Reader views (62)

 Add your view

terry, i've decided that after such a compelling arguement you've convinced me i'm wrong and you are right. i take it all back. how could i possibly come back at such a strong arguement like "you're living on another planet"?

- rock-on, london, 25/01/2012 09:21
Report abuse

Prophet of doom - here here!! I agree. And rock on you're living on another planet! Jog on more like!

- terry, london, 25/01/2012 03:51
Report abuse

People should have an non child allowance for not being such a burden on the state.

- The prophet of doom, UK Dustbin of Europe, 24/01/2012 19:27
Report abuse

I think the benefits cap should be lower in London, after all "were-all-in-it-together" arn't we.

- stuart, chesterfield,derbyshire, 24/01/2012 18:58
Report abuse

i've read quite a few comments on here now from people eager to see people kicked out onto the street when unemployed. but not a single one has offered these people an alternative to their situation. it's very easy to say just get a job and support yourself, but in many cases your advise may as well be "just win the lottery". you must understand that everyones personality and therefore abilities are very different. lots of people don't have what it takes to be office dwellers in the same way that many of you don't have what it takes to be coal miners, or dockers. how would a lot of you feel if all office jobs were closed down and the only industries left were coal mining, dock work, or other industries that involve hard physical graft? most of you on here would be just left on the dole, unable to compete. well that's what has happened to millions of british people that was good at their jobs. someone TOOK their place in society away and replaced it with a dole queue. want to blame somebody, blame the people that took their jobs away, not the victims that have been left on the heep and forgotten about!!! just think yourself lucky you posses the required skills to get on in thatchers britain, because it could just as easily have gone the other way and left many of you on the scrap heep. most of you produce nothing, you have made up jobs that do nothing but support a system that also produces nothing!!!

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 18:53
Report abuse

"Nearly 7,000 families who will be affected by the benefits limit have six children or more."

If you don't want to live like maggots don't breed like maggots

- Steve, Brentford, 24/01/2012 16:44
Report abuse

"Nearly 7,000 families who will be affected by the benefits limit have six children or more."

And herein lies one of the problems.

If you can't afford to look after multiple kids, then keep your legs closed or keep it in your pants.

More than 6 children and you can't even afford to feed, clothe and home them without the state doing so for you?

What sort of ignorant fool just keeps on having more when they can't even afford the ones they've got?

Or are they just totally selfish and greedy.

They're so unprincipled that they're prepared to put further and further strain on public finances all for their own gratification.

Having more kids than you can afford is tantamount to child abuse.

Not only because you will not be able to afford to feed and clothe them (without endless charity from the state), but also because as such wanton breeding drives the population ever higher those kids will find it ever harder to get a good education, decent healthcare or find a job in future.

Such selfish, short-sighted, ignorant people are one of the banes of our society.

- Michael, London, 24/01/2012 16:30
Report abuse

Reduce it outside of London then... the same argument must follow, I mean how much do you need in blackpool ?

- Fulhamite, Fulham, 24/01/2012 16:22
Report abuse

WHY?
Do those poor so and so's who WORK for minimum wage in London get a bit extra? NO they DO NOT so WHY exactly should those who do not work?

- Dave Smith, East London, 24/01/2012 16:13
Report abuse

@Lone wolf, Right behind you., 24/01/2012 09:35


I know exactly how you feel. I am single, have worked since I was 15 and never married or had kids. I have never claimed any benefits, not entitled to any child benefit, didnt have maternity leave,not entitled to any tax breaks. So unlike many other people, I have pretty much worked more hours than most people and had no monetary reward for it. Imagine how I feel daily when I drag myself out of bed at 5.00 a.m and return home at 8.00 p.m only to see my lazy, overweight beneift scrounging neighbour lying on her sofa. I too could weep every day when I think why I put myself through so much pressure when I could have her life.

- outraged, London, 24/01/2012 16:03
Report abuse

I agree with London Weighting - for workers not for those on benefit.

- Terry, Hennebont France, 24/01/2012 15:47
Report abuse

London would be best served by moving the long term, won't work unemployed out and moving workers in.

- Vince London, West London, 24/01/2012 15:29
Report abuse

Oi you lot!! I no understand any of this! I have been out of work for a couple of years now. I claimed benefits to start with but they ran out after so many weeks. The DWP wont give me anything now, not even help with my prescription bills. I suppose i'm too old now to count at 51 but i did work right from leaving school and paid fortunes in taxes. Can i have £26,000 please?

- Percival Iolanthe Longprong, El Dorado, 24/01/2012 15:22
Report abuse

Bob Crowed,I was one of those sacked print workers, after working twenty years in the printing industry I walked away with nothing but the pension I had paid in which amounted to £2,500 which you could then claim back
As for printers earning fortunes for doing little work thats all cobblers I worked four nights on the Times and a Saturday night on the News of the World,it was dirty noisy and hard work unless you were lucky enough to get an easy night.By the way Murdoch was earning a fortune from those titles then,god only knows how much he earned when he got rid of so much labour putting them on the dole for tax payers to keep.

- Honest John, London, 24/01/2012 14:22
Report abuse

Just because the cap is set at £26,000 does not mean that this money is being paid to everyone claiming benefits!! I am now one of these so called leaches a number of people are referring to on here. I have worked all my life and paid into the tax system all my life. Mr Cameron's cuts have now put me out of work, the actual saving to the government from my £15,000 per annum wage is just £5,500 which is the difference between what I was paid and what I now receive in benefits?? If I was living in a more expensive property this would be a lot higher because greedy landlords can charge extortionate rents. This should be looked into by this government, they should increase the taxes paid by these greedy people who over charge on rents for dumps that no MP would live in!!! The government want to look at their own expenses and make some cuts, MPs can claim rent of £17,500 per annum for properties in London on top of all the other claims they make, where's the justice in that?? And why are you tax paying people not complaining about those leeches??
I am now one of thousands who are no longer spending to boost the economy and aid the recovery. For what? a saving of £5,500 How can this country recover when people are not spending or paying taxes??

- Jill,, SALFORD, UK, 24/01/2012 14:19
Report abuse

Good idea - why should families that lose their jobs in London be required to move when they don't everywhere else. Londoners contribute far more in tax than other people in the country - some of that should be used to better support poor people in our city.

- Richard, Hoxton, 24/01/2012 14:17
Report abuse

National Debt hits ONE TRILLION, and some stupid Peer wants to give more money to the work-shy, says it all really!!

- Angela, Kent, UK, 24/01/2012 14:13
Report abuse

Move the immigrants, asylum seekers and benefits scroungers out of London to more affordable housing elsewhere. Why should I have to work to pay for immigrants to live in mansions in central London?

- R.F.Yorke, ants, 24/01/2012 14:04
Report abuse

ok bob crowed, lets say for arguements sake it WAS costing millions to keep those industries open. are you saying that economically we as a nation are better off supporting those millions that lost their jobs with benefits? now, instead of them earning a wage, paying their taxes, rent/mortgage, they're paying nothing. instead WE pay to keep them on the dole. how is that good economics? it's no good moaning about them being on the dole when there's no jobs about for them to do, mainly because we've lost millions of them when they shut down our industries. not to mension as i stated earlier on. this didn't just leed to us keeping those laid off on the dole, it actually transformed our culture. kids instead of seeing dad get up and go to work, saw dad pop down the job centre every couple of weeks to sign on. so as i said before, to sort out the problem you need to understand where and why it started. and it started with millions of jobs being lost in the 80's. so what's the answer? well, we need to reverse the closure of our industries. even if they don't produce national wealth, at least they produce jobs and therefor wages and in turn taxes being paid. it's no good keep bashing the victims of these policies, you need to bash those that inforced those policies! if you give them the option of working for a livable wage or stay on the dole, most will take the job. if you offer them the dole or no job, where's the option?

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 13:55
Report abuse

How can I get £ 26,000.00 in benefits ? I work and do not earn that sort of money and after paying highest public transport fares in the world & bills and working long hours my neighbour who is unemployed goes fishing in the knowledge that the cheque will keep coming !!

- Grim Reaper, Hell, 24/01/2012 13:44
Report abuse

"back in the 80's we shut down industries that cost the country jobs that totaled millions" - rock-on, london

Yes, it's called basic economics, if the industry is costing millions a year to run then it's economically unviable and should close. As for Wapping, did you ever know anyone who worked on the presses? I knew someone who worked for News International at the time, he used to be contracted to work 5 days a week, he actually worked 2, everyone would clock each other on even though they weren't at work, the unions held a stranglehold over the print industry, which is why they moved to Wapping to get the unions out. Incidentally, the guy in question hasn't worked a day since, he walked away with a huge redundancy package and claimed dole and housing up until his retirement some 15 years later.

- Blob Crowed, London, 24/01/2012 13:30
Report abuse

If they raise the threshold in London we'll have every sponger of breeding age desperate to get here to drop a sprog and leach off the rest of us.

- collyp, London, 24/01/2012 13:15
Report abuse

Forgot to add . in my day child benefit was 7/6 pence a week, ( 37p today ), paid to the first child only. That was under a Labour government. Why is it today we demand more, more, more.
Aye, yes lad, in my day we never had chicken. Mind you we could add up ,unlike today.

- Alan ., England. Fed up with ALL politicians, 24/01/2012 13:13
Report abuse

MIKE IS RIGHT. No one seems to understand the world is running out of resources. Wars will be fought over water and millions are already starving. The population of Britain is expected to be 70 billion soon. No one should have more than two children. Ideally if you have more you should actually pay higher rate of tax because you are destroying the world.

It is reported today our debt has reached one trillion casued by wars,, mainly over oil, which is running out. Of course we get all the usual excuses, weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, but it was about resources. So get the message One Trillion in Debt, soon we will not be able to afford importing food, lets alone benefits. . Grim is it not.

- Alan ., England Fed up with all our politicians, 24/01/2012 13:07
Report abuse

No we are broke dont these do gooders get it ! 26k is to much, stop all benafits after the third child, why should tax payers pay. If you can afford it have as many as you like !

- SIMMO228, Bedford, 24/01/2012 13:00
Report abuse

Is this some kind of a joke? If it is I'm not laughing.

We have a 2 bed flat in a private block over the road from a block full of council tennants.

The council block car park is full of expensive German cars, ours is not.
We had to sell our 12 year old fiat punto a couple of years back because the police arrested a drug dealer in the block opposite and as the dealers mates thought it had something to do with this block all of our cars were vandalised. We couldn't afford the repairs or the hike in insurance and had to sell our car for £300.
As our car was loaded onto a truck the feral rats over the road started laughing at us and my wife started to cry as this was the last bit of freedom we had. This made them laugh even more.

My wife used to love taking the kids to their Nanny and Grandad in Essex as this would be the only time they could play out in the fresh air away from the dog mess and drug debris that litters the green area outside our block, courtessy of our neighbours over the road.

My wife informs me that the flats over the road all have satellite TV on big screens and one has a bar in the living room. None of them seem to get up before noon.

I now have to pay another £100 a month in tax as a penalty for all my hard work last year in trying to provide a good life for my family so that the council funded rats can carry on living it up at my expense.

Again, why am I bothering to go to work?

- Lone wolf, Right behind you., 24/01/2012 12:54
Report abuse

Well said John Twickenham. If there was no housing shortage, then these landlords who hire out houses at a grand a week, to foreign incomers, would have to rent them to those who could aford them.

There is not one gov't, of any political leaning, that really wants everyone housed, neither I suspect, the majority of home owners...........why? because with everyone housed, the value of home will drop to the true worth of the property, not the artificial price it is now because of the shortage.

John is right. building 3 million homes would also create the workneeded in all areas of the country and boost the economy..........unless of course, the builders only employed cheap Ploish labour as has been reported in these pages in the past.

- Ivan Denisovich, Gulag UK, 24/01/2012 12:47
Report abuse

Cut the child benefit altogether, and poor people will stop having babies. This will end child poverty. There, problem solved.

The UK, has a very high birth rate for a reason, the highest in Europe I think. Also, London has the highest birth rate in the UK, and the rates are the highest in the poorest parts of London. Is this a coincidence?

IDS said it right, when he said people were having babies just for the free housing.

- Mike, London, 24/01/2012 12:43
Report abuse

The best way to cut the benefits bill is to build 3 million new homes.

This would dramatically reduce the housing benefit bill, reduce the cost of living for millions and make work pay.

- Jon, Twickenham, 24/01/2012 12:37
Report abuse

What I see by the comments, is a perfect outcome of a sustained media (certain newspapers) and conservative campaign. Even before they were elected, the Tories aided by certain newspapers that need no identification,started a campagin of vilification against those on benefits.
What they succeded in doing, is what we have seen over the years, turning the ordinary man in the street against each other and thus deflecting blame from where it actually lies.
3 people have hit the nail squarely on the head. Bazza Rockon and Isobel. fI as a gov't, you create a system, where there are no jobs, you can hardly complain when those in society who are less than average, simply lie about idle and breeding. The Tories created the situation way back in the 70's. Nu Labour did sweet FA to correct it and we have the situation we have. When benefits are decided, they are decided on how much, by law, each person needs, or so the letters from the DWP say. So, if a person working does not get as much, then it is the wages that are too low.
Lets not forget though, that there are very few people not on benefits. Low wage earners can claim tax credits, rent and council tax benefits. they can even fill in HC1 forms to get free prescritions etc. AND, lets not forget child benefit either. All these things are benefits paid for by taxes. I totally agree, that you should be paid more for working, but aim up over, not down over. you won't get more by taking of those on benefits, only more crime probably.

- Ivan Denisovich, Gulag UK, 24/01/2012 12:20
Report abuse

This is all beside the point, which is, while there are strong regional differences in employment opportunities and the cost of living, we continue to operate national pay rates. This does not make economic sense.

- John, Milton Keynes, 24/01/2012 12:12
Report abuse

"Raise benefits cap in London for higher living costs, says peer"

Since London has higher living costs, can we also reduce taxes to Londoners?

Only to be fair, off course.

- John Smith, London, EUSSR, 24/01/2012 12:05
Report abuse

re new headline

Clueless . Pack off long term never worked/can work to say Hull where plenty of cheap housing and reduce handouts out of London .

- liberals out, london, 24/01/2012 11:52
Report abuse

I see nothing wrong in saying to people or families "look whilst you are struggling at present things may improve in the future,in the meantime tax payer's will pay your rent,BUT,you will be require to reside in the parts of the UK where rents are cheaper,living in central London and expecting a £1,000 + a week from other's is NOT an option.

- Tony, Leeds, 24/01/2012 11:48
Report abuse

Don Milton Keynes.I remember the seventies and it was ticking along nicely,we didn't have bankers earning a fortune or a lack of affordable housing,my wages were enough to keep a family and pay the rent and on top of that I could afford to go down the pub for a pint.The winter of discontent,so much is made of that but people forget we didn't have mass unemployment.The docks closed because of containerisation,car plants closed because they built crappy cars, not may I add designed by the workers and the miners were an opposition to Thatcher who decided to get rid of them Putting 250,000 men on the dole destroying whole communities. So the seventies is all a matter of perception,whether it was good for you or not and as an ordinary working man it really was a turning point for the working class when any organisation they had to fight bad government was taken away

- Bazza, London, 24/01/2012 11:30
Report abuse

hansel, like you i'm not unemployed. like you i'm lucky enough to have a job. so what do you suggest the answer is then? there's a shortfall of jobs that totals millions. back in the 80's we shut down industries that cost the country jobs that totaled millions. wouldn't this suggest that the blame lays with the government that lost us those jobs? so what now? what do YOU suggest we do with those not fortunate enough to get one of the few jobs that come up? should we just let them and their famillies starve? that'll teach them for not taking a job that doesn't exist won't it!! i know, lets just bring back work houses. we could seperate the famillies and make them slogg away for a bowl of gruel. how's that grab ya? would that help your situation in any way?

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 11:27
Report abuse

Firstly, I think the government would have been wise to allow local London councils to top up housing benefit by a realistic amount to allow people to stay in their homes and it needs a £100 a week more for central london I totally agree that there has been abuse of the system but it is mostly the fault of government who allowed super wealthy enclaves to push rents and property values into the stratosphere.Councils will have to find housing for these families and this will cost even more This is just the nasty party appealing to the base instincts of people and its actually having a crack at migrants in an underhand and despicable way families do NOT receive money direct it goes to greedy landlords and this needs sorting out, landlords should be very highly taxed in the same way as Cable wants a mansion tax. The game would then be up and rents would become realistic. Maybe we might then get back to basics, ie affordable housing to rent for everyone

- Sheila, London uk, 24/01/2012 11:22
Report abuse

don, so are things better the way they are now then are they? maybe you're one of the lucky few doing well, but most people on here are complianing they can't afford to live. at least up untill the 80's a man could go to work and earn enough to support his familly without needing tax payer hand outs to top up his terrible wages. at least back then you could leave school and get a job. at least back then there was affordable housing. so we had strikes. i'd rather a workforce that keeps wages in line with the cost of living than greedy employers doing and paying as they please. we've swapped organised workers for mass unemployment. we've swapped a populaion that pay for themselves for a population that we need to suport. is that REALLY better?

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 11:17
Report abuse

Benefits should NOT be linked to the number of children someone has. I think it's horrendously immorale to turn children into money-making devices the way our benefits system does. It encourages people to have children (the ONLY WAY to get council housing these days) and traps people on benefits, unable to work because they have so many to children to care for.

- John, London, 24/01/2012 11:16
Report abuse

The number of millionaires living in Britain has risen by 17 per cent over the last two years as the wealthy start to recover from the 2008 credit crisis, a survey revealed today
Barclays Wealth said there were 619,000 millionaires - currently living in the UK at the end of 2010, up from 528,000 in 2008.

Perhaps these folk could pay a little more?

- Raymond Smithson, London, 24/01/2012 11:13
Report abuse

If you take into account tax avoidance by huge corporations, the money saved here (in the hundreds of millions) is a drop in the ocean. I really can understand people complaining that we are hitting the poor rather looking at the hugely rich. But it still doesn’t change the fact that the system is unfair and the government should go further.

At the moment people with a fleet of houses get the tax payer to pay their mortgages through inflated rents to the unemployed; all because we ran out of houses and flats. This situation only arose because the government let people live in council houses for life and even buy them. Even Bob Crow has one - on his huge salary!

We need to build more council houses and only allow people to have them on a temporary basis. The law changed to remove people’s fixed tenancy agreements. We need to look after the venerable in society and the system we have simply allows our resources to be abused by the lazy, idle and greedy.

- Paul B, London, 24/01/2012 11:09
Report abuse

Harriot Hydewhite speaks for many of us who, since WWII, long suffered difficulty in obtaining suitable below stairs staff.

One of the blessings of Labour government was the possibility of getting migrants to fill roles such as nanny, cook and footman at cheap rates. It looks as though the Tories are now trying to make it more expensive to staff one's establishment in a satisfactory manner.

Decent families are going to suffer dreadfully from these reforms.

- Mike Newland, London, England, 24/01/2012 10:53
Report abuse

@Rock-on: if you think Britain was "ticking along nicely" in the 70's, you were either not here, or you've got a short memory. I remember wave after wave of strikes; remember the 3 day week and repeated power cuts due to the demands of the miners and the power workers ? The 'winter of discontent' ? The docks closed because the dockers refused to accept new working practices, the mines closed because miners demanded ever-increasing wages, car production was decimated for the same reason. The jobs will only return when the workforce becomes more efficient and works smarter.

- Don, Milton keynes, 24/01/2012 10:51
Report abuse

continued:-
so now not only are there not enough jobs to go round, there isn't enough housing either. so now tax payers like us are not only paying to support the ever increasing numbers that are unemployed, we're also paying wealthy landlords extortionate amounts of money, and this in most cases is where the sum of £26,000 is coming from. so the only way to put the country right is to revearse the policies that caused this situation in the first place. stop importing everything. reopen the industries they shut down. create the jobs they took away. give people a job that pays a livable wage and you'll sort this mess out. don't get me wrong, there will always be people that will abuse the system, from both ends of the scale. so if you say to someone "here's a job that pays enough to keep your familly" and they turn it down, then we'd be within our rights to take their benefits. but to say to someone "go and find a job that doesn't exist or we're going to send you into poverty" just isn't going to get to the root of the problem and will in no way help your situation!!

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 10:43
Report abuse

@rock-on - It's always 'They' or 'Them' isn't it.

You have a choice in life, get up, get on and make something of yourself.

Or, sit down and moan with you hand out and blame someone else for your predicament.

Everyone has that choice, regardless of background.

- Hansel, London, 24/01/2012 10:27
Report abuse

another view, i aint that well paid, i take home £1800 per month and probably wont get a pension as i'll be forced to pull out when it goes up this year. i don't have an extra £90 per month. i'm also a tax payer. but the difference is, i'm looking at the wider picture. to cure this problem you need to look at the causes of it. what happened that created this coulture in the first place. well lets look at that shall we. we were ticking along nicely in britain right up till the eighties when things changed. what changed? well, the docks shut down, the mines shut down, the steel industry shut down. in london alone 5500 of rupert murdocks printers were sacked in one hit with the backing of thatcher. she even brought in the anti trade union laws that are still in place today in order to help murdoch achieve this. everything was privatised and millions of jobs were lost. jobs that WOULD have been available to the unemployed today. jobs that payd a livable wage. those millions that lost their jobs found themselves in a situation where in many parts of the country, there were no other jobs to replace the ones they lost. they spent a long time on the dole, their kids got used to seeing dad at home and a brand new coulture was born. one modeled on thatchers vission for britain. then she set about selling off the council housing, and today none truely exist. so now we pay for people to live in private rent places costing us a fortune. but that's ok, because they're wealthy landlords.

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 10:26
Report abuse

This vote demonstrates four things. Firstly the House of Lords needs reforming.
Now totally unelected with the Church given a large representation. Why? We should be a secular country, like France, with the church having no place in Government or come to that education.

Why should we tax some poor devil earning £1000 a year, or a pensioners state pension, but pay vast tax free benefits to others.

No one seems to get the stark fact that the world is teetering on the edge of being over populated. In a few years we will be fighting wars over water and thousands will be starving. The population of Britain will be 70 billion plus. No one should have more than two children to do otherwise is selfish and unsustainable. We simply will be unable to feed them.

Fourthly we need far more affordable housing and council housing. So to promote a housing boom we need to cut stamp duty, increased by the Labour government. People want affordable homes. Builders want to build them, the young want work. Providing homes worth a million by paying housing benefit will solve nothing.

- Alan ., England ., 24/01/2012 10:24
Report abuse

As one living in Brompton Mews Chelsea,I employ on a part time basis a cook,and cleaner,I also have a winow cleaner call once a week,when all these kind of people are forced to move out of London are we to be expected to bus them in,if so what is this to cost us?

- Harriot Morkinthen Hydewhite, London, 24/01/2012 10:24
Report abuse

lone wolf, the situation you find yourself in isn't the fault of those on the dole. it's the fault of the people that shut down our industries costing the country millions of jobs putting millions on the dole. it's the fault of the people that sold off council housing and now spend a fortune paying for them to live in private rented places that they themselves deregulated. it's the fault of the very people that many of you on here are looking at to punnish the unemployed. it's THEIR fault we're in this situaton. and the reason you can barely afford to get by is because this mob along with new labour made sure there were less jobs than there were workers. when people are competing for work it makes them far less organised and so wages can be forced down, which is what's happened. do you think sending thousands of famillies to poverty will in any way help your situation? of course not. the only thing that will do that is to get rid of this mob (and by that i mean all 3 main parties) organise yourselves and start demanding better treatment. instead of looking to punish those that have already been hit. offer them a job that pays enough to support a familly on and you'll sort this out. you won't though because this mob have made sure there isn't any jobs that offer that. so why are so many of you convinced they're the ones to sort this out? THEY CAUSED THIS SITUATION!!!

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 10:07
Report abuse

Whilst I agree the whole benefit system needs overhauling, some of the comments here and elsewhere suggest that wages are far too low, and rents are far too high,the government might also set their targets at those evading tax, and why do they always pick on the same class of people?

- Isobel Maud Carter, London, 24/01/2012 10:04
Report abuse

I totally agree with the capping. Why should the leeches be allowed to become fat on the backs of those who work so very hard? To those who say the leeches are hard done by...let me inform them, who EXACTLY are the ones who are paying the leeches? The ones who WORK and pay TAX. I worked all my life and retired in 2008. Guess what? I am STILL paying TAX on my pensions. HELLOOOO???? Please dont tell me about those poor hard done bys. I was once told by someone i knew(note past tense)"why should i work when i get more money by staying home and having babies. I am no fool" I was gob-smacked. I was a nurse and i never ever had that amount for my annual wages.

- wysiwyg, northants, 24/01/2012 09:59
Report abuse

Lone Wolf

You speak for a lot of people who never saw their kids grow up and know what 5 am looks like .

What is shocking is that last nights poll showed there are still 55% out there who would vote Lib Dem / Labour . I guess that is the % in the public sector plus the free loaders .

- liberals out, london, 24/01/2012 09:55
Report abuse

rock on

You still do not get it .You have a secure well paid firemans job with a great pension to look forward to .

A lot of people here do several jobs and no pension and they see women have child after child with different fathers and expect the tax payer to pick up the bill for them to live in a £2000 per month house .

GET REAL .You cannot hide behind the little children arguement as the problem will never be solved . The message is it is the mother who is the cause of this problem . We have no problem in helping single mothers as a result of unexpected divorce/death but those that have never worked and expect their dole money as of right we do .

So we need a culture in the UK if you want children get a job and your own joint home first . If it goes wrong after that then sure the tax payer will help you get back on your feet again .

- another view, london, 24/01/2012 09:46
Report abuse

I take home less than £26KPA and have a wife and two kids to support.

I get up at 5am every day and return at around 8pm, by this time the kids are in bed and the only time I really get to spend with them is at the weekend, assuming of course that I am not working as I have been for the last year or so in order to keep our home and ensure that there is food on the table every day.

I missed my kids first words as I was working, I missed my kids first steps as I was working, I missed them learning to ride a bicycle because I was working.

Last year we had our first family holiday in 3 years, something that I worked all the overtime possible to afford. This year we bought our first flat screen TV (a 32" no name brand) that we had to scrimp and save to buy with our secret squirrel account - our penny jar.

I have just been handed a tax demand for all of the overtime that I did to the tune of £1200. This is more than the TV and holiday cost combined.

It saddens me to learn that I could take the kids to school, sit on my backside all day watching Jeremy Kyle, Rastamouse and tellytubbies, pick the kids up from school, play a father's role in their lives and have no financial worries by simply not bothering to work.

Can somebody please explain to me why I am bothering, as every time I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel I get smacked down again so that lazy, feckless people can live in luxury?

I'm almost in tears as I type this.

- Lone wolf, Right behind you., 24/01/2012 09:35
Report abuse

libdems really need to take a good hard look at what they are allowing the torries to do to this country. it's what the torries ALWAYS do, whatever the economic climate. lay people off and then punish them for being unemployed. disgusting party with dispicable, inhumane voters. you know who you are supporting this mob and you should be ashamed. maybe you should take a walk round where these people that have such a wonderful life are forced to live. you're typical 21st century british. greedy, selfish, short sited, easily led, inhumane pigs. just remember, the torries won't just stop at the poorest members of society. unless you lot are extremely wealthy etonites, they'll do you up the trousers eventually too. good job too, you deserve it, wishing poverty on famillies with kids. what's the matter with you people????

- rock-on, london, 24/01/2012 09:32
Report abuse

If the Tories hadn't sold all the council homes at a knock down price these people wouldn't need to be given such large amounts of benefits to pay such extortionate rents to greedy private landlords who now own and rent out many ex council homes and its these greedy selfish people who are being rewarded with tax payers hard earned cash.

- Bazza, London, 24/01/2012 09:29
Report abuse

Thats not fare, how am I suppased to live on dat den? I got 14 kids all from diffrent dads none of em werk and I aint got time to get a job. And Id miss jermy kile. Dis is outraegious, I cant live on that munney, how am I gonna pay for me fags an booze?

- Sharon, Dagenem, 24/01/2012 09:19
Report abuse

If you factor in

Free prescriptions , free school meals , free tuition fees ,free expensed Audi if claim DLA , etc this is worth

£50,000 pa

The problem is listening to these neo liberals on the News last night they are so out of touch they think this is just a safety net for those who loose their job as it should be .Sadly for many who saved and worked all their life all they get is £50 per week for 6 months .

They do not get it that for many it is a choice and they have no problem in having more and more children when on benefits as they know these jokers will keep the cash coming in .

- liberals out, london, 24/01/2012 09:18
Report abuse

They say its equivalent to earning £35k a year.

But if I want to earn that it will cost me a lot of money to travel to work, buy work clothes etc etc.

Labour keep trotting out the line that it will make people homeless - it wont. People will have to move, but they wont be homeless.

Housing benefit is still being paid at more than £1600 a month. Thats way more than I can afford on my mortgage.

- Andyr, St Ives, 24/01/2012 09:04
Report abuse

Good to see benifits will be capped but its a pitty these MPs dont have the same approach to their banking buddies.Around 100 million is paid in bonuses to executives of banks every year.This could generate thousands of jobs in this sector if this money went into employing people instead of into the back pockets of the already wealthy.Benifits paid by goverment would also be reduced.But MPs will never get tough with their wealthy friends,just those that have lost their jobs due to bankers greed.

- dave, london, 24/01/2012 08:58
Report abuse

£26,000 is far too much - the cap should be much lower. If the bishops do not like it they can put their hands in their pockets and make up the difference. Some people on benefits in the UK enjoy a living standard denied to those who earn their keep on account of excessive taxation and this is utterly wrong.

- Ian, London - UK, 24/01/2012 08:47
Report abuse

"Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith wants out-of-work payments limited to £26,000 a year per household"

Still far too generous.

£26k a year is roughly 3x my wife's pension, after spending most of her life working as a nurse.

No wonder many people sit at home all day.

- John Smith, London, EUSSR, 24/01/2012 08:27
Report abuse

Add your comment