Thursday, 2 February 2012

Ends With Benefits?

The government is implementing a benefit cap of £26000 per household per year, the equivalent of an average worker earning £35000 before tax. It is possibly the most popular Tory policy ever, so much so that even those who oppose absolutely everything the Tories do are agreeing. Oh, apart from Labour, who are opposing for the sake of it again.

Labour had been keeping a slightly low profile on this issue but seem to be finding their voice a little more in recent days. They don’t want to be seen to be agreeing with the Tories but they know the country can't afford to subsidise the feckless any longer. Why is it taking a Tory policy to finally get some ideas out of Labour?

Rightly or wrongly, according to focus groups the stereotypical Labour voter is seen as a benefit scrounger loafing in front of daytime TV. This makes it difficult for Labour to be seen to be tough as they will alienate their core voters. They don’t like being seen as a party of cuts, just a party to spend, spend, spend and make everyone happy regardless of cost. They are like Monty Brewster in Brewster's Millions, although they have had to spend £1trillion with nothing to show for it rather than $30million. Once you've gone black, there's no coming back. Once you've voted red, the country is dead.

This generous allowance of £26000 is part of the austerity programme of spending cuts and tax increases promised by the Coalition at the end of 2010. This policy is as much about changing a morally bankrupt culture as changing a virtually bankrupt country. It is admirable that the Tories did not leave this change until the lead-up to the next general election as it is a sure-fire vote-winner (apart from with the underclass). That said, being beaten by Ed Miliband would be as embarrassing as being knocked out by a bitch-slap from the school spanner.

It makes no sense that a normal working family earning up to £35000 should end up with the same amount of money as a family who do nothing to earn their living. The majority of the 67000 affected by the cap are people who don't want to work as they are comfortable having their rent paid with some extra spending money on top. Pensioners are far more deserving. They have worked hard throughout their lives, contributed into the system and receive a pittance compared to some of the people who come here to settle down. The allowance should be significantly less than the take-home pay of the average worker who goes out and grafts. We have to give these claimants some incentive to work. Loss of Sky or fags should do it.

It will surprise many that Labour have always left the country in a worse state than they inherited. They have always left office with higher unemployment. Deficit and debt levels have also increased significantly through exorbitant expenditure. Most astonishing of all, they have somehow managed to double the net debt in just 6 years. To put things in perspective, the deficit was 6% of GDP in 1976 when the country went bust under the previous Labour government. This time around they managed 11%. Labour usually leave office at an opportune time, when difficult decisions need to be made and the grown-ups have to clear up their mess.

Liam Byrne, the ex-Treasury Secretary, who when leaving his post in 2010, left a gloating note for his successor saying “there's no money left”, has made a surprisingly sensible suggestion that the benefit cap should be regionalised. Although surely this would mean the cap being even lower in less affluent areas. It's not going to be a popular move for the party that claims to represent the poor in society. He got rather evasive when asked if the benefit cap could be higher than £26000 in some places. Dunce cap seems to fit him better.

The provision by bishops to exempt child benefits is missing the point that many young girls are having children with their 'friends with benefits' to reap the benefits. It's ironic that the bishops are making a plea for child welfare considering some of the stuff that happens to altar boys! No wonder the bishops have taken such a bashing this week.

Perhaps the bishops would not be so outspoken on child benefits if they allowed people free rein on contraception? Under Catholic teachings, for example, the permitted methods of contraception are: calendar method, sexual intercourse during 'safe' times (when the kids are out?) or the withdrawal method, an Episcopal endorsement for jizzing over your wife's whimwhams if ever there was one.

Hardworking taxpayers are enraged to see migrants, who have put nothing into the system, getting to live in multi-million plush pads in central London with their vast families. It surely is only a matter of time until we introduce a policy similar to Australia where migrants must sign a waiver preventing them claiming benefits for at least their first two years here. That would certainly slow the rate of immigration down. Similarly, it infuriates everyone seeing blinged-up benefit claimants with HD TVs, high end phones, satellite dishes and decent cars. Enraged Britons want the benefit cap to strip the sports cap scroungers of these luxuries.

It is hoped the benefit cap will save £1.2bn by the end of the first term of the Coalition. Sounds like a big saving, but it is only nine days interest payments caused by an irresponsible Scot's determination to finish England off. We now pay out more through the welfare system than we receive in taxes; so clearly some strict measures are long overdue. Why Labour never tackled this is beyond comprehension.

To illustrate how people began taking advantage of a weak government, incapacity for stress increased by nearly 1000% in the 13 years Labour were in charge. We spend £11.5bn annually on 2.6 million claiming disability allowance, more than the entire budget of the home office and nearly three times as much as similar countries. It will be 'hard work' to strip these spongers of their benefits as the loony left and Blair's Human Rights Act will scupper that, costing the country even more money. On the plus side though we have so many disableds, we are gonna be the daddies at the Paralympics this year.

Of course the most vulnerable people in our society must be protected. I would hate to see anyone genuinely in need suffering from these caps - they are worlds apart. I feel really sorry for the genuinely needy who get lumped in with the lazy spongers and the fraudulent fakers. Luckily families claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are exempt from the cap. Large families are those most likely to get caught in the cap and some might say that is the price you pay for over-breeding, however the government will be assisting these families by providing a transitional funding while they go cap in hand up north.

This is the biggest overhaul since the introduction of the welfare state in 1945 and part of a grander plan to save £18bn from the welfare bill by 2015. This makes up a large part of the £81bn austerity programme that was announced at the end of 2010. The benefits system was originally intended as a back-up for people who would temporarily struggle. It has now grown into a huge cash cow for the work-shy. In the modern world, depression and back pain and other ailments are like a platinum credit card. William Beveridge warned in 1945 against benefits becoming more than a safety net. Claimants who want the easy life now will be teetering on that tightrope.

In the last few years, there has been a huge surge in those who believe the world owes them a living. Working Tax Credits for example meant that it was against people's interests to work longer than 16 hours a week. This just further encouraged the dependency culture.

Work is not paying well currently due to pay freezes and the increased cost of living. Those who have not provisioned for rainy days are now suffering a financial drought. Far too many have been living beyond their means, mirroring the actions of our last government.

Many young women breed to avoid working, knowing that the state will provide for them. It is vital that people don’t come to depend on benefits forever. It is right that single mothers are subsidised for a short time but they should have to work for it beyond that. There are hundreds of strip clubs desperately in need of their services, who will go out of business if they do not return to work.

Two million children are growing up in workless households believing it is the norm. The next generation could easily slip into the freeloader lifestyle too in 15-20 years time (or 12 or 13 in the case of many of the council estate slags now). Many young mothers know how to milk the system, in fact they are gleefully guzzling away on governmental glands. A few sleepless nights, some stretch marks and lopsided lils are worth having to not work for a living - “The money might be shit but the hours are great”.

No one wants to see children raised in genuine poverty. It is not their fault that their parents cannot adequately provide for them. Potential parents need to think about whether they can afford to raise a child without any help. If the answer is no, then their hand should be used to sort themselves out - they should not take a handout!

I would like to see child benefit limited to just the first child. This country needs no further incentive to breed. We need policies to discourage further population growth because future generations will be paying for it (except the bludgers). Hopefully vouchers for children's clothes, food, travel etc. will imminently replace money. The government should minimise the money intended for the genuinely needy being spent by the wasters on Cigarettes and Alcohol. They gotta make it haaaaaaappen.

If you can't survive on £26k, move to a cheaper house or get a job. If you can't feed, don’t breed! If you can't afford to live in London, find a cheaper place. Many thousands of honest working folk have to commute into London every day as they cannot afford London prices. The likely implications of these plans are that many families will be forced to relocate. In the short term this plan may actually end up costing up to a third of the predicted savings as people are forced into temporary housing but in the long run it is a sensible policy. It will remove undesirables from respectable areas too.

The bill is being forced through using 'financial privilege' after some minor amendments, with a transitional fund to ease the affected families into more productive ways of life. It will be introduced by April 2013. We have until then to stop wasting money on luxuries and start living in the real world, for their benefit and that of the country.

No comments:

Post a Comment