Sir Ralph

So you will bet on something you dont know the answer to.... Ive been through this before. My family lived below the poverty line in this country. My pareants refused to take beenfits. We batted through, despite having very little. We were fine and probably taught me the value of money and the need to work hard. In my opinion, that is what is currently lacking in the UK.

You cant unilaterally decided you have proven your point! We disagree thats it. You think its too complicated to stop the long term unemployed milking the system and there are too many negative impacts. I dont.

Hence my suggestion to help the 'responsible tax payer'. I've literally just suggested that! There are clearly people taking the piss out of the benefits system, some of whom I know of (but am not friends with). Can you tell me that there arent and what percentage are receiving an appropriate level of welfare? Some on here seem to think its ok for the long term unemployed to milk the system on the two child cap point. I dont.

I didnt say that. A single parent should work 17.5 hours. Of course there are different scenarios and you can't account for them all its impossible. If you wanted to apply for benefits now you have to provide lots of information to be assessed anyway so I dont see whats ddiferent. Where is the scenario covered of the long term unemployed milking the system? It seems you want all persons covered in every scenario which is a huge cost to the responsible tax payer who is not covered / loses out. Who is thinking of the tax payer in these scenarios? Thats half the problem, people expect the state to intervene in too many scenarios at the cost of the responsible tax payer, hence the bloating of the state.

This is where you need studies and specialist input to come up with the detail. You and I dont have this information so neither of us fully know the answers. If this was down to me, the two child cap has been in place so this should only apply if both parents are working at least 35 hours a week between them and they are below £35k. This figures are indicative. In the scenario you mentioned, the relevant couple wouldnt beenfit from the removal of the cap anyway, so it wouldnt make a difference to them and they wouldnt have their help cut off in this respect. If someone below the £35k threshold lost their job, the other could always work. If both of them lost their jobs but had been in long term employment before (e.g. at least 3 years), you could have a 6 month grace period to keep paying this whilst they find a job. There will be some circumstances where the help wouldnt be there for a few people that need it. But you need to balance this negative off against the long terms unemployed who are taking tax payers money having been irresponsible. That to me is a bigger negative. Also the £70k example. In the majority of the country people can get by on less than that. If you are in trouble, you reduce your expenses and expectations to reflect your current position. You dont rely onthe state to maintain your lifestyle. Thats half the problem, people expect the state to intervene in too many scenarios at the cost of the responsible tax payer.

As a starting point, if you have not been employed from the date of the introduction of the removal of the cap for at least 1 year you can't benefit from it. Why would that not work?

Ok, I've explained that coming up with the rules isnt insurmountable. Such rules are applied by Government across a Miriad of policies, including welfare. Is your point that introducing such thresholds is insurmountable, even though such thresholds are applied in many other areas of life?!

That is the detail of the policy that can be worked out and rules could clearly be made. A cannot see how your questions are insurmountable as such thresholds are already placed on people in relation to other benefits and taxes for example. The point being is that the Government has not introduced anything to stop long term unemployed people who have had too many kids from claiming the benefit and you havent given any rationale for it and neither has the Government. Why?

Firstly in most places, £80k is too high. My beef isnt that you shouldnt help employed families who are struggling (we should) but why long term unemployed should benefit from it. Why not have a policy which means that if you are working but below a specific salary (lower than £80k) the two child cap is removed. That would help those responsible people who are in employment. It may even possibly even encourage some people with more kids who are unemployed into employment to obtain the benefit. Why are people in long term unemployment allowed to access it if they have not been responsible in pro creating?

I'm not sure about that, they knew it was a big issue. I agree the Tories did a bad job on migration and Labour have been left holding the baby. However, I think its more likely they ignored it because they knew it wouldnt be an electable proposal, in the same way that it caused problems for Blair when he suggested it.

If you are employed or have a joint or single salary below £X (possibly on a tiered basis) why couldnt you introduce tax breaks to those people. They are responsible but are struggling and deserve help. That way you avoid encouraging the irresponsible who would have more children as a result of the policy to be covered by the tax payer. Why did the Government not introduce a policy like this?

Who says responsible parents will be the ones that benefit from the two child cap removal? What about the parents that have no intention of working and it encourages to have more kids? Why did the Government not introduce a policy to use the monies to provide working families in poverty with tax breaks?

The Big Issue, that notouriously politically balanced publication. If we take it for what is it you are saying that Labour are no better that the Tories. I would add that this is 14 years of Tories vs 1.5 years of Labour

But we were less than two years in....what circumstance meant that they could not have forseen this?

Have you calmed down now? I was worried you were going to give yourself a hernia. Who says responsible parents will be the ones that benefit from this? What about the parents that have no intention of working and it encourages to have more kids? Why did the Government not introduce a policy to use the monies to provide working families in poverty with tax breaks?

I'm not sure about that. Most big things are in manifestos unless circumstances change meaning a new policy is required. This is a big thing that was not. They are trying to introduce through the back door 1.5 years in and I'm not sure what the change in circumstance is. The reality is they knew it wasnt an electable policy so kept quiet.

Yes I would be opposed to it but they arent proposing it so its completely hypothetical. I dont believe the idea that the Tories support this is correct (see the below) - this is promoted by the Government. There is nothing to stop any future Government enacting the 'creep', albeit a party that doesnt support it in the first place is clearly less likely to enact the 'creep' than one that does. I dont want the proposal by the current Government because it opens up that opportunity and was not put forward in their Election Manifesto and therefore the electorate (the people who the Government is allegedly supposed to serve) did not vote for it. If you can point me to Reform or the Tories saying this is party policy then fine, but it isnt so I dont think you would be able to.

Another great response there. Classic.

I find it laughable that because I dont believe that, on balance, the removal of the two child benefit cap is not societally a positive thing, that 'I want kids to suffer'. This type of statement comes from someone who has the inability to understand somebody else's perspective and is melodramatic. I understand why people want to remove the cap but I dont agree with it, on balance, for reasons set out. You have the inability to compute that anybody else may have a different view from you.

Some Tories have identified the benefits and others have identified concerns about privacy. It is certainly not Tory policy nor is it roundly supported by them. Most Conservative voters will not want it. Notwithstanding this, the comment was from a Reform Cllr. Therefore you cant say that the Tories support digital id cards, but it is Labour Party policy. Im aware of the potential benefits but the likely 'creep' into private life will no doubt be the result over coming years, which I think on balance will be more harmful. So the introduction of digital ID's and also the reduction in juries would be my key objection. Again I understand the reasons for the reform but I believe it will give more autonomy to Government to influence the judiciary.

Thats a better joke. First one was too obvious 👍

I dont live in Thailand (unless thats an attempt at humour). And also what is the relevance? You ignored the point though, funny how its Labour who are introducing the authoritarian policies isnt it.

Its fine, get personal. The bigger point is you think Polanski has a clue?

I didnt say that, as you know. Maximising benefit payouts is obviously up your street so I know you will support any increase in welfare. Its clearly very fair that someone on benefits can earn more than somebody on a minimum wage. Why do you support that I wonder?

Taking of transparency and being authoritarian an interesting video.....all of which is factually true.