I’ve never really trusted Nick Clegg, especially when he cosied up with David Cameron. And then when he went back on tuition fee changes he had promised pre-election my disliking of him increased. But I have always reserved the hope that he is still a good guy really and that he is slowing the Torys’ right wing hold of the UK. But now I officially hate him, and I will tell you why.
There have been proposals to cap the amount of benefits any family can receive. This cap is on the summation of all benefits including child benefit. The cap will mean that no family can receive more than £500 a week on benefits (apart from the royal family). The following is a quote from Nick Clegg and is also the reason why I now hate him:
"the vast majority of people think it is fair to say you can't receive more in benefits than if you were to earn £35,000 before tax"
At face value it doesn’t seem the sort of thing a person could say to make you hate them. Hate being such a strong word. But it did make me hate him. It made me hate him because he used a sentence which merely sparks up emotions. It’s the sort of point that makes people say "Yeah! I only make £20,000 a year and I work 12 hour shifts so why should these lay-abouts get more money than me?" In a way that would be a reasonable thing to say (kind-of, although this would be the wrongful presumption that all people on benefits are lay-abouts). However, the remark by Nick Clegg should be further analysed. When he states “if you were to earn £35,000 before tax" he is referring to the average UK household income. They seem to forget what the average means. It does not mean that all families have an income of £35, 000 before tax regardless of where they live or their family size. It is the fucking average. And why shouldn’t any household be able to receive more money on benefits than the average? It would seem fairer to say the average household income of families on benefits should not exceed the average of working families but this is already the case (see below).
It DOES Pay to Work
So after tax the average is £26,000. However, the average household income after tax of a two-earner married couple with two children is estimated to be £38,547. This is a considerably higher figure and shows the difference between using the average without any consideration of family type compared to more accurate selective averages. This website is really handy and you can fiddle with this chart to look at the difference between families on benefits and working families. As you will see there is a huge difference in the average income showing that it does already pay to work. In 2009 the average net income for a single person without children was £25 329. If that person was unemployed the average is £9 626. The figure for a single working person with two children is £27 600. An unemployed person in the same situation would receive only £17 600. The net income for a couple on benefits with two children is still only £19 554, and once you take housing benefit out of the equation, as this is paid directly to the landlord, the disposable income is £11 000 between two adults and two children. The net income is already significantly lower for out of work parents, even if they have children. Therefore the average net income of an unemployed household is already far below the cap level. It seems to make sense that this cap will therefore affect mainly larger family sizes, who receive more benefit for a reason. Contrary to the tabloid hype and the pub banter, the state is not just giving money away to people who don’t need it.
The most important point I feel, therefore, is that the cap (and Nick Clegg’s remark) does not include family size or location and therefore does not take into consideration the needs of specific families and more importantly the needs of the children within these families. The supporters of the cap keep banging on about fairness but is it fair if some children to suffer because they are part of a larger family? Families within London will suffer particularly due to high living costs. But to be honest it’s not that surprising that the government wants to force as many poor people out of the capital as possible. There’s nothing worse than travelling to work and breathing in the stench of peasants.
The Race to the Bottom
 |
| No explanation required. I love MS Paint. |
As I have shown it already pays to work but if you want to make it pay more to work then maybe working class people should be paid more. Why is this always a race to the bottom? “I only get paid this much so why should (insert minority group here) get paid more than me. They should get paid less!” Well boo fucking hoo you moaning little cunt. If you want more money campaign for better pay. To be honest most people don’t get paid enough. But don’t be annoyed at other working class and middle class people getting more than you. Be happy for them and try to make sure people in your situation start getting paid more. Don’t you see the really rich upper class have us divided, this is what they want. We have groups of poor people blaming other groups of poor people for poverty while the people with all the influence have fucking loads of money.
If there are 9 jobs and 10 people apply what will be the outcome? 9 people will get a job and 1 person will be unemployed. What should happen to that 1 person? Should they be punished? There are currently more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. Look at this map to see how many people are applying per vacancy, also, please note the striking correlation between claimant to vacancy ration and 2010 general election results! So in this competitive race to employment some people have to lose. Some people have to be unemployed if there are not enough jobs. In a modern, compassionate society is it not fair to say that those people do not deserve to be punished. Unemployment is not spread equally across the UK. Different cities have different rates and different areas within cities have different rates. What does this tell you? It tells you that unemployment is not dependent on people it is dependent on location and therefore circumstance and opportunity. The best way to make things fair is for everyone who is lucky enough to make their own money to help provide for those families who struggle to make a living due to their circumstances. If you currently have a job now it is not because you are better than people who do not have a job. It’s because you are more fortunate. You are lucky to have the skills you have, you are lucky to have the experience you have, you are lucky you live where you live, you are lucky that you found the job. If you cannot see this then you must think you are somehow inherently better than these other people. You must think that you somehow chose to be better than them? How did you choose this? Why didn’t they choose to do the same thing? There is no way you can answer these questions with coherent and rational arguments. So if you think these things but cannot explain why then you must be an irrational, judgemental idiot.
Sacrificing Children
I understand in a way what the government are trying to do because it’s the kind of idea I would have suggested when I was an unaware, ill-informed 14 year old. They want to discourage future families from relying on benefits and having more children than they can afford. And I agree with this to an extent, people should definitely have less children, mainly because it is better for the environment and there are already too many twats walking around. But what I wouldn’t have considered at the age of 14 and what these nobbers are not considering at a rather more mature age is that families who currently have many children and need these benefits will really suffer. I have a little rule and it goes as follows: if a person thinks what I thought when I was 14 and I no longer think it then that person is a fucking idiot. What’s worse is that these idiots don’t even know if it will discourage people in the future. And what if a couple choose to have a large family because they can afford it, then they lose their source of income meaning they have to rely on benefits? They will be punished that’s what will happen. They will be punished and so will their children even if it was not their fault that they lost their jobs. Many feel that the amount a family can receive on benefits should not be open-ended. But it should be open-ended. The price of children should be open-ended. The price of compassion should be open-ended. Taking all this into consideration is it worth punishing so many innocent children for a seemingly unknown outcome? Of course it fucking isn’t! But unfortunately many twats feel it is. These people would never walk away from Omelas.
