Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
I have to say that this whole housing benefits thing stinks. We're talking about a cap on benefits that is equivalent to the average full-time salary before tax, and much of it is taken up by housing benefit. As much as I am in favour of a benefits system that gives people a half decent standard of living, I find it hard to justify a system that pays a family the average salary. It seems to me that there is little incentive for these people to get back to work (and I'm all too aware that many of these people are not going to walk into jobs that are in increasingly short supply) as they are likely to earn less than on benefits, and in all likelihood would have to move somewhere cheaper if they got back into work.
Yes, that's one of your resident left whingers speaking.
|
This is a genuine question as my comprehension isn't at its' finest today.
Am I reading this correctly Daniel, seems you are saying that housing benefits can be overly generous and can provide people a better quality of life than they could make through working as they remove the cost of housing as an 'issue', which in turn allows them to live in areas their earning potential wouldn't allow them to?
If I am we agree twice in two days, bet you feel dirty now
You're very right of course, the purpose of any welfare state should be a safety net to ensure a minimum standard and quality of life, nothing more and definitely nothing less.