8 2 mins 8 yrs

The shrieks of protest from those elements of social parasitism are great today. Why? Well….

A government-imposed cap on many benefit payments nationwide is beginning in four London boroughs. Couples and lone parents in Haringey, Enfield, Croydon and Bromley will not receive more than £500 a week while a £350 limit applies to single people. The cap is set to be imposed across England, Scotland and Wales between July and September. Jobseeker’s allowance, income support, child and housing benefit count towards it, but not disability benefits. The move is part of efforts to cut spending; the amount is said to reflect the average working household income.

It seems that those MOST affected will be those with larger families. Good. Why? Well, the average UK family is less than 2, so we are not a Nation of large families. However the average family size of those who come here from the third world is around 5.  And they love to come to London to guzzle our soft Welfare benefits. This is a SMALL step towards saying to these people you can have as many kids as you want, just make sure YOU fund them. Do not expect the taxpayer to fork out to sustain your fecundity.

However I do have a problem with the cap. It is set WAY too high. Why should those who don’t work expect to receive the same income average as those who do? That is wrong. It needs cut back MUCH more so that we send the simply message that work pays and sloth doesn’t.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “CAPPING PARASITISM

  1. It’s also a message to the Philpotts of this world.

    The benefits cap is this governments best policy imho.

  2. “The benefits cap is this governments best policy imho.”

    Presumably you think the rest are really awful? It’s mean and spiteful to cap people’s benefits to an arbitrary statistic that has absolutely nothing to do with their circumstances.

    If people think benefits are too high then fine – but they should be reformed properly, and cut slowly, not this. They should bear some passing resemblance to what people actually need, and not the pretence that people in non average circumstances in non average parts of the country are average.

    The amounts saved will make not a jot of difference to you or your taxes but will put a large number of blameless households through sudden and pointless upheaval.

    One of the households mentioned in the linked story will lose £90 a week, which is the same order of magnitude on an annual basis as the £3,750 travel expenses an MP recently received to attend a single day in parliament – no capping of this to the daily travel bill of the average family. The average family probably doesn’t spend that much at Christmas or on their holiday. The annual savings are £110m, which is on the order of the cost of the ceremonial funeral for Thatcher – no capping of this to the funeral bill of the average family.

    The country has spent more than twice as much bombing Libya and spends about 100 times as much on foreign aid.

    “It’s also a message to the Philpotts of this world.”

    There’s only one and he’s in prison.

    If he weren’t then the message would be carry on:

    You won’t be affected by the benefit cap if anyone in your household qualifies for Working Tax Credit

    https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap

  3. It’s mean and spiteful to cap people’s benefits to an arbitrary statistic that has absolutely nothing to do with their circumstances.

    It’s not mean to refuse to give working age people more money for not working than most people get for working.

    Given that disability benefits aren’t included in the cap it isn’t going to affect people who can’t work.

    One of the households mentioned in the linked story will lose £90 a week

    Yes, 90& of the £500 a week they currently get for doing nothing.

    What’s more it is a signal- it tells people that they aren’t going to be working hard in order to subsidise people who have behaved extremely irresponsibly.

    They should bear some passing resemblance to what people actually need

  4. Pressed submit too early:

    They should bear some passing resemblance to what people actually need

    No one needs a house in an expensive part of London and certainly no one needs to have 5 kids without the slightest ability to support them.

  5. Ross,

    “It’s not mean to refuse to give working age people more money for not working than most people get for working.”

    The two statistics have nothing to do with each other because the families affected aren’t average families. You might as well cap the benefits to some multiple of the urban mpg of a toyota corolla, or just roll dice.

    If it is really true that benefits are sometimes/often/always being handed out way in excess of what people need then the rules should be reformed so that doesn’t happen. Not bluntly capping it to some irrelevant stat because they can’t be arsed to figure out why their own rules get the wrong answer.

    “Yes, 90& of the £500 a week they currently get for doing nothing.”

    The children are doing nothing? The lazy bastards. Clearly they should be up chimneys or sent into the bowels of some machinery to fix it.

    Just as they are in the average family.

  6. because the families affected aren’t average families

    No they nearly all families who have had a very large number of children and expect responsible families who put off having kids until they could afford them, to pick up the tab.

    It is all very well talking about what people need, but their need is determined by their choice to behave in a particular way. If benefits are capped fewer people will make a choice like that in future.

  7. David uses the language of those who wish to project their own qualities onto their targets.

    A willing and useful tool of the real parasites of this world.

  8. I think the benefits program deserves tighter restrictions and caps. It certainly is not helpful to society to create a cycle of poverty by what can only be described as a rather lax benefit program in the UK whose eligibility requirements seem to be overbroad.

Comments are closed.