I am pretty sure no-one here has the inclination or the time to go through the nickels and dimes of the dodgy calculations; it's all a distraction from the basic question; should we as a community do our best to eradicate childhood poverty?I would quote from Henry Tapper's conclusion:'To generate the dramatic figures they use, they have found a way of avoiding the overall benefit cap by making someone severely disabled. By doing so, they have not only done that but made the out of work income even higher and the comparison even more invidious.Otherwise, this family would have seen their benefit capped at £22,020 a year, £1,835 a month.This family, that they have used to compare with the financial resources of a healthy couple, can now be seen to have a member who is not merely severely disabled in need of care but also in receipt of the highest level of help with their mobility needs. They have three children and are paying rent of almost £1,000 a month.It doesn’t seem fair to leave the comparison at that. What would the situation be if the working couple were in the same position? PIP, remember, is a benefit that can be received by working people; it’s not a benefit for people who can’t work.In a surprise, no doubt to the readers of the Telegraph, whose over 3.500 comments on this article are largely united in attacking the generosity of the benefits system, these hardworking people would also qualify for help from the benefits system, despite their earnings.Their situation, with three children, rent and disability support makes a very different comparison.In exactly the same circumstances, apart from having earnings, they will get help from the benefits system worth almost £2,700 a month or over £32,000 a year. They benefit from work by over £16,000 a year so the £18,000 implied disincentive of in the article looks rather different.Are we going to see a new headline…“Working families £16k better off than benefit claimants after Budget”He finishes with this summary, 'The, much more than misleading, figures given in the ‘research’ and enlarged in the article are a sad indictment of a political assault masquerading as accurate reporting.No doubt, it will have achieved its aim as the message that the benefits system is too generous and workers are punished will be repeated, again by those who believe what they are told and the perpetrators go unchallenged, in the main.Perhaps, this piece will enlighten a few of those.I would finish by saying Steve was urging the BBC to get on the first plane to Washington to give the Donald a cheque of between 1 and 5 billion dollars of our money. Needless to say, any penny pinching he tries to justify in order to deny children the very basics, should be seen in this light.Pay the powerful, deny those in need! Great stuff, indeed.
Gerry Boyce ● 20d