[Closed] Benefit cuts

4 school age kids gets him £250 a month in child benefit which would buy their food .I voted Tory when I spent 7 years as a single parent on income support.

many people on benefits also do not make life decisions with the cool and rational intelligence of a successful IT manager

Not just people on benefits. I'm a complete **** up when it comes to doing anyything life-related. I've cost myself an ungodly sum of money by simply not filling in the right forms and trying to solve problems in stupid ways.

The ONLY reason I'm not in Steve's position is that by pure fluke I was born with an aptitude for certain tasks that are in demand into a family that allowed them to be nurtured.

It's not because I deserve it, or because I worked for it. It's just fluke.

I'll admit it, I'm completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

clodhopper - Member
"compulsory vasectomies "
AKA Enforced Sterilisation. Hmm, the Nazis were big fans of such inhumanity...

It's incredible that you'd claim that the manifesto is talking about a "different issue".

No its perfectly credible, those are the facts

It says in black and white (as I quoted earlier) that the £12bn of welfare cuts are part of their deficit reduction plan.

It does. Correct (we can leave the fact that this plan envisages spending more than the government earns to a greater degree than most other developed nations to another austerity debate)

And the benefit cap which we're discussing here is part of that £12bn cut.

No its not - its another initiative altogether - I have copied the Government's aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

Very simple facts.

Indeed they are, which is why I am surprised that an educated person like cannot understand them.

Since you can't dispute this, all you can do is misrepresent the facts, try to ignore them, or admit you're wrong- or lying. The clock is ticking...

I'll admit it, I'm completely lost now.

Best do some work instead.

Now you're getting it...

😀 😀

teamhurtmore - Member

No its not - its another initiative altogether - I have copied the Government's aim for you twice. Hopefully a third time is unnecessary.

It caterorically is part of the manifesto's £12bn welfare cut to reduce the deficit, and you've said nothing which contradicts this- no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"This government was elected with a mandate to implement further savings from the £220bn welfare budget. We will reduce the benefit cap, and have made clear that we believe we need to make significant savings from other working-age benefits. We will set out in detail all the steps we will take to bring about savings totalling £12bn a year in next month's Budget and at the spending review in the autumn."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390

But hey, it's only George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party manifesto that say so. What do they know about George Osborne, Iain Duncan-Smith and the Conservative Party's policies?

The failure of some in understanding the plight of others really is quite disappointing. Yes, the problems faced by Steve and similar may well look surmountable when you look at them with the same social and cultural capital which allows you to participate in a debate in a mountain biking forum. But it ignores the fact that Steve's in ability to extract himself from his situation is really a question of structure and agency. Before you dismiss or criticise someone else like this you need drive a mile in their Audi

^^ what he said.

And also that helpless people are very much caught in the crossfire.

No its not. There will be saving by introducing a cap for sure but that is a side benefit and not a significant one. If the Tories really believe that putting a cap on benefits is an integral part of deficit reduction then we are all doomed. Check your own link - £12bn cuts in the budget and how much will a cap save????

We know what the government's aim are - they publish them and I quoted them. There is a different initiative that focused on the role of benefits which has three clear aims. They cannot be clearer, however much you would like to ignore them.

And this should be the core of the debate instead of the normal claptrap. Benefits have failed here and across the developed world. They are a blunt tool that has been over-used. Among all the crap that IDS used to come out with (and still does) this was one area where he was making some sense. Work not benefits are the LT solution. But the former takes effort which governments prefer to shun. When they do, they should be encouraged, otherwise we condemn those at the bottom of the heap to a dismal future indeed.

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need.

Because of you believe the anecdotal shite that you read in the Daily Mail , and the government spew out, of an easily accessible life down the pub, the bookies, and watching Sky Sports on big tellies, then you're in for one hell of a rude awakening!

But then that kind of thing never happens to fine, upstanding, and deserving ... oh so very very deserving. .. Masters of the Universe - who owe absolutely nothing to simple good fortune, or priveledge of birth - like you, does it? So who cares? It happens purely to bone idle scrounging layabouts.

They deserve what they've got coming to them

So **** em, eh?

😯 have a pint binners and take 10 - thats an awful lot of stereotypes for one post 😀

Well with so many people going the extra mile to conform to them....

Actually - you must be in a bit of a fix, because ex Jezza the Labour Party have been largely in support of the benefit cap 😉

Not so much in a fix, as in total despair 😥

Cheer up you've got the Champions League to watch tonight - ooops, sorry wrong Manchester! 😉

Yunki I understand your list of needy cases. We spend £130bn pa on Welfare. That seems more than enough to support the most vulnerable, then the next most vulnerable .. the issue is where does that stop or is it an infinite budget ... which brings me onto;

Most of us understand a budget, we want a bike, we have X,
we spend X. The problem with Government spending and welfare is that you set rules and payment amounts without ever really knowing what the cost is. What Labour did was a classic example. They created and expanded various benefit payments at an estimated cost of Y (affordable they said) except reality has proven very different (calc wrong, environment different). Something had to change.

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

I hope that none of the preachy sanctimonious, cold-hearted bastards on this thread ever find themselves coming into contact with the benefits system in a moment of genuine need

I hope they do...

We can pay everyone a bit less, we can pay some less, we can stop paying some.

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that's increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

Of £258bn welfare spending in 14/15, £108bn was on pensions. Given that's increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

EDIT: Sod it.

jambalaya - Member

Or we can just keep finding more money from somewhere

ninfan - Member 

Why, is there something wrong with the Magic Money Tree?

Here's a thought, it's a very odd one, but it could work........

Raise income tax?

Benefits are an insurance.
An insurance that stops more in Steve's situations from knicking your bikes. And cars. And breaking in to your house. And mugging your grandma.
Think long and hard about what some of you wish for

I very much doubt that a man who seems to be so depressed that he can't fill in a form is going to find the energy to mug your Gran. Do you seriously view benefits as an insurance against crime? I can't believe the lack of empathy shown in this thread

Right to buy, 100% mortgages, no national house building programming, tax avoidance allowed on house purchase, have ****ed anyone under 40

EDIT: Sod it.

Bearnecessities, we appreciate your comments on this thread. One of STW's great assets is that we can get comments from people who actually know things.

So then....those STW'ers on here who post about struggling to find work ..do people think they're lazy ****less spongers? How about your friends who have been made redundant? Was it their fault? How about your friends kids who cannot find work after working hard at Uni?

For those who argue there are scroungers out there....I hope you include your friends and family in that category too because 'we're all in it together' remember...

Here's a thought, it's a very odd one, but it could work........

Raise income tax?

Why not just collect the tax that is due?

PAYE seems clear enough, just apply this to everyone. Even Jeremy Vine and Jimmy Carr.

Why not just collect the tax that is due?

Well, quite obviously they do attempt to do that.

But raising income tax would net more money than pursuing tax evaders I'm sure.

£108bn was on pensions. Given that's increased by 25% in 4 years, I think we should be addressing that first.

Pension costs should be zero. We should move to a totally funded scheme, ie everyone saves and it's compulsory (Singapore, Australia etc). Governments over the years (decades) have dodged this, the cost of converting state final salary pensions into defined contribution would be 15-25% increase in wage bill but at least it would be clear what the real costs are.

We have a generous welfare system, have a look in Asia, Latin America or even the USA

As for raising taxes people won't vote for that, even Labour know that so they say taxes won't be raised for you (our others) just others (ie the rich). I do wonder quite how many here would vote for French levels of tax inc VAT on food so that others could get better welfare. Also you can spend money far faster than you can raise it via taxation. It's the spending side which needs to be controlled.

Why not just collect the tax that is due?
PAYE seems clear enough, just apply this to everyone. Even Jeremy Vine and Jimmy Carr.

There is a lot of merit in this. Start with the BBC and make all payments PAYE. There is a huge amount of tax evasion in the media and entertainment industry. I wonder what Russell Brand's tax rate is on his £ millions per anum 10% ?

Ok, two anecdotal views.
I was briefly on job seekers in my 20s when I didn't know what I wanted to do and I'd cocked up another job.....it was humiliating but the £70/week put fuel in my car and allowed me to attend interviews until I was back in gainful employment.....and for me that's what it's about, a stop gap while you sort yourself out.

Now let's take my sister. She has a child, this helps massively by the way.....her flat is pretty much paid for, she contributes chicken feed rent from the 16hrs work she sometimes does as a carer.

She is at Uni, my other half can't afford Uni and I can't afford to do my masters....but guess what?....the good old state are funding my sis through Uni.

I drive a £900 Golf....she has a brand new Nissan Juke, just another perk of playing the single parent benefit system eh!?

She is also covered in thousands of pounds of tattoos and attends a bodybuilding gym several times a week, who pays for that?....that's not job seekers that's a lifestyle choice....add in the latest smart phone, cigs etc....it's not a bad life actually, bugger it I'm having a sprog and giving up work too!

I love her to bits, she's my family obviously....but she really is one of those mickey takers you see on sensationalist tv programs....and she's not unique that's the frightening thing, she has friends (parasites) in similar positions.

Anyway I'm out,

.

@jambayla...I bet if you had a disabled child you wouldn't be writing we have a 'generous Welfare system'.

@deviant..I know many people on benefits too. They can't afford a car or to eat properly. Not sure how your sister manages on just benefits to live the lifestyle she does. I suggest it's either because criminal activity is involved or she's getting money from outside of the state handout e.g. family, friends.

just going back to the original post.

surely the level of housing benefit available is a controlling factor on the rents being asked? adjust that level and the 'market' should adjust accordingly.

*awaits thread from BTL landlord complaining on lack of tenants who can afford the rent they need to pay the mortgage*

Edenvalleyboy...my parents are both retired social workers, if you are handy with the appropriate forms there seems to be no end of perks to being unemployed these days....my sister brings them her paperwork, they fill it out for her, hey-presto she's on easy street again.
I hate her for it because of my political views but if the system is that open to abuse why not help yourself!

I watched a depressing program years ago with John Prescott who naively believed everyone wanted to work and there was no such thing as a benefit scrounge....it was almost embarrassing for him when he followed a (19?) old girl around for a week trying to find her work.
She had no qualifications but wouldn't entertain a manual or 'dirty' job....being a cleaner was apparently beneath her, actually for once Prescott looked genuinely shocked, it took him away from his Westminster bubble and made him realise there are swathes of people like this up and down the country.

What happened to the girl? Who knows, she seemed to think she was entitled to an exec level job in the City....we're still probably paying for her now.

@deviant..Ok - so your sister does have inside help and knowledge. The average person doesn't have that knowledge or skill (many people I know haven't the skill to write the forms properly let alone wangle the system).

Worth noting - I know people are wangling the system but I do not believe it is as bad as suggested and there are far worse culprits in society e.g. tax evasion by multi nationals etc who can and should be paying in to our society. Politicians pick on the vulnerable instead of targeting the more powerful.

Question though (not directed at you @devinat). What's the difference in wangling the benefits system (for the minority who are) or tax avoidance? Both cost the system but one is deemed acceptable whilst the other is not...

We have a generous welfare system

Said the man who has never had any direct dealings with it ever, and never will, and who's going entirely off deliberately misleading anecdotal 'evidence'

You say its better than the US? What isn't? They don't have a welfare state. No doubt you'd also have us follow the example of their healthcare system too? Which, quite frankly, is a disgrace for any developed nation

So the system is full of loopholes. This is obvious.

But that should not mean we abandon those who genuinely need help. The system clearly needs reform, but those in genuine need must not be allowed to suffer.

"The system" is a constant state of reform.

Indeed.

What we need is effective intelligent reform. Which seems to be beyond the abilities of politicians.

Why not just collect the tax that is due?
PAYE seems clear enough, just apply this to everyone. Even Jeremy Vine and Jimmy Carr.

This. It's well beyond a joke now.

Apple, Google etc are all as bad and should have their products/services banned from the UK/EU until they start paying proper tax, that'd be my solution.
Take a huge market away from them and watch them cough up soon enough, bastards.