No sector of the government spends more of taxpayers money than the Department of Work and Pensions, and as the House of Lords debates the proposed changes to the Welfare Programme it’s important to make it clear that cuts are necessary and vital to not only our economy but to British Culture; benefits must become ‘a hand up, not a hand out’.
In terms of unemployment benefit the best proposal I’ve heard in a long time is the idea of an ‘allowance cap’ for families, so that total benefits would be limited to around £500 per week for families with children. It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.
There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!) Take the example of the Smiths (actual name, not a cover story), who earn around £95 grand a year for their 10 kids under 15 years old, live for free in a council house and even have their meals delivered to them. It’s a tough life when, as Mrs Smith put it ”we are so hard up that we can only afford one Nintendo Wii between all the kids”. The family receive benefits totaling £44,954 a year. They also have a £950-a-week bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home. This comes to £49,400, making a grand total of £94,354 a year. All in all around 190 families like this cost the taxpayer over £11 million a year!
People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill! Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means its not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep! Iain Duncan Smith’s cap proposal is spot on!
I completely agree with this article and I was very disappointed that the House of Lords opposed the plan. I have no doubt the bishops are acting out of a sincere sense of concern for the poorest in our society, particularly children, but I simply thing they’ve got it wrong.
As you say, the sheer scale of our public debt (now at £1 trillion) makes tackling our bloated Welfare State imperative. Unless we cut the deficit and get our finances under control then we’ll simply be saddling our children and grandchildren with this debt.
Moreover, it is simply wrong that those in the ‘squeezed-middle’ on average incomes, who are bearing the brunt of the cuts, including wage freezes, rising inflation and tax increases, should continue to pour funding into a welfare system that merely entrenches idleness and poverty.
Welfare has moved far beyond the insurance-based safety-net Lord Beveridge envisaged in 1942. It has become a monolithic guagmire, entrapping any unfortunate soul who wanders into it. It breeds dependency and rewards irresponsibility and it must be curtailed. We do the poorest and most vulnerable in our society no service by throwing benefits at them.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | January 25, 2012, 9:34 pmI am gutted that the Lords opposed it too, but I can still see it happening. I think popular opinion is behind the idea of a cap (and I’ve read in several different places that over 1 in 3 people would see it set at lower than the £26000 suggested), and the Lords obviously cannot block a popular bill. For me it is only a matter of time and I agree that whilst the Bishops may be acting out of kindness, throwing money at people doesn’t do them any favours!
Posted by Ben Bradley | January 26, 2012, 1:05 pmI should add that, while I was disappointed that their Lordships opposed the benefit cap, I completely supported their stance – led by former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whom I know to be a thoroughly decent and honourable man – on the Govt’s proposed changes to the CSA.
Trying to make single parents pay to use the Child Support Agency was clearly totally wrong. It’s worth noting that a number of Thatcherite grandees – including Lord Lawson of Blaby, Lord Howe of Aberavon and Lord Carrington – voted against the measure.
I hope that, when the Bill returns to the Commons, they will insist on the Child Benefit cap, as that is not only clearly right but has massive popular support. They should drop the CSA idea though, which is just obscene.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | January 26, 2012, 4:08 pm