“When the poor and vulnerable need charity, and the government says the state can no longer afford you, you have no choice but to rise up and seize back the means of production (Marxish).”

“when the poor and vunerable are getting more income from benefits than the average working taxpayer it is reasonable to expect the government to tweak the system a bit.”

“Of course lamail, particularly when tweaking the system involves forcing hard working families below the breadline and removes all means of independence from disabled people. As long as the stinking rich can avoid paying taxes comfortable in the knowledge that they donated to "Children in Need" that once in 1995.”

“Somewhere in the middle must be a sensible compromise. The old system of benefits and tax credits does create unfairness in that those with kids benefit at the expense of those without, and those who are not working have massive financial hurdles to overcome before working is beneficial. Its also ferociously difficult to understand so that people probably miss out.

I'd love to see someone devise a combined tax and benefits system which removed all the special payments etc and just gave each person a guaranteed income of say £18k-£20k, and then everything you earn is taxed at a higher rate say 40% (including abolishing national insurance as a seperate "tax" - currently basic rate tax and national insurance would equate to 31%). The two places you possibly need a slight tweak are for the disabled and the elderly where maybe a higher initial figure could be used. This then starts to remove all the incentives to strange behaviour - there is no benefit in having more kids, so you have the number of kids you enjoy, there is no benefit to couples living apart to avoid benefits being docked so you reunite families and clear housing, and the sick and disabled are able to do such work as they can to benefit themselves financially and mentally without worrying about arbitrary benefit issues. Whether you'd then need a higher rate again is open to question - there are some proponents of a flat rate system such that avoidance is reduced and because of that the rich pay less. Having a system which is common to everyone also to some extent removes the claimants versus taxpayers issue as we'd all be on the same system and all getting the initial income figure.

Anyway I'll never get anywhere near power, and the numbers probably don't work so feel free to ignore my fantasy ramblings!”

“Do you know Dave, you have just posted the ultimate in impossible. Why? Because it smacks of common sense and logic, and would never be acceptable to those bureaucrats who need a semblance of confusion to justify their positions.

Imagine the number of jobs lost in administering such a simple system, and also those lost in collecting. What if we abolished Vehicle tax discs and replaced with increased fuel tax. DVLA closed down, thousands of jobs lost.

Ah, well! Bet there a lot more instances.”

“Forgot!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY VV, HAPPY BIRTHDAY VV, HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR VV, HAPPY BIRTHDAY VV.”

“DaveWeston, your fantasy ramblings are worth a thousand soundbites.”

“18K! I'm on incapacity benefit and get about 4K a year.

People with kids get more because those kids need to be fed and clothed and the kids would suffer otherwise. In some countries people sell their children or beg others to take them as they can no longer afford to keep them - this is now happening in Greece because of the cuts there.

People here with mental and physical health problems are being made more ill by the changes to Housing Benefit that are forcing them to have to move to a cheaper home. Because we have two universities here the only cheap housing goes to students who share five or six to a house with no lounge. I am unable to move because I don't have the money to move and can get no financial guarantor, which is required by letting agencies these days if you aren't receiving a wage. They won't accept the local Council as guarantor. I'm terribly afraid of losing all my things and ending up on the street. When I was younger I ran a hostel for homeless people and a lot of the residents were quite dangerous - I couldn't live in a place like that now.”

“Check the figures, don't just take my word for it.....In the UK there are 170,000 YES one hundred and seventy thousand CHARITIES !!! Many of these charities are weirdly funded only by the Government, such as.... "Common Purpose" Common Purpose is a sinister "charity" that uses Neuro-Linguistic-Programming on it's unsuspecting "Course Attendees" They train "Modern Leaders" such as Fast tracked Police Officers,Council Officials etc. They are secretive and investigate anyone who dares question their charitable status. They have been found Guilty in court for persuading Police officers to give private information on enquirers. "Common Purpose" are totally funded by our Government and they plant their recruits in more and more positions of power daily !! This "Charity" functions like a "CULT" and should be investigated thoroughly like many more of our 170,000 "Charities" Corruption is rife and how can we have so many charities and such poverty and need ??? Where does all the money go ??”

“when the poor and vunerable are getting more income from benefits than the average working taxpayer it is reasonable to expect the government to tweak the system a bit."

Totally agree. Where is this place, though?

Meanwhile, in the real world you can work out how much benefit you could get here:

https://http://tinyurl.com/6ucne3s

Let's see how close you can get to the average working taxpayer's (whatever that is).”

“Using that calculator a couple with 2 kids, neither working, no disabilities would get a total package of benefits worth £20345.93 (including Child Tax Credit of £5662.02, JSA of £5539.67, council tax benefit of £999, and housing benefit (based on the HLA for a 2 bed house in Bath) of £8144). That excludes Child Benefit as a working tax payer would get that as well. If you earned £26,400 gross you would take home £20,345.93. I suspect that £26,400 is more than many get paid - albeit that at that level you still get some parts of CTC's and maybe other benefits as well which to some degree demonstrates the level of organisation being employed to hand out benefits to people. Someone on £26,400 has paid around £6000 in tax, but could get nearly all of that back in benefits like CTC and maybe Housing benefit if they rent rather than own - isn't that circulating money for the sake of it?”

“You're all too clever by far! Dave makes some interesting suggestions and I thank Mr L for the birthday wishes for my (25th) Birthday.... Ahem! ;)

Tigster is not alone in becoming a casualty of a draconian package of cuts that unfairly discriminate against the vulnerable or low paid. I have yet to come across a person who chooses to receive £60 Jobseekers Allowance per week as some sort of "lifestyle choice". Or a family for whom tax credits are not vital in topping up a pitiful income to somewhere near a living wage. Or a tenant that benefits personally from Housing Benefits apart from vital shelter, never once a disabled person that isn't!...It's a myth, and the number of proven frauds is miniscule and grossly exaggerated. An effective yet spitefilled campaign of propoganda that sets ordinary people against their neighbours and invites paranoia, suspicion and distrust.

Most would rather work and be paid a fair and reflective wage. Wages need to rise in line with the cost of renting and living, not benefits slashed when unemployment rockets. Instead, food parcels are doled out to ensure families can eat a square meal, They'll ensure you're kept alive and receive the barest of sustenance... Afterall, it would be immoral to let folk go hungry in one of the richest nations in the world wouldn't it?

In the mean time, charity masks the true sickness of our nation, the fact that many aren't paid anywhere near a living wage. It may appease the conscience of the well meaning but patronising charity givers, but It removes all dignity from those forced to beg for help. It also perpetuates the undermining of what should once again be a progressive and fair welfare system.

Those who pay their taxes to help their fellow man when his chips are down should do so unflinchingly in the knowledge they are part of a decent and caring society. Those who do not and hoard our countries money (£25billion) on foreign shores, stand idly by and gloat while the poor, vulnerable and weak are picked off one by one. The tax avoiders are the parasites who deserve our contempt. They should return the money that rightfully belongs to all of us and benefit no more from our labour or pockets. Ultimately they should be prosecuted like the common thieves they truly are.”

“If you earned £26,400 gross you would take home £20,345.93. I suspect that £26,400 is more than many get paid"

Some way below the average household income, I believe. Certainly I know one person earning £30,000 pa gross, married with three children, who receives WTC (as well as, of course, child benefit).”

“I'm sorry guys and gals but I just cannot get my head around these figures you're all throwing around like confetti.

My youngest daughter, 38ish, never been out of work in her life, just jumped up and down with glee at securing a really good job as an office manager in a top company in Bristol at £23K before stoppages. I've just employed a manager from a queue grateful to get what I could genuinely afford, and not even close to £20K.

Strangely enough, and believe me or not cos I don't really give a toss, but as the owner and big bad boss man I would dearly love to get that sort of salary. And that's not Bulls**t!

This thread is really convincing me our society is in desperate need of a downward reality check, or we're all heading for the same fate as that big holed whale off the Italian coast.”

“Don't forget the figure Dave provided included child tax credit of £5,600, Housing Benefit of £8,144 for a two-bed flat and Council Tax benefit of £999 - all benefits that someone in work might be eligible for, if only in part. The actual unemployment benefit part was just £5539.67 pa.”

“It's not a question of forgetting the figures rogerh3 it's just that I find it so difficult getting my head around their complexities.I just despair at how public sector activities have to be made to appear so incomprehensible. I'm finding exactly the same in Local Government. Rationality seems to be purposely avoided, and that's sad when I find all officers I've dealt with are first class.
But the systems they have to work to and justify are a hindrance to maximise efficiency. Just my opinion.

I do feel though that we as a society are heading downward for a rude awakening. The balance betwixt affordability and a safe,warm and healthy existence is quickly widening especially in the critical areas of housing and human satisfaction.”

“I too am perplexed by this. I agree that £26k seems a reasonable amount to live on, and more possibly than the majority earn by working full time, but then I think it depends on circumstance. For a single person in their first job, it's a lot. For a family who have only just managed to grab the bottom rung of the housing ladder, where both parents work all hours to pay the mortgage - done everything 'right' - and where one of them loses their job ... it must be soul destroying seeing everything you've worked for taken away, to have to sell up and move somewhere cheaper, further away from family who could contribute to childcare, further away from transport links and possibly further away from alternative jobs, but cannot afford to run a car without a job...

Someone in that situation becomes seriously disadvantaged. If they can't afford the mortgage, they have to rent; they have to pay someone else's mortgage plus profits. Someone who is desperate for a job will be treated as such by prospective employers - they have a weaker negotiating position. If they can't afford to replace their fridge or TV at the drop of a hat they'll be coerced into paying for expensive breakdown cover. They will pay higher rates for loans etc. Perversely, the system acts to increase the cost to those with no money, and for many of those costs the state will become liable.

It's a downward spiral that costs everyone more, that few will recover from, and that doesn't do anyone any good. Personally, if my employers were to hit trouble and I lost my job (through no fault of my own) and I had to sell up, move somewhere cheaper, move child to a school somewhere else, I would feel like a complete failure and would probably resort to alcoholism. I seriously doubt I would feel any civic duty to take some low-paid manual work over benefits if all the difference it would make was to pay for proper butter on my sandwiches instead of Co-op own-brand marge, and there was no hope of that holiday, or that new sofa, or that car. I do not understand how people can be expected to function without hope.

On the other hand, the state cannot make emotional judgements. It's not the state's job to pay for a house you can only afford when in full time work. The state cannot be held liable for any reduction in someone's lifestyle - that would be wholly unfair - the state's duty is (rightly) just to provide the safety net; to make sure everyone is fed, clothed and housed.

The problem seems to be that quite often it costs more overall to keep people fed, clothed, housed and deprived of hope, than it would if those people were in work. I can't see a solution to this. Everyone's circumstance is different. Some will take foreign holidays on £6k benefits, and some will become homeless on £26k. Whatever we do, some people will live lives of leisure at taxpayer's expense, and some will die on the streets. The changes going on at the moment are just shifting the balance in favour of more people dying on the streets.”

“Sorry for the long rambling post (that didn't even get to the point I was trying) to make. Anyhow. In my field, when you can't find a solution, it usually means you're asking the wrong question. If there is no optimal (or 'fair') answer, you need to change the parameters.

In this case, I think the system is wrong. In our neoliberal model of capitalism (thanks, Thatcher (and Blair)) there are two opposing forces - the drive to force wages down to maintain competitiveness, and the increased cost of living in a privately-run economy.

The cost of living is set by market forces, according to how much people can afford to pay - and increases steadily as society as a whole gets richer, regardless of how much those at the bottom can afford. But unregulated capitalism guarantees that wages will be driven down to the lowest point - the point where the workers can only just afford to feed and house their familes - or in other words the exact same point where welfare steps in. If you reduce the 'welfare threshold' (as the Tories are now doing) you just reduce the incentives employers have to provide to keep people in work. The minimum wage is no barrier; employers can simply contract out and buy labour on a self-employed basis. Huge race to the bottom.

You cannot 'make work pay' as long as you maintain a system that self-adjusts to ensure work always pays about the same as benefits (wherever those benefits are set).

One solution, as I see it, is to break the link between free-market capitalism (which dictates the cost) and welfare (which has to pay the going rate) - for example, by the state providing social housing on its own terms, rather than by subsidising private landlords who charge whatever the market will bear. Or the opposite - re-establish the link between cost of living (based on average earnings) and the lowest earnings, by enforcing a maximum gap between CEO and toilet cleaner for example.

Whatever; the Tories can't have it both ways. They should either free the bottom rung of society from the vagaries of their beloved free-market, or pay up. They need to accept some degree of responsibility for the consequences of their ideology.

Again, apologies for rambling post.”

“People get paid benefits in work. For example, a fifth of HB claimants (including pensioners) are in low-paid work. A couple with 3 children earning £13,000/year each and renting a 3-bed flat in the private sector for £995/month would get an additional £18,000 in in-work benefits -giving them a total in-work income of £43,000.”

“To some extent I agree with Moe, I believe that the "safety net" is being eroded and will be all but gone in a matter of years if the government continue on the course they're clearly determined to take. As Roger says, families in work, albeit relatively low paid employment are more likely to live comfortably (certainly not luxuriously) as a result of Housing Benefits and Tax Credits. Yet when rents have the unregulated freedom to rise year on year while wages freeze or don't reflect this, a cap on benefits could well see even these people struggle to keep their homes.

The immediate concern and those most unfairly affected by welfare reforms are single parents. The housing benefit caps (LHA specifically) already in place are forcing single parents, whether in employment or not to face a future for themselves and their children that's very bleak indeed. The minimum wage reflects nothing like the cost of living, wages will only rise to cover the cost of rent, fuel and sustenance when hell freezes over. To continue to line the pockets of Landlords is costing every single one of us dearly. Landlords and estate agents won't suffer a cap on their greed. They're unlikely to be forced to, particularly in those towns and cities that newspapers proudly boast are "bucking the national housing trend". At whose cost this stroke of good fortune though??

Social housing is clearly the answer, not only do governments benefit from the revenue of the cheaper/affordable rents and not individuals (who have no intention or reason to re-invest for the good of communities and not themselves). But tenants, of all ages and family dynamics would not be beholden to and denigrated by a system and government that's fast pulling the net from beneath them.”

“What's not clear yet and only time will tell, is how resiliant the rental market is to the ending of LHA's being based on a self inflating market basis with no upper limits. At present rising rents mean LHA's increase, which mean people are able to pay higher rents so landlords can put them up without losing tenants. The only winners here were landlords and maybe the banks lending on BTL mortgages.

In theory at least, if you limit the amounts people can get in LHA, it limits the demand for more expensive properties, in favour of cheaper ones. If landlords need tenants to service debts on the property then they have to make choice between holding out for their desired rent (risking debts during the void period), getting someone in to at least pay something, or dumping the property on the market to repay the mortgage. If we get a glut of houses on the market it may push prices down a bit to the point where people can start either buying their own homes, or it becomes viable to buy as a BTL on the basis of LHA level rents.

The hard part of course is the transition - weaning the system off the public purse funded gravy train on to a more sustainable model. Building more social and affordable housing will help accellerate this, but I don't think the old system could be sustained, nor is the prospect of putting in a massive and costly infrastructure to regulate rents likely to be financially effective either.”

“Just one point Dave - LHA is now set at the lowest 30th percentile of average, meaning that virtually everywhere you're forced to move, the competition will be fierce for those lower priced rentals.
Unsustainable.. Certainly! Can we afford to let these people become casualties of this unfair cap before alternative homes are in place.. I would say not.”

“I see that Shelter now believes that you are "homeless" if your children have to share a bedroom. This nicely complements the definition of "poverty" - if you only own four pairs of shoes or if you don't own a car, a Playstation or a flat screen television.

All those poor children dying in the streets because of the evil, heartless coalition Government.

Vicky, can you explain to me why it is fair that somebody who works full time earning £26,000 a year is taxed so that the money can be given to somebody who is earning more than them on benefits?”

“LHA is now set at the lowest 30th percentile of average, meaning that virtually everywhere you're forced to move, the competition will be fierce for those lower priced rentals."

And if prices did fall so would Housing Benefit entitlements. The reality is, though, that for the most part those in higher value properties are the newly-redundant, not the long-term unemployed.

"The immediate concern and those most unfairly affected by welfare reforms are single parents"

Not necessarily. The benefit cap, for instance, will hit couples with several children living in more affluent areas. It's an entirely arbitrary limit that means that welfare is no longer related to need. The average income of a worker is used to set the maximum payment for a household of above average size living in an area of above average rental prices.

"weaning the system off the public purse funded gravy train on to a more sustainable model."

There is and never was a gravy train. And any savings - assuming there are any - will be insignificant.”

“Roger - to be clear , the gravy train comment was aimed at landlords!

Malcolm - Shelter have denied that assertion by Ian Duncan Smith - their definition comes from the 1996 Housing Act (enacted by the last Conservative govt).

In general I'm not in a position to understand the various benefit rates etc so it would be improper for me to comment or join the "£26k is too much " chorus. My comments are more aimed at the madness of a system which takes £6k away in tax and gives back £5k in benefits.”

“I see that Shelter now believes that you are "homeless" if your children have to share a bedroom."

"The public thinks that homelessness is about not having any reasonable accommodation to go to, that's not what the definition is. The definition inside government and places like Shelter is that children have to share rooms… Nobody, and I can guarantee this, nobody will be made homeless in the sense of the public's view of it – without a home to go to – as a result of this."

(Iain Duncan Smith MP, BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, 23 January 2011)

Shelter's chief executive Campbell Robb was quick to dispute Mr Duncan Smith's claim that the charity agreed with his definition of homelessness.

He said: "The Secretary of State said that, according to Shelter, families where children share a bedroom would be defined as homeless. This is simply not true. Shelter uses the same definition of homelessness as the government, as set out in the Housing Act 1996, passed by the last Conservative government."

Facts, Malcolm, facts. Check them before you quote them.”

“Roger - to be clear , the gravy train comment was aimed at landlords!"

My apologies, then. It does rather assume that rents are set by HB levels rather than the wider (and far larger) private rental market. Is there any evidence to support that, though?”

“No apologies needed - I wasn't clear!

Good question - mathematical logic suggest though that if you base a contributing part to an average on that average it will tend to support whichever way the average is already going. Landlords already have enough incentive to raise rents where they can and so if they know that the bottom of the market is bound to follow rises they know that there will always be a supply of tenants able to pay more each year when renewal comes around. Logically that has to have an impact. If you have ten tenancies, 7 private and 3 LHA, all paying £100, then the average is £100. If you can shift one tenancy upwards to £110, the average is now £101, which means next renewal LHA goes from £100 to £101, and the 3 LHA tenancies can now go to £101. That in itself means that the average becomes £101.30 and so the cycle continues. In reality its likely that if LHA goes up to £101 all the remaining private tenancies will be at least increased to £101. The only way to stop this snowball effect is to put some kind of cap in place, which without returning to regulated rents and all that admin, means capping LHA. The landlord now has to think carefully - if he pushes up the rent for his private tenant, that tenant might move on, leaving him potentially only having a LHA tenant interested who cannot pay as much rent because of the cap. That adds at least a bit of a drag to the upward spiral, and potentially over time a downward pressure.

(I've obviously simplified the numbers a bit and used smaller samples but the maths should still hold - I think!)”

“Roger, you are of course right. Wages have already been driven down below the poverty line; meaning the state is already subsidising private employers as well as private landlords.

VV; agree, social housing is the *only* answer. I despise the idea of public money being syphoned off for private profit, and I do not understand why the state should be forced to pay the market rate to exercise its commitments when it has no control over it. HB is just yet another case of privatised profit and socialised risk. The state has a duty of care that it can't just ignore when its private suppliers decide to put their prices up.

Dave_W raises the valid point that the state's very involvement in the market, as major consumer, is probably skewing it in the wrong direction.

Capping or cutting welfare whilst maintaining private profit is not a solution; it's a cop out. Worst of all, it probably won't save any money as the 'problem' will just move elsewhere.”

“As with pensions, divide and rule. Blame the benefits claimants just as public sector workers get blamed. Deflects the blame from the wealthy, the tax dodgers and the utterly useless bunch of incompetents that pass as politicians these days.”

“Hey people lets have some compassion here, people do hit on hard times through no fault of their own, and people are in the position where they can't get employment, or suffer awful illness.

So I for one am happy to pay taxes to provide a safety net for them – and if that is some captain of industry with a husband and 18 kids who was doing very nicely thank you, but aren't now then they will of course now need support and assistance from the state to maintain a basic existence.

If its cheaper over all to pay mortgage interest than provide houses – then I don't have a problem with that either, especially if their mortgage asset is transferred to a state owned/funded bank for mutual benefit for the duration of the loan.

But and this is where I do get a little tense…

What should not be allowed is for people to voluntarily generate an increasing demand on the state. So whatever your assessment when you go on any benefit I believe that is the pro-rata rate benefit should then be fixed at. You will note I said 'voluntary generate an increasing demand', so someone with a non-voluntary increase such as a worsening debilitating condition would of course be eligible for the extra support they need.

So if Mr & Mrs Industry and their 18 kids get benefit its fixed for 2 adults and 18 kids, their neighbours Mr n Mrs 2.2kids would get fixed at 2 adults and 2.2 kids the addition of subsequent dependants or other costs should not incur extra benefits over and above the rate when they entered the benefits system, it's a safety net, not a funding choice!

Whilst I happily pay my contributions, I can not choose not to pay them - so someone on benefit should not be able on a whim to choose to spend more of them!”

“There's some gaping holes there aurea_flamma- What you suggest is (almost) as draconian as the currently debated benefit cap. I'm afraid it hints at eugenics and doesn't take into account any of the previous comments regarding the high number of working families claiming one or another benefit, specifically a percentage of housing benefits for overpriced private rentals.

So what happens if Mr & Mrs Industry become old, ill or incapacitated? What happens if if one of Mrs 2.2's kids should find herself pregnant?
It happens in families on all incomes whether in receipt of benefits or not. If it's a safety net it should cover such emergencies surely?

As shown in 30 comments, it's never so cut and dried.”

“Viscount_V

Eugenics - Gosh no that was never my intent, that is abhorrent and its quite a provocative statement for you to make. It's an emotive and sinister way to try to sway the argument, I hope you don't seriously think that I mean that in what I say!

Economics – maybe!

Yes it is complex I agree - who's life isn't? – all I was looking to debate was a general principle of a benefits system that provides for anyone's needs at an assessment level that is fixed on entry, just like the income of someone not on benefit is also fixed, but paid at a rate that is defined by the pay rates - so the ammount would rise in line with pay.

When I say that we should set benefits to whatever the reasonable needs of the individual when they are helped by a benefits safety net - This isn't about taking existing benefits away from existing claimants, as their needand limit would be set by their lifestyle today, its just saying that there is a limit to your existing household budget something that everyone faces in a normal world however altruistic that world may be.

Clearly life on benefits isn't easy, I am not trying to say that either before someone jumps in with that argument, and its not a bottomless pit as anyone surviving on them knows all too well, but a voluntary lifestyle choice that is denied to those not on benefit, should not automatically be funded for those that are on benefit - its equality of opportunity that I am seeking.

I have already stated that I believe non-voluntary lifestyle change such as ill health should be excepted from that principle.

So as you ask if one of MR & Mrs 2.2 children found themselves pregnant and without income, then that pregnant child should then enter the safety net as a family group in their own right, or as an adult if they are old enough and have no children, but as a single parent their benefit would then be set to that of a 1 adult 1 child family.

There are lots of lifestyle choices I would like to make, but can't afford, so they are closed to me – there are many working families who's lifestyle choices are also governed by their finances, I question if those on benefits should be allowed to make the lifestyle choices currently denied to those not on benefit, based on the understanding that the state would pick up the additional cost of those choices?

This is not about creating an underclass as you imply, it is simply about providing an effective benefits safety net for all based on the funding model of working peoples lives, and there are some lifestyle choices that working people can not afford.”

“I understand your point aurea_flamma- but your way would ensure that families in vital but low paid jobs, those in high rental cities such as Bath would be denied the right to have children. Those who must fork out over half of their monthly wage to keep the most basic roof over their head, those reliant on a percentage of housing benefit to pay the Landlord at no financial gain to themselves. I don't believe you can attack benefit levels and quote "lifestyle choices" until the housing situation is sorted and rent is reflective of an ever decreasing wage.”

“aurea_flamma I am struggling to think of any examples of where your 'lifestyle choice' actually applies in real life. You make it sound like people choose to upgrade their cars and houses and the state agrees to pay.

If the situation changes - like housing and energy prices increasing - surely it's only right that the height of the safety net should be increased accordingly. Likewise in the other direction, if the claimant finds work for example.”

“Does anyone know what the government's definition of 'family' is? Could a cap be counterproductive if it encouraged families to split, or to discourage them from taking in relatives?

I shouldn't worry though, I'm sure they've thought this one through like they always do :-(”

“It applies to a household rather than a family so there's no financial incentive to stay together.

" a voluntary lifestyle choice that is denied to those not on benefit"

I agree with Moe on this. What voluntary lifestyle choice could you be thinking of? You certainly won't get rich by having more children as the additional costs will far exceed any additional benefit. Or is it if you disable yourself through some reckless behaviour? And are you going to have a committee to decide whether a pregnancy or other act was intentional or accidental?”

“Au contraire Moe, It seems the government would like to force men and women, particularly those in low paid or part time jobs to remain in relationships regardless of circumstances. The costs for the state to subsidise single parents to anywhere above the breadline are too high. Therefore it would be preferable for the poor to stay within the unit of a loveless, abusive, disastrous relationship as was common before the emancipation of women...... Either that or they won't allow you the funds to help feed and shelter your children.

You certainly won't be able to take in Grandma though, especially if she's faking old age and illness.”

“I hear the child maintenance payment reforms and charges (CSA) have just been defeated.... by Tory Lords this time!

It's an ugly shambles in government, yet the Lib Dems and Tories will yet again try to force this through the commons along with the rest. It matters not what experts in their fields say.

Each day brings another attack on the least well off.”

“Happening a lot these days. Seems Tory policies are becoming too bizarre even for Tories.

I did chuckle at the latest one though - to make people pay for a service that was designed to to ensure that poor people got the money they were entitled too. Umm.

Almost as comical as the chinless baboon on the news tonight claiming that solar power has suddenly become unsustainable, due to the large number of people installing solar power and therefore taking advantage of the subsidies that were intended to encourage a large number of people to install solar power....”

“There's only so much sunlight to go around.”

“Indeed Roger. It will only last another 4 billion years; though by that time any future short-termist capitalist economy will be able to exploit the oil formed from the remains of this one.”

“Moe - to be fair it had become unsustainable in financial terms. The FiT rate at 43p was needed initially to get things moving, but there was alway intended to be a finite amount of electricity generated under this policy, not least because the subsidy is paid for out of everyone's energy bills. Again logically if energy companies are having to pay 43p for each KWh via the FiT, its going to start impacting on the current 16p per KWh they charge customers. What wasn't predicted when the system was set up was that it would become so profitable that rent a roof companies would be able to offer free instalation on the basis that they kept the 43p per unit - hence the gold rush reminiscent of the early days of double glazing. As panel prices have almost halved in the 20 months since it was set up, reducing the FiT rate to 21p makes a lot of sense (not least because at that rate you get twice as much solar energy for the same pot of money), as does making people improve their energy efficiency first. There's no point generating relatively expensive solar energy if its just blowing out of uninsulated homes. The mistake the government made was not spotting early enough that the industry was getting out of hand so they had to rush to close it off, hence the October announcement and the delaying appeals, all designed to shut down the 43p rate as at the beginning of December and reduce the instal rate back to a level which non solar energy customers can afford to subsidise through their energy bills.”

“Dave_W, whether or not it is financially unsustainable is a rather subjective judgement. Just how much is the FiT adding to our energy bills? Presumably local solar is eligible to be considered 'renewable' so a lot of it will be paid by those on green tariffs anyway. I realise the Mail et al have convinced the great unwashed that all the price rises since privatisation were entirely the fault of the great green conspiracy to err, something, but what's the truth?

And you have to weigh the renewables subsidies against all the other things the government does to influence energy prices. Cutting the FiT whilst simultaneously imposing sanctions against major oil-producers seems a little hypocritical to me. Also, the cynic in me can't help but doubt the Tories' commitment to a scheme that gives anyone anything for nothing.

The FiT was always meant to be an incentive, and it worked. As you say, the price has halved. Good. But on what basis can you judge whether it has gone far enough? I can assure that not every suitable roof area has been fitted yet, because no-one has shown any interest in mine.

Anyhow, the government lost their bid to cut the subsidy so it's a moot point.”

“Most agree that the rate should be cut to reflect the fall in costs. What the court case was about, though, was the reductions being rushed in, even before the official consultation had ended. A local charity I'm involved with, for instance, had spent months planning and sourcing funding for a major scheme but it was impossible to adapt to meet a new deadline introduced at such short notice and so it all had to be abandoned.”

“...reducing the FiT rate to 21p makes a lot of sense (not least because at that rate you get twice as much solar energy for the same pot of money),"

Not if you get half the take-up (if that).”