The OP raises an interesting point but it is difficult to dissect the issue into real terms. At first glance this looks like an absurd amount of money for a family to receive, but as usual the tangle is political spinning rather than fact.
The Church has recognized a de facto bill of rights that are “based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity.” These rights are drawn from the many social encyclicals that have been written in the last 120 years, and are summarized and listed in paragraph 301 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
(I have only included the ones relevant to the welfare state of those unemployed ot unable to work. These are part of a much wider set of teachings on people, wages and living conditions etc.)
They are:
The right to appropriate subsidies necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families.
The right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents.
The right to social security connected with maternity.
The Catholic Social teaching is the right for a family to subsist with dignity --the Church advocates that a family/person have the money to eat, live and afford basic needs - healthcare, heat etc.
The issue in the UK is not as clear cut as it looks – this amount quoted sounds obscene but the reality is actually a little different: The issue is over the cost of housing – which should not be attacked through the people who need this money to survive but the landlords who traditionally charge more to the government than to someone renting privately.
The reason the Bishops in the UK defeated this bill in the Lords was based on the real impact on punishing the families and children for something they can not control – rent costs. This needs to be handled in a different way.
This bill is targeted for those FAMILIES who have totals including all benefits above this value --but if you examine the real figures the picture is a lot different … the actual issue is with landlords and what they charge the governments for homes for those people.
The best way to look at is by the average family of 2 parents and 3 children (where the majority of people would have been affected. This could be not just those unemployed but adults on disability (certainly not something they can control) or those working but unable to reach a living wage as well. It would punish those who are trying to work and those who simply can not work. In the average family case the REAL money they live on is less than 10,000GBP. With the potential for CHILD TAX CREDIT of an additional 8000GBP.
The rest of the headline figure never reaches the families direct and let’s be honest for 17,000GBP in LONDON rents no one is living in a mansion. But even breaking it down demonstrates that the issue isn’t with the direct benefits but the landlords charges – and the government does not regulate this and should.
If the limit was placed then this hypothetical family would be living on 8,000GBP per year - to pay bills -heat, water, clothes, food, etc. and lets not forget that people can not stay on jobseekers forever --only in the past few years has this been amended so you can feasibly only receive this for 16weeks, and then it could drop to pretty much nothing.
On this debate i think the OP would need to examine what is right and “just” to expect someone to support a family on and not assume that it is simply people being lazy, as the bill was aimed and the disabled, the low income households as well.
Those are my thoughts anyway … i think the Bishops and other groups were right to stop this bill --it punishes those who aren’t well off, and would have still enabled those people better off (and not on low incomes or benefits) to claim the CHILD TAX BENEFIT and CHILD BENEFIT --hardly appropriate at all.
