Bishop has got it wrong over capping benefits
The majority of mainstream society will find it very difficult to ever accept the logic used by the Bishop of Leicester to justify his decision to vote against the government's proposed £26,000 benefits cap (First Person, January 28).
He and a number of other Bishops tell us they are speaking on behalf of the countries' poorest by voting to "top up" the proposed £26,000 limit with varying amounts of child benefits depending on the number of children a family has.
Earning £26,000 tax free is not poor. It is the equivalent to the average national wage!
The benefits system was introduced as a safety net to help prevent homelessness and poverty, not to allow non-working individuals to "Lord it up" living in areas that most full-time workers could never afford.
If the Bishop and his cronies were truly supporting the poorest in society they would be better off joining the real world and attempting to help the many families earning much less than the proposed cap and whose taxes contribute to the benefits of those who choose to sit at home in relative luxury having numerous children because frankly they are better off by doing this than finding a job.
The Bishops also state that "in London some rents are £400 per week so very little will be left from the miserly £26,000 worth of benefits once the rent has been paid". Many areas in London have rents lower than £400 per week and I would suggest that any long-term benefit claimers move to a cheaper area or indeed out of the capital if they are to continue to receive taxpayer handouts.
I fully accept that many claimers at the bottom end of the benefits ladder do not choose to be there and as such quite rightly need state support as a helping hand until they get back on to their feet.
The steady reduction however of benefits for those trapped at the top end of the scale will help encourage these people back in to work and will make life better for all of us.
Remember, Bishop – "the Devil makes work for idle hands".
Paul Evans, South Wigston.
23 Comments
View all
by City_C10
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 6:14PM
“Quote:
"Earning £26,000 tax free is not poor. It is the equivalent to the average national wage!"
I can certainly say that in Leicester the average wage/salary is nowhere near this mark, where do they get their facts form, the Leicester Mercury? Earning that in a city like Leicester would put you in the 'high earners' category.
Quote:
"The benefits system was introduced as a safety net to help prevent homelessness and poverty, not to allow non-working individuals to "Lord it up" living in areas that most full-time workers could never afford."
Apart from the 'Lord it up' I agree 100%, the benefit system was a 'stop gap' for people if they lost their job for a 'short-time' not a career option as it is today.
Overall what scares me is that this is a 'cap' what where these people making before the 'cap' was made? It does not pay people to work in this country and until it does we will never go forward.”
by MacMonkey74
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 5:07PM
“If Sorengadfly has to produce evidence to support his assertions then why doesn't Paul Evans and all other folk on here quick to applaud him do the same.
He has his prejudices against landlords and those with wealth and you have your prejudices against those on benefits and those who have next to nothing possibly never having had even a fighting chance in life. Neither side can claim to be right on this one.
Of course there are those that take more than they need at both ends, while there are many that don't. I accept that we need to reform the benefits system but I am not going to join the masses in accepting every single government policy as being the ''right thing to do" simply because it is regarding cuts.
Until politics ceases to be polarised in this country we will swing from left to right, never achieving anything.”
by depreg
Monday, February 13 2012, 6:46PM
“What is even worse is that SG has, word for word, repeated the totally unfounded allegations against landlords on another thread. I did observe that he could retain some credibilty if he withdrew the allegations. Not only does he fail to do that, he waffles on about Google. Clearly if he had the evidence, he would produce it. I wonder what R C Sproul would make of this duplicity? I know precisely what I think!”
by AllstarLEI
Monday, February 13 2012, 6:23PM
“@Sorengadfly: Please remember EXACTLY what you have just said because in the future you will call someone out for the claims they make and I know with certainty you would reject that sort of answer.”
by Sorengadfly
Monday, February 13 2012, 6:06PM
“Information is at the end of your mouse - if you cannot be bothered then it reveals you were not genuinely interested in the first place. I will enable, I will seek to encourage but I will not do the work for you. If I did, what have you achieved?”
by AllstarLEI
Monday, February 13 2012, 5:24PM
“@ Sorengadfly: As has already been stated, the onus is not on us to look up your comments to verify there is truth behind them. That falls on you.”
by Sorengadfly
Monday, February 13 2012, 9:01AM
“It appears that some post have been withdrawn - for I cannot find the post where I dealt with this matter... However, I do believe that a simple use of google would identify a fair cross sections of London Landlords... and then simply follow the money...”
by depreg
Sunday, February 12 2012, 10:26PM
“This one is easy to settle, unlike the existence or otherwise of any sort of god.
Sorengadfly said that lanlords probably had overseas tax havens and were most likely contributors to the Tory party.
I, quite reasonably I think, asked him to provide the evidence for this statement, which I believe is absolute nonsense.
His only aswer as far as I can see was to ask me to do my own research on the matter.
So Sorengadfly, show us where you've given a satisfactory answer to this point. Surely that's not difficult? Surely it's not beyond you?”
by AllstarLEI
Sunday, February 12 2012, 5:01PM
“Sorengadfly said: "The thing is Allstar I believe I have already done so in subsequent posts, whilst others have failed to respond to the questions I have raised - I am NOT on trial here."
I have not seen any posts from you that address the points you made since your initial one. In other discussions you have made similar demands to back-up comments which are full of allegations, similar to the type you have made. You are not on trial, but I do believe you hold others to a standard you are now resenting us holding you to.
Go back and look at your post from Friday, February 10 2012, 9:21AM. The whole second paragraph is full of allegations which I do not see you addressing or discussing in any of your subsequent posts on this topic.”
by Sorengadfly
Sunday, February 12 2012, 4:50PM
“"@ Allstar: Although you may not have liked depreg's manner in the way he responded to your comments, I do think the onus is on you to back up the statements you made in your post on 10 Feb at 9:12am."
The thing is Allstar I believe I have already done so in subsequent posts, whilst others have failed to respond to the questions I have raised - I am NOT on trial here...I am simply seeking to engage in debate, not meaningless point-scoring or abusive assertions. Please read through the posts and if You believe I have not endeavoured to unfold the argument then please develop a concise interpretation of the questions you believe I have not "backed-up" in my humble endeavour to offer, my apologetic....”