Large families

I think we're all talking at cross-purposes here!

Ana there is a time limit on ESA now unless you're in the schedule 3 category

At 5'8" and over 13 st I don't think little applies

Yes, but I still don't see how your proposals would provide a better incentive for those who don't want to work to do so. Of course it would be more fair if those who had worked and lost their job through no o fault of their own were given enough benefits to live on and to keep their home where applicable, but there'd still have to be some form of time limit.

Galen you little tinkerboots*

Ana, I think several people agreed it would be a good idea to stop paying Child Benefit after the second child, including Movedalot.

Didn't know we had two from malvern

It may be like the Labour proposals. I am not worried by that but do not suggest them because of that . I agree that if the administration costs would be very high it may not be worth doing...but sometimes we need to invest before we gain!

I mean the statistics about the amount of benefit fraud.
And it was the other member from Malvern who constantly took issue with me, (the one you have never met) , usually about exactly the same things that excite your criticism. I didn't say it was you. I know exactly when you joined.

It was insulting to imply that I had a closed mind - since you quoted me exactly it was obviously directed at me.

How open is your mind? I have made some concessions in the light of various posts - it would be nice to have some reciprocation.

missed out 'what you mean' before the 'your' there.

Greatnan, I don't understand by your original thoughts having about the suggestion to stop child benefit after the second child.
What thoughts were those?

Yes, I do see what you're saying, nanaej, it's just that seems remarkably like the current Labour proposals to 'stagger' unemployment benefits, and would probably cost a lot more to adminster as well as adding to the welfare bill.
(Yes, I did see Cathy Come Home, and I wasn't assuming that all people on benefit are or have been low wage earners)

when I'm not sure why you think I'm insulting, I was quoting Greatnan!

Greatnan which statistics do you mean? I don't have time to trawl through and I don't take notes. As I can't remember them all I cannot say whether I accept them or not.

I reiterate what Greatnan says about the insults although I have only been on GN for, I think, less than a year and she has said she has been getting them for a lot longer than that. I am getting rather used to them too.

just so I am not misunderstood again, I do not mean ALL claimants get £25k but up to £25k!!!

Yes Galen ..I am suggesting that no benefits specifically for disabled or unemployed should be over £25k per family unit except in some disability cases when specialist support is required e.g. might need to include the cost of f/t live in care

Also Ana if a couple with 2 x ch have a mortgage to maintain it could well be cheaper to pay up to £25k to keep the family in their home than to force them to be repossessed and get into a far worse state.

Did anyone ever watch 'Cathy Come Home? it illustrated how easy it was for a family to disintegrate due to joblessness.

Are you including housing benefit in the £25k?

Ana - you are perfectly free to define the terms of the discussion in any way you please. My original thoughts were about the suggestion to stop child benefit after the second child but feel free to include any benefits you choose.
In fact, my very first posts on this thread or the related thread was just to express my opinion that it was wrong to use the Philpott tragedy to criticise people with large families. I still think that. You see, I do have a closed mind about some things!

ana I said up to £25k ..if I had been earning £35k plus before my company collapsed then certainly I would be keen to find a job that put me closer to my previous earnings. Don't always assume those on benefits have only ever earned low incomes. Redundancy and job loss can hit all strata of society. And remember too that the vast majority of people want to work. It is a minority who take advantage. Those who cheat the system need to be caught and dealt with by existing laws and those who misuse the system by choosing not to find work can be tracked and seen to be cheats ...& dealt with by existing laws.

Yes, quite Greatnan - the incentive to stay on benefits if they're getting paid £25k not to work, as nanaej suggests!

Couldn't agree more about ATOS assessments as I think you are all aware. It will be interesting in the autumn when the appeals for pip start coming through to see how ATOS and capita have performed.
Incidentally, there is a move to replace the doctors on the appeal sessions with ' health care professional' in other words ATOS look alikes!

Did anyone suggest that cutting benefits to the most vulnerable members of society was a good thing? I'm confused now about which benefits we're supposed to be considering - I thought we were talking about people claiming benefits who choose not to work when there is no reason for them not to.

£25K has to provide the incentive to many people on the minimum wage!

You make some good points Nanaej.

My post was replying to nanaej, of course.