Bishops vote down benefit cap

This week, the bishops in the house of Lords have voted down a benefits cap. This has caused some outcry, on both sides.

The problem is that the proposal was for a cap of £26,000, which would equate to a paid salary of £35,000. The bishops have voted to exclude child benefit, which raises the cap to £50,000 paid salary - roughly. Clearly the government thinks that a salary of £35,000 is plenty to live on, and £50,000 is more than anyone needs.

Noww there is a point there. there are some people on benefits who are abusing the system. There are those who obtain more in benfits than they need. On the other hand, a significant portion of this money goes on rent, so the claimants do not see it. There are good arguments both ways.

But it stikes me that, if the government thinks that £50,000 is plenty to live on, they should be introducing a cap on executive salaries. If people can live on £50,000, surely a cap of £500,000 on executive salaries. Why sould anyone need more than that? But somehow I can't see it.

The real issue is that it is not about how much people can live on, it is about cutting costs. And it is about cutting costs on the least well off. This is not about being political, but if capping income is a valid and good thing to do, then it is a valid and good thing to do for everyone.