 workplace could cause danger to yourself or others.)

I realise you are concerned by the Government's proposal to place a cap of £26,000 on the amount of benefits that a workless household can receive but I believe that the cap has been set at an appropriate level. It is right to include Child Benefit in the cap disappointed by the decision in the House of Lords to exempt Child Benefit (sic). This is because the cap would be set so high that it would become meaningless as well as undermining the key principles of fairness that our welfare system is based on.

There has to be a limit on the amount of money benefit claimants can receive and Minimsters believe that the limit is currently set at a fair rate of £26,000, which it is worth noting, is the equivalent to someone earning £35,000 before tax. This is a salary that many working families would be happy to receive and underlines the point that hard working people should not pay their taxes in order to support people who refuse to work.

(The benefit cap has received much of the media attention over the WRB, in spite of affecting far fewer households than other provisions of the Bill. Those it does affect mostly live in central London, with the bulk of the benefit concerned being paid to rapacious landlords. The figures quoted are not comparing like with like: another example of Government misdirection. This excellent post by Declan Gaffney explains in detail. And "people who refuse to work"? Again, the government pushes its "scrounger" rhetoric. Over half the households which will be affected by the benefits cap contain at least one disabled member. And in the current economic climate, to be jobless most certainly doesn't mean you "refuse" to work!)

With regard to the under occupation of social housing, I believe that when there are 250,000 social housing tenants living in overcrowded accommodation and over 5 million people on social housing waiting lists, it is unacceptable for the Government to subsidise people to live in accommodation that is too big for their actual needs. Many ordinary people are not in a financial position to be able to afford to have a spare room. There is also a fundamental misallocation of resources in that there are over 1 million spre rooms that are paid for by the taxpayer.

(Wow. If only there was more social housing. If only some Government hadn't sold it all off and banned councils from using the proceeds to build more social housing. Uh, what
workplace could cause danger to yourself or others .) 

 I realise you are concerned by the Government's marriage proposal to locate a cap of £ 26,000 on the amount of benefit that a workless family can receive but I believe that the cap has been arrange at an appropriate level. It is right to admit Child Benefit in the ceiling disappointed by the decisiveness in the House of Lords to exempt Child Benefit (sic). This is because the cap would be set so eminent that it would become meaningless as well as undermining the key principles of fairness that our social welfare system is based on. 

 There has to be a terminus ad quem on the amount of money benefit claimants can get and Minimsters believe that the terminus ad quem is currently fix at a fair rate of £ 26,000, which it is worth note, is the equivalent to someone earning £ 35,000 before tax. This is a salary that many working families would be happy to receive and underlines the point that hard working people should not pay their taxes in order to support people who refuse to exploit. 

 (The benefit cap has received much of the medium care over the WRB, in cattiness of affecting far fewer family than other commissariat of the Bill. Those it does affect mostly know in central London, with the bulk of the benefit concerned being paid to edacious landlords. The figures quoted are not comparing like with like: another case of Government mismanagement. This excellent post by Declan Gaffney explains in detail. And " people who refuse to shape "? Again, the government pushes its " scrounger " grandiosity. Over half the households which will be affected by the benefits cap check at least one disabled member. And in the current economic climate, to be idle most certainly doesn't mean you " refuse " to work !) 

 With respect to the under occupation of social housing, I think that when there are 250,000 social housing tenant living in overcrowded accommodation and over 5 million multitude on social housing wait lists, it is unacceptable for the Government to subsidise multitude to live in accommodation that is too big for their actual needs. Many average people are not in a financial side to be able to afford to have a spare room. There is also a fundamental misallocation of resources in that there be over 1 million spre rooms that are paid for by the taxpayer. 

 (Wow. If only there was more social housing. If only some politics hadn't sold it all off and banned council from using the proceeds to build more social housing. Uh, what
 wogkplace could cause dangtr to yourself or others.)

M realiae you afe concerned by the Governmeit's propowal to place a cap of £26,000 on the alount of bentfits that a workless household gan rzcxive but I beligve that the cap has been veg ct an appropriate level. It is right eo inclidf Child Benefij in uhe cap disappointed by the decision in tge Houst of Lords to exemlt Child Benefit (sic). This ls bfcause the cap woupd be set si hidy that it wojld become meaningless as well as undermining the key prineiples of fqienedv that our xelfarv system is based on.

Tvere hax to be a limib on vhe qmount of money benefmt claimants can recgive and Mhnnmsters believe that rhw limht iv cufeengly sxt zt a fwir rate of £26,000, shich it is worth noting, is tht ezlovalent to skmeone ewrning £35,000 before tax. This is a salary thau mang working families woule be happy to receive and undewlines the point that hard working people should tot pey thtiv gqxfs in order to support people who refuse to wjdk.

(Uhe benefit cap hcs received much ov yre media attevtion oved the WRB, in spite of affgcting far fewew hoiseholds than other provisiins of the Bpll. Rhose it does affeet mostly lire in ventrsl London, with the bulk of fhe benefit concernes being paid to rxpabiouv landlords. The figures qujted are iot cpmparine lile witr like: anohher cfample of Governmejt middhrection. Tjis excellent post by Declan Gahhney explains it dvtail. And "peopke who refuse to work"? Again, the gorernmevt pushes pts "scrouiger" rhetoris. Over half tvg households xhich wilj be affwcted bh the benefits vap contapn at oeast one disabled meoger. And in the ebrtwnt economic ckimxte, tl ue jofness most cestaivly coesn'g mean you "vefjse" yo work!)

With regard tm ths under occupation on social yousing, Y believe thay when there are 250,000 docian huusinb tgnants living in overcrowded acdommodatiln wnd over 5 mijliok pejple on soeial housing waiting lists, it is unaccepvable for the Governmenr to subsidise peopkt to live in eccommjdation tvat is too big for tyeir actual needs. Many ordinary people are nmt in a financial position to be able to afford to have a spare room. There is qlso a fundamental missllocdtnon of refourrer in that there sre over 1 million spre rooms thet are paig yor by the taxpayer.

(Wow. If onlu ghere was morg social housing. If only skme Govetnment hadn't sold it all off anc banned councils from uxing the procseds to bumld more social housong. Uh, what
workplace could cause danger to yourself or realise are concerned the Government's proposal £26,000 the amount of that a workless can receive but I believe that cap has been set at an appropriate level. It is right to include Benefit in the cap disappointed by the decision in the House of Lords exempt Benefit This because the cap would be set so high that it would become meaningless as well as the key principles of fairness that our welfare is based on. There to be a limit on amount money benefit can and believe that the is currently set at a fair rate of £26,000, which it is worth noting, is the equivalent someone earning tax. This a that working families would to receive and underlines the point people should not pay their taxes in order support people refuse to work. (The benefit cap received much of the media attention over the in spite of affecting far fewer households than other provisions of the Bill. Those it mostly live in central with the bulk the concerned paid rapacious landlords. figures quoted are not comparing like with like: another example of misdirection. This excellent post by Declan Gaffney explains in detail. who to work"? Again, government pushes its "scrounger" Over the households which will by benefits least disabled And in the current climate, to be jobless most doesn't mean you "refuse" the under occupation of social housing, I believe when there are 250,000 social housing tenants in overcrowded accommodation and over 5 million people on social housing waiting it is the Government to subsidise people to live in that is too big their actual needs. Many ordinary people are not in financial to be to afford to a spare room. is also a of resources that are spre rooms that are paid for the (Wow. If only there was social only some Government hadn't sold it all off and banned councils from using the proceeds more social housing. Uh,
 workplace could cause danger To yourself Or othErs.)

i reAlIse yOu arE concerned by thE goveRnment's proposal to place A cap oF £26,000 oN The aMOuNt of bEnefits THaT A WorKlEsS hoUsEHoLd can RecEive but i believe thAt tHe Cap has been seT At An appropriAte Level. It is rigHt tO incluDe chiLD BeneFit In the Cap disAPpointEd by the deCiSIon in tHE House oF lOrDs to Exempt Child BenefiT (SiC). this is because tHe cap wOuLD bE SEt sO hiGh that it woUlD becoME meaninGLeSS AS weLL as undermininG the key prinCIplEs of faIrNesS That ouR welfArE SysTem is based oN.

TheRe has to be A limit ON the amoUNt of monEy beneFit ClaImanTS cAn RecEiVE anD miNimSTerS believe ThAt The liMit iS CURRentLy sEt at A fair Rate of £26,000, which it Is wOrth NOtiNg, is tHe equIvalEnT to soMeone eArninG £35,000 bEfore tax. This is a SalaRy that manY woRkIng FaMilieS Would bE haPpy To receiVe and unDErlInES THe Point that hard workiNg PEOpLe should Not pay THeIr TAxes in orDeR to SuppORT peopLe whO ReFuse to woRk.

(The bENeFiT cap has ReCeived MuCh oF thE mediA AtteNtion oVer the WRb, in spITe of affecting fAR fewer househoLDs THAn OTher ProVisions of thE BilL. thosE it dOEs AffECt mosTly liVe IN cENtral London, with the bUlK of the BenefIt concerned beIng paid to rAPACious lanDlorDS. THE figures quoted Are noT comparing LIke with lIke: anOther exaMple of GovERNment misDirEctIon. thiS EXcEllent post by DECLan GAfFney expLaiNs in detAil. and "PeoPle WhO refuse to Work"? AgaiN, tHe GoVeRnmEnt puSHes its "scRoUngEr" RheToric. oVer halF the hOuseHoLdS WhiCh will bE AfFECted By ThE benEfiTs Cap coNtaiN At lEast one Disabled mEmbER. And In ThE currenT economic climAtE, to be jobleSs MosT certaINLy doesn't Mean you "refuse" to work!)

With REgard to The Under OccuPation of sOciAl housIng, i BelievE that wHen thErE arE 250,000 SOcial HOUsIng TeNants livinG IN ovErcroWdEd acCommodaTion and over 5 million PEopLe on social houSinG waiTINg LisTS, iT Is uNaCCepTABle for the GovernMent to subsIdISe People to liVE in AcCommodaTion thaT is toO Big for tHeir actuaL needs. ManY oRdinARY peOple are not In a finanCial positIOn to bE AbLe to aFfoRd to haVe A spAre roOm. TherE Is aLso a fUndameNtAl misaLlocaTiOn of resoUrces in that there are over 1 MillioN spre RooMs that are PaiD For By the taxpAyer.

(wow. If only tHerE waS more SocIAl houSing. iF oNly SOme GoVernMEnt hadn't sOLd It aLL OfF and banned cOUNCilS from UsiNG the prOceeDs to build more sociAL housing. Uh, what
 workplace could cause dan ger to you rself  or  ot he rs.) 

Irealise you ar e  con cerned by the Governme nt'spr o posa l  t o pla ce a ca p  o f £26 ,0 00  on  t h eamoun t o f benef its that a  wo rk less househo l dcan receiv e b ut I believe  th at the  c aph as be enset a t an a p propri ate level .I t is r i ght toi n cl udeChild Benefit int he cap disappoint ed byth e  d e c isi onin the Hou se  of L o rds toe xe m p t  Ch i ld Benefit (s ic). This i s  be causeth e c a p woul d bese t  so  high thatit w ould beco me mea n ingless as well  as un der min ingt he  k eypr i nci p le s o f  fa irness t ha tour w elfa r e s yste m i s ba sed o n.

There has  to  bea  li mit o n the  amo un t ofmoneybenef it  claimants canrece ive and M ini ms ter sbelie v e that  th e l imit is  curren t lyse t a ta fair rate of £26 ,0 0 0 ,which it  is wo r th  n o ting, is  t heequi v a lentto s o me one earn ing £3 5 ,0 00  before  t ax. Th is  is  asalar y  tha t many  working  fami l ies would be h a ppy to receiv e  a n d  u n derl ine s the point  tha t  har d wo r ki ngp eople  shou ld no t  pay their taxes in  o rder t o sup port people w ho refuset o work.

( Theb en e fit cap has re ceive d much oft he media  atte ntion ov er the WR B ,  in spit e o f a ffe cti n g  f ar fewer hous e h olds  t han oth erprovisi ons  of  th e B il l. Thoseit doesaf fe ct  m ost ly li v e in cen tr alLo ndo n, wi t h thebulkof t he  b e nef it conc e rn e d  bei ng  p aidtora pacio us l a ndl ords. T he figure s q u oted  a re  not co mparing likewi th like: a no the r exam p l e of Gov ernment misdirection. T h is exce lle nt po st b y DeclanGaf fney e xpl a ins in  detai l. An d"pe o p le wh o re fus eto work"?A g ain , the  g over nment p ushes its "scroung e r"rhetoric. Ove r h alft h ehou s eh o lds  w h ich w ill be affected  by the be ne f it s cap cont a inat  leastone dis abled member.  And in t he curren tecon o m icclimate, t o be job less most certa i nl y doe sn' t mean  y ou"refu se" to wor k!)
With r eg ard to  theun der occu pation of social housin g, I b eliev e t hat whenthe r e a re 250,00 0 so cial housi ngten antsliv i ng in  ove r cr owd e d acc ommo d ation and ov er5 mi llion peopl e o n s ocial  ho u sing w aiti ng lists, it is u n acceptable for  the G ove rnm e nt t osubsidise peop leto l ive in a cc ommodationthat isto o  bigfor th eir ac tual ne e d s. Many o rdin ary  people a reno t  in a f in an c ial po siti on  to be  ablet o af f o rd to have a spa re ro o m . The r e i s als oa funda m enta l misalloc ation of re source s in  that  therear e over  1mi llion spre rooms tha t are  paid f or  bythe  taxpa yer. (Wow.  Ifon lythere was m or e  s oc i alhous ing.If  onl y some Go v ernmenthad n 't sold  i t a l l  off a n db a nned counc ils  from u sing the p r ocee d st o bui ld mor e soci al hous i ng.  U h, what 
 workplace_could cause_danger to yourself or_others.)

I realise_you_are concerned_by_the Government's proposal_to place a_cap of £26,000 on_the amount of_benefits_that a workless household can receive but I believe that the cap has been_set_at an_appropriate_level._It is right to include_Child Benefit in the cap_disappointed by_the decision in the House of Lords to_exempt_Child Benefit (sic)._This is because the cap would be set so_high that it would become meaningless_as well as_undermining_the_key principles of fairness_that our welfare system is based_on.

There has to be a limit_on the amount of money benefit claimants_can receive and Minimsters believe that_the limit is currently set_at a_fair rate of £26,000, which_it is worth_noting, is_the equivalent to_someone earning £35,000 before tax. This_is a salary_that many working families would be_happy_to receive and_underlines_the_point that_hard working people_should_not pay_their_taxes in order to support people_who_refuse to work.

(The benefit cap has received_much of the media_attention_over the WRB, in_spite of affecting far fewer_households than other provisions of the_Bill. Those_it does_affect mostly live in central London, with the bulk of the_benefit concerned being paid to rapacious_landlords. The figures quoted_are not_comparing_like with like:_another_example of_Government misdirection. This excellent post by Declan_Gaffney explains_in detail. And "people who refuse_to work"? Again, the_government_pushes its "scrounger" rhetoric. Over half_the households which will be affected_by the benefits cap contain_at_least_one disabled member. And in_the current economic climate, to be_jobless most certainly_doesn't mean you "refuse" to work!)

With regard_to_the under occupation of social housing,_I_believe that when there are 250,000_social_housing_tenants living in overcrowded accommodation_and over 5 million people on_social housing waiting lists, it is unacceptable for the_Government to subsidise_people to live in accommodation_that_is_too big for their actual needs. Many ordinary people are_not in_a financial position_to be able to afford to have a spare room._There is also a fundamental misallocation of_resources in that there are over 1 million spre rooms that_are paid for by the taxpayer.

(Wow. If only_there was more social housing. If only_some Government hadn't sold_it_all off and banned councils from using_the_proceeds_to_build more social_housing. Uh, what