[Closed] Benefit cuts

"Whilst texting on her brand new iPhone."

Good thing she didn't use the product of a company who took advantage of illegal help to avoid £11 million in tax then, eh? That would be terrible.

The Labour Party created an unsustainable welfare burden which has and will take many years to resolve.

Not really. But anyway, this is related to benefits - a rel small part of the overall welfare budget that is dominated by pensions - not overall welfare. [The more rabid Tories also link this to benefit abuse which is an even smaller sub-section of a small part of the issue - the blue equivalent of fox hunting!!]

Strip away the headlines and the froth and this comes down to what is the best way to deal with poverty and the social and economic challenges that come with it. For many across the political spectrum, work is the best way out of poverty. So what are the next steps? This is where it becomes more complex especially the question of whether benefits are an incentive or a disincentive to work and therefore an obstacle to alleviating poverty. The Tories and others believe that they are and that they are a blunt and over-used sticking plaster that prevents real progress being made towards tackling the underlying issues. I have some sympathy with that view. To pacify their more rabid members, they also like to link this incorrectly to overall UK finances and the track record of the last Labour government. That is bllx.

Any transition from the current over-reliance on band aid policies that have not addressed long term trends in poverty will involve winners and losers and is far from easy. Hence, politicians prefer not to tackle the issue and to rely instead on the band aids. And we know who are the losers there.....

In an ideal world, we'd all follow the law. If only there was a system where you could appoint people to get a hold of all this stuff.

Shh; Jamba and THM are about to have an argument! 😀

Bugger; all I can find are some stale old Jacob's Cream Crackers...

What needs to happen, is quicker/more reliable way to weed out those taking advantage of the system.

Yes, but that is nowhere near as important as taking care of those in need.

A total cap of £1540 outside of London, I'm sorry, but that's a decent income these days.

Yes but read thestabiliser's post on the other page. They don't just give you £1540. They cover your rent then give you £385/week, up to a max of £1540.

£385/week isn't a lot for five people, is it?

then when we got to "complicated form" I was out.

So anyone who's not bright can rot, their families can be broken up and their kids can go into care? Does that sound fair and reasonable?

Some astonishing levels of ****ing ignorance and callousness on this thread. The funny thing is that if they had friends or people they cared about struggling, they'd jump in to help. But because they don't WANT to care about these people they don't know, they are able to justify washing their hands.

Not good.

No Molgrips the £385 INCLUDES housing benefit.

Clod, the sun is not over the yard arm yet.

So where's the difference in the Guardians tactic to whip up a whirlwind of left wing frothing offence at Steve from Birkinheads situation vs. the Daily Mail's tactic of whipping up a storm of right wing xenophobic abuse at the situation of 'Keith from Bradford who's job has just been taken by a lower paid immigrant'?

It's just newspapers doing their thing trying to outdo eachother in order to sell more papers, and to hell with the truth, and portraying a completely distorted view of the world and drive their own political agenda's. Some might call it propaganda. Steve from Birkinhead's situation probably has nothing to do with the governments benefits policy. It's impossible to tell from that drivel they're passing off as journalism. More information needed about Steve to make an informed decision about his circumstances and the hand government policy might have had. Steve might be a lazy layabout who had 4 kids to bump himself up the council housing waiting list or get more money from benefits (most of us don't get a payrise if we decide to have more kids), or he may be a hard working unlucky person, a victim of life and being held back by government policy. Who knows?

^ what Molgrips said.

Welcome to New Olde England:

Homeless people are actually wealthy scammers

Benefits claimants are really lying scroungers

Disability benefit claimants are bare-faced shirkers brimming with health

Cyclists are actually aggressive and entitled road hogs who don't pay road tax.

Immigrants is a secret word for barely human 40 year-old rapist men pretending to be teenagers because they are too cowardly to fight 'for their own'.

It's a good job that the tabloids couldn't possibly profit from such mean-spirited crock, eh?

"Who knows?"

Not you, obviously.

You think the Guardian's motivation and methodology is the same as the Daily Mails? Hmmmmmm.....

You must be one of these intellectuals I've heard so much about....

Its a good job we've had enough of experts in this country

So anyone who's not bright can rot, their families can be broken up and their kids can go into care? Does that sound fair and reasonable?

From reading the article the changes were announced in July and it is now November. In a situation where you have no commitments on your time other than feeding your kids and taking them to school, I would have imagined that a motivated individual, using their resourcefulness and any available support should be able to conquer a form in the 3-4 months given.

£385/week isn't a lot for five people, is it?

Myself and my wife both work, we live in London, after the mortgage, childcare, savings etc we have nowhere near £385 a week to keep us and our 2 kids alive. It's £55 a day, that's a crazy amount to be spending everyday.

teamhurtmore - Member

There isn't. Hence NW comes along to mix up different ideas.

Pop quiz- when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) all of the above
Doesn't seem to be me that's confusing things.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go and look at the total welfare budget.
Then look at the proportion of that that is for benefits.
Then look at how much of that benefit budget is for people "in work".
Then go and look at how many people in the UK are unemployed.
Then go and look at how many job vacancies there are in the UK.

Those who are so quick to see the unemployed as such a big drain on society either aren't very good at maths or simply haven't bothered to do the maths because it doesn't fit their world view.

The Government is not targeting the poor because they have to, they are targeting them because we allow them to.

Ok my previous post was bollocks - apologies I got confused and £385 per week is indeed plenty - I was thining £385 per month.

But as pointed out that's including rent anyway so point still stands. If you aren't fiddling the system you get very little to live on.

So where's the difference in the Guardians tactic to whip up a whirlwind of left wing frothing offence at Steve from Birkinheads situation vs. the Daily Mail's tactic of whipping up a storm of right wing xenophobic abuse at the situation of 'Keith from Bradford who's job has just been taken by a lower paid immigrant'?

Because the Guardian are trying to make things better through its paper. The Mail is just trying to sell papers.

More information needed about Steve

Is it? If Steve is on the make, then what's the consequence? Some money is wasted. If Steve is telling the truth, what are the consequences? He's on the street, his family is broken up and his kids are in care.

Which is worse?

I would have imagined that a motivated individual, using their resourcefulness and any available support should be able to conquer a form in the 3-4 months given.

Ok, but what if you're depressed, not resourceful and don't know where the support is?

Is it right that this person and his kids should suffer? REALLY? You're seriously saying that depressed people deserve all they get?

Bring back the workhouse. If the poor are confined with each other in crappy conditions, maybe they will stop breeding & get off their arses to better themselves.

clodhopper - Member

"I think I might be another struggling to feel for the guy."

It's called 'lacking empathy, compassion, understanding and insight'. You're not the only one to suffer thus.

I don't think it's that. My Wife was a single Mum before we met, working part-time, studying full time at Uni and claiming a small amount of benefits to make ends meet. We only managed to break from benefits 5 years ago when my Wife qualified and got her first job.

We both work very hard for our modest lifestyle, my Wife earns less than the benefit cap, spends her days caring for the sick and dying then we pay half her take-home out in childcare. We don’t moan, we made the decision to have children, knowing the costs and sacrifices needed.

I've been made redundant twice, with 2 kids to provide for, rent to pay, bills to pay. I've been too broke to pay for food and bills so had to choose, we got through it. A took a job, pretty much any job to keep our heads above water and rebuilt our lives from there.

We're both from 'broken homes' my Wife used to play "hide from the Bailiff" with her sisters when she was little, when I grew up we didn't have a TV for a couple of years, we didn't have a telephone in our house until I was 16.

But we got through it, by working hard, by not giving up – yes I know it’s tough out there, but really, on a global scale, is it? We’re the world’s 7th biggest economy, there are endless opportunities for people to get ahead, find work, improve your lot in life – I know a lot of people who cry “I’d lose money working” “There’s nothing out there” “wah wah wah – it’s not my fault” and sadly, in each real world, people I really know well case, they’re lying. They’re lazy, they’ve allowed themselves to blame others – they abuse the system and have built a lifestyle around benefits – they have no intention of working, no real intension.

The guy in the story can’t be arse to fill out a poxy form, because it’s “really complicated” and it seems would rather lose his home and children because of a COMPLICATED FORM.

The guy in the story can’t be arse to fill out a poxy form, because it’s “really complicated” and it seems would rather lose his home and children because of a COMPLICATED FORM.

You missed the part where the form only covers him for a few months.

And so what if he struggles with forms? If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

They’re lazy, they’ve allowed themselves to blame others – they abuse the system and have built a lifestyle around benefits – they have no intention of working, no real intension.

That really sounds like Steve doesn't it?

Because the Guardian are trying to make things better through its paper. The Mail is just trying to sell papers.

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Or perhaps they're both just trying to make money for their owners?

"I don't think it's that"

I'm pretty sure it is. Nothing you've said would convince me otherwise.

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Right. But that's demonstrably false.

Lets see NW?

So the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

increase incentives to work;
introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

Source: UK Government

You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the issue with a wider context. As the BBC summarised neatly at the time

The benefits cap is a limit on the amount paid to individuals.
The welfare cap is a limit on benefits spending overall

Different things - but a good illustration of why informed debate on this issue is normally impossible.

[s]Pop quiz[/s] sensible question - when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) none of the above

Right. But that's demonstrably false.

Is it?

And so what if he struggles with forms? If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

I don't wish to fuel this argument further really but I mean, if a form is really what is holding Steve between life and death then surely there must be someone, anyone he can approach to help him out?

I feel like just walking into a job centre, booking an appointment then explaining you need help filling out a form would get you the help you needed there.

Rent in Birkinhead for a 3 bed council house is approx £433 pcm, or £100 per week.

Edit: The LHA (local housing allowance, the amount a housing benefit claim would usually pay up to) for the area is £125.68 per week, or £544.18 per month.

oldtalent - Member

Bring back the workhouse. If the poor are confined with each other in crappy conditions, maybe they will stop breeding & get off their arses to better themselves.

Brace yourselves folks. Iain Duncan Smith is on his lunch break and up for a spot of liberal-trolling 😀

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Some people could probably do with walking a mile in other people's shoes as a form of education. It might make making offhand uneducated comments a little more difficult.

Is he in a council house?

Edt: Yes he is

If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

Did the opinion piece writer help Steve? Did he give him a lift down the CAB to get some help with the form?

Or did he just want to sell his 500 words?

if a form is really what is holding Steve between life and death then surely there must be someone, anyone he can approach to help him out?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

surely there must be someone

Surely? Why surely? You're saying Steve wants to be in this position? Or is depressed and fearful because he's simply lazy and can't be bothered?

Did the opinion piece writer help Steve? Did he give him a lift down the CAB to get some help with the form?

Or did he just want to sell his 500 words?

We don't know, so why are you asking? Are you trying to divert focus from Steve's problems? Are you trying to justify ignoring it?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

surely there must be someone

Not had much contact with the reality of our wonderful, inclusive modern society then?

Not had much contact with the reality of modern society then?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

So why does everyone keep talking about the form?

Did the form have reason to commit the crime? The form wanted out, but you kept dragging the form back in. The form did what the form had to do. The form put and end to it all. And it would of gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids.

Sociopathtrackworld?

I'm assuming that Steve is an Audi-driving IT manager with a log burner, a 5K bike and a coffee bean subscription. I don't have any sympathy either. In fact he shouldn't even be entitled to benefits! This is outrageous!

We don't know, so why are you asking? Are you trying to divert focus from Steve's problems? Are you trying to justify ignoring it?

Personally, I can't help Steve. His depression seems to be holding him back from helping himself - which given the information in this thread and the limited info in the article it seems he could do if only somebody could point him in the right direction.

It's an opinion piece in the Guardian. Of course I'm going to ignore it, same as I ignore opinion pieces in all the newspapers.

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

Great. So get it filled in then.
It might buy enough time to solve the problems. But if he doesn't try it'll do bugger all.

"Great. So get it filled in then."

Great. You offering to help him with it then?

So get it filled in then.

I think he needs some help.

Of course I'm going to ignore it

So that you can ignore Steve and his kids?

teamhurtmore - Member

Lets see NW?

So the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

increase incentives to work;
introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

Source: UK Government

You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the issue with a wider context. As the BBC summarised neatly at the time

The benefits cap is a limit on the amount paid to individuals.
The welfare cap is a limit on benefits spending overall

Different things - but a good illustration of why informed debate on this issue is normally impossible.

Pop quiz sensible question - when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) none of the above

Oh a BBC summary, that's resolved that then! All I've got is the Conservative Party Manifesto, but that's obviously way less persuasive 🙄

Our deficit reduction plan has two phases. The first will see us continue to reduce government spending by one per cent each year in real terms for the first two full financial years of the next Parliament, the same rate as
over the last five years. That means saving £1 a year in every £100 that government spends
We don’t think there’s a business that couldn’t do that – and we don’t
think government, when it is spending your money, should be any different.
That will require a further £30 billion in fiscal consolidation over the next two years, on top of the £120 billion that we have already identified and
delivered over this Parliament. We will find £13 billion from departmental savings, the same rate of reduction as in this Parliament. We will find £12 billion from welfare savings, on top of the £21 billion of savings
delivered in this Parliament

The benefit cap is part of the £12bn.

Anything else?

"Can any of you Tories defend this?"

Well, clearly some are giving it a go. 🙄

Great. You offering to help him with it then?

EDIT
Also, having been in the benefits system myself, I'm fairly sure they'd point you in the right direction or offer assistance when you go to sign on.

No NW but thank you for proving that you are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the benefit cap - and its aims - and the welfare cap. Easy to do mind....

To avoid confusion, the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

1. increase incentives to work;
2. introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
3. make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

In contrast lets see how Owen Smith approached the issue

He went on to say that the party is “”in favour of an overall reduction in the amount of money we spend on benefits in this country and in favour of limits on what individual families can draw down”. However he said that there needs to be a review of the party’s position to the cap in general.

This comes after yesterday at the TUC Congress Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s new leader, said the party were tabling amendments to the Welfare Bill that would remove the idea of the benefit cap.