've come here for a good old moan about something I don't know anything about but feel really really angry about because I read something telling me to be really really angry about it.

[gomgeg]

So if the fathers are paying maintenance then that is taken off their benefits, so still doesn't really change anything the single mother who is still stuck not being able to work because childcare costs more than she could earn.

 

How can childcare not be relevant here? What do you think happens to a child when it's parent(s) go to work? A magic fairy pops up and looks after it all day with no costs? So to go to work you have to have some form of childcare. Lots of people don't live near family or have family that can help so you have to pay nursery fees which in some places can cost more than you'd earn on minimum wage per day, so going to work would actually cost you money. Do you understand this? Whereas clearly if one of the parents hadn't left then there would either be 2 incomes so they could afford childcare if they wanted to continue a career or one of them could stay at home. The fact that they are single parents (of either gender, I was wrong to target men solely, mothers walk out too leaving fathers in the same crap place) IS the problem as it reduces your choices down to null.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 17:11 ----------

 

 

They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get a job that costs them more in childcare than they earn so they all starve to death. It's their fault after all.

As usual you've managed to turn my post round to something else.

I originally said it's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than someone working forty hours a week on minimum wage, and I stand by that.

We know a single person working in a care home doing that who doesn't get housing benefit, free prescriptions or any of the other things people on benefits get. That's why even allowing for the disaster that was Theresa May more people voted Tory than Labour at the recent election because of Labours policies of throwing money at the feckless and benefit breeders.

You, like all the left wingers start quoting the ones who've fallen on hard times conveniently forgetting the ones who are having kids to avoid having to work.

It's a generational thing, the ones who aren't capable of supporting their family are likely to have kids who are just the same, but the left wing answer as always is to impose more tax on others to pay for it.

[Cyclone]

As usual you've managed to turn my post round to something else.

I originally said it's a disgrace that anyone on benefits should be getting more than someone working forty hours a week on minimum wage, and I stand by that.

We know a single person working in a care home doing that who doesn't get housing benefit, free prescriptions or any of the other things people on benefits get. That's why even allowing for the disaster that was Theresa May more people voted Tory than Labour at the recent election because of Labours policies of throwing money at the feckless and benefit breeders.

You, like all the left wingers start quoting the ones who've fallen on hard times conveniently forgetting the ones who are having kids to avoid having to work.

It's a generational thing, the ones who aren't capable of supporting their family are likely to have kids who are just the same, but the left wing answer as always is to impose more tax on others to pay for it.

 

Someone working blah blah, gets in work benefits. (Dependant on circumstances of course).

[gomgeg]

Someone working blah blah, gets in work benefits. (Dependant on circumstances of course).

Well this one doesn't, applied for and refused, blah blah, but then again she's a responsible person so the left aren't bothered about people like her.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Here's the Law Report, just published: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/1446.html&query=(%22DHP%22)

[Cyclone]

Well this one doesn't, applied for and refused, blah blah, but then again she's a responsible person so the left aren't bothered about people like her.

 

I'm pretty sure that responsibility isn't measured as part of a benefits application. It's much more objective than that.

[El Cid]

Lawyers for the four families said they had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds they are single parents and therefore unable to work as many hours as other people.

 

 

Thats rather daft, don't they get positive discrimination on other things?