~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Nick Robinson
Political editor
Benefit cap - A tale of two moralities
Perched in the press gallery high above the Lords for the debate about the benefit cap I was struck by the fact that this was a battle between two competing moral visions.
The minister, Lord Freud, argued for a cap not to save money but to turn around lives because it was not moral, he argued, to consign children to a life in which work was not the norm - or to give more in benefits to families than the average family could earn in work.
His opponents, led by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, argued that it was immoral to punish families simply because they had more children. Losing a job was bad enough but then losing your home was unacceptable.
The effect of the bishops amendment would be - the government claims - to drive the cap up to the equivalent of earning £47,000 for large families with several children.
Their opponents point to the fact that, on their own figures, many of those affected by the cap are not able to work straight away even though the disabled are excluded.
The government's impact assessment chart shows that only 39% of households affected are on JSA - jobseekers allowance - whereas 22% are on ESA - employment and support allowance (or what used to be called incapacity benefit or "the sick") - and 38% are on income support suggesting they are, for example, caring for children and not expected to be in work by the system.
Obama apology for Koran burnings
La vida simple
Render unto Caesar
Race to the bottom
Fight for freedom
Crossing borders
Fast Track
Comment number 1.
Colin Smith23rd January 2012 - 19:59
The Lords were wrong. The Government needs to bring in this cap now but make it less than the take home pay of the average worker. It is disgusting that some people get more in benefits for doing absolutely nothing than most people get for going out and working. To really do something about child poverty and lack of aspiration we should aim for less kids to be born to dead end parents.
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
bryhers23rd January 2012 - 20:10
It`s a moral dilemma because the arguments are evenly balanced.It is not moral to penalize children even when some women make a career of childbirth,using it to gain housing and income.
Or taxpayerrs subsidizing lifestyle choices when people choose not to work.
Underpinning this has to be the availability of jobs,large scale reskilling,an industrial policy and demand management.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
nichman23rd January 2012 - 20:10
So the government adds up what it is prepared to pay for housing, food, heating for you and your children based on its own calculations, then sees the total and baulks.
Surely that can only mean the government doesnt trust its own calculations? why not just fix them then.
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
metalmiky23rd January 2012 - 20:13
Whilst I agree with the premise of capping the benefits received by anybody the way this government intends to tackle the problem would appear to penalise innocent children who did not have any say as to whom their parents are. Colin Smith (1) seems to advocate the old Chineese method of restricting how many children people may have - this strikes me as being social engineering on a grand scale!
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
brianshel23rd January 2012 - 20:19
What you are advocating, Colin, is social cleansing. That really is disgusting. Child benefit is for kids, to make sure they don't suffer. For a working family child benefit will be payable up to the case where an earner is on higher rate tax. But if the Govt has its way, a family on benefits has the child benefit removed as soon as the benefit total reaches £26k. Cannot see the logic of that!
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 387