An alternative Queen's speech.

£23,000 is the equivalent of a £29,000 salary before tax - £3,000 p.a. more than the median income.

And other benefits I presume?

Quite a few benefits are taxable, too. If someone is receiving housing benefit and jobseekers allowance up to the limit, they will be paying tax on that. Ridiculous, isn't it? Not many people actually receive the £26,000 at the moment. It's just punishing the poor more.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying is ridiculous.

It does seem rather ridiculous that people are making such a fuss about benefits being capped at the equivalent of a £29,000 p.a. salary.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-victims-tory-welfare-cap-5780398

Ridiculous that people paid less than they can afford to live on in benefits are having to pay tax, when people earning between £45,000 and £50,000 will be given a tax refund, don't you think?

www.change.org/p/david-cameron-stop-the-11-pay-rise-for-mps-salaries

Hope you've all signed this.
1 MP = 3.6 poor families on benefits.

Wonder for the sake of fairness whether comanys who give large amounts to the Tory Party will ask their shareholders to "opt in" to the giving, just as the union members are being asked to do.

Goodness, even 53% of Mirror readers are in favour of the new benefits cap! Are they all closet tories?

I don't know ana but they may not be all Labour supporters.

Oh, what a cynic you are!

I think a bit of sympathy for this family would not come amiss. The youngest girl is their granddaughter. I have seen a lot of sympathy for someone on this site who wanted to keep her grandson instead of him going into foster care.

The house they have been evicted from was given to them as temporary accommodation for two years. They have been there six years. It's private accommodation, paid for by housing benefit.
Their own children were all born when the father was in work.

www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/by-date/briefing-on-how-cuts-are-targeted.html

This is how cuts to welfare affect those least able to cope, the ones that Cameron and Osborne said they would protect from the cuts.
They lied.

I'd be interested to hear reasoning on how this is justified.

Do you mean the report?

bit.ly/afscuts

Or do you mean how Osborne and IDS justify it?
They do not have to.

I meant how do individuals feel that it is justified. I suspect that answer will come none, however.