[Closed] Benefit cuts

Banning Google in the UK would bring the country to a standstill!

A start would be to stop awarding government contracts to companies who employ aggressive tax avoidance schemes. It seems uniquely perverse to be giving over huge wads of taxpayers money to companies who pay no tax.

But they won't do this, as what has been pointed out countless times already, its far easier to target the poor, as they can be demonised to the point where no hardship they have to endure could ever be deemed unjust

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/22/i-am-daniel-blake-millions-like-me-jack-monroe-ken-loach ]This is worth a read for the 'we have a generous benefits system' mob[/url]

[i]“As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.”[/i]

Good post binners.

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

And I hope the last comment doesn't refer to me, I've been an activist for disability benefits rights, unemployment rights, workfare and bedrooms tax since it was made clear to me the way this regime was headed around 2011.
Im an IWW member. I support Black Triangle.
Because, even though none of the above affect me personally, There for the grace of God go I.
And even if one of the offensive t*ats off here were to suffer a downfall in fortune , ill be fighting your corner

The biggest issue of benefit cuts is the collateral damage of those who truly need it..e.g. collateral damage costs to the NHS bills due to ill health or collateral damage in the form of suicide etc.

It's absolutely *ucked up if one can justify this at the same time as accepting the lack of effort to tackle huge corporations avoiding tax, massive payouts to chief execs who haven't performed well but shareholders are protection their own interest etc.

No surprise though, those making these decisions and upholding the status quo are benefiting fron the unequal system ...

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

Well, I've spent four years looking after my autistic daughter as a single parent

It was [u]bloody hard work[/u]

However

Housing association flat
rent paid
council tax paid
£121 /week Child tax credits
£62 /week carers allowance
£45.60 /week IS
£307 /month DLA
£82.80 /month Child Ben

Which we were pretty comfortable with, and [u]yes, I thought it was generous.[/u] Thank you very much everyone for funding it, it was important for both me and her, and I think we made some real progress, and it really wasn't all plain sailing (and, for the record, social services are a bunch of incompetent bastards)

@nifan...so you're in favour of benefits ...good to hear..

So you're now advocating the slashing of the benefits that you yourself have enjoyed, to potential future claimants?

How very 'Boomer' of you.

Ninfan do you think you were entitled to all that?

And I hope the last comment doesn't refer to me

No, not specifically, just to some of the callousness displayed in general. I accept what you're trying to say regarding turning to crime. Speaking as somebody who grew up in a relatively poverty stricken area those I knew who turned to crime were morally bankrupt long before benefits came in to play. That's for a different thread though.

Most of the folk who I know who are on benefits to any degree hate the fact that they are failing to support themselves and / or their families. Maybe I am naive, but I'd like to think that's the case for the majority and it's, like everything else, only the minority that makes interesting (inflammatory) reading.

Of course ninfin was entitled, he was bringing up a future contributant to society, with some particular challenges.
All parents should receive help to raise our future tax payers, artists, musicians, carers ...

@nifan...so you're in favour of benefits ...good to hear..

Since when have I not been? I dont think anyone is against benefits for people who need them, its the ones who don't need them but choose them thats the problem

So you're now advocating the slashing of the benefits that you yourself have enjoyed, to potential future claimants?

Where have I advocated the 'slashing' of benefits to anyone? However I'm fully supportive of a robust system that limits benefits to those in need and prevents people malingering

Ninfan do you think you were entitled to all that?

Hmm, 'entitled' is a strange word - I certainly fulfilled all the statutory requirements for those benefits and received the amount I was supposed to, however I have paid 'in' to the system for years when working and I am very happy that the system was there as a safety net for me when I, and my daughter, needed it... I think I would say that I don't feel people who have contributed or are not contributing anything to society in some form should expect to get 'something for nothing' - but, for example, in addition to looking after my daughter I did some part time work, did a shed load of voluntary for a cycling charity and some other community work. If however I had sat on my arse all day watching Jeremy Kyle, then I think I would have been taking the piss out of the taxpayer.

Ninfan; my very rough calculations suggest you were getting something like £490 a week in benefits excluding housing/CT. Which strikes me as a reasonable amount for someone looking after a child with a disability; I have no idea, it may be nowhere near enough.

This benefits cap is one of the most savage, heartless and ideologically bankrupt policies I've seen in a long time. The current situation is rapidly worsening, and we will only see a much more severe decline in our society now.

Some commentators cry 'but where will the money come from', and 'if you haven't got it, you can't spend it'. Well, MPs recently voted to spend £200+ billion on a useless outdated nuclear missile system. It's funny how they can find the money to spend on lining the pockets of arms manufacturers, whilst being happy to literally let people starve.

[img] :large[/img]

I think I would say that I don't feel people who have contributed or are not contributing anything to society in some form should expect to get 'something for nothing'

So you really would kick people out on the streets?

However I'm fully supportive of a robust system that limits benefits to those in need and prevents people malingering

So does almost everyone. The problem is that people focus on the malingerers, and those in genuine need suffer. This is wrong. And so far it has been an insoluble problem, at least for those whose job it has been.

But given that some fraud is inevitable - it is better to jut pay for the fraud to ensure that the genuinely needy are helped than to let them suffer.

Ninfan would be excluded from the BenCap.

Facts people, facts.

The benefits cap would see you getting less than that,

No, it wouldn't, as it doesn't apply to families with anyone in receipt of DLA or carers allowance.

essentially, it doesn't apply to anyone who [u]cant[/u] work, but only to those who [u]could[/u] work but aren't, I cant really say thats unreasonable - though I would express concern that there are some areas where there are a clear shortage of jobs, but I'm unsure if the cap ceases to apply if you are doing work/training that has been arranged for you.

So you really would kick people out on the streets?

on the proviso that if 'bloke' turned up to the job centre looking for 16 hours work and could be guaranteed that he would be found something (work/training/picking up litter) in order to exempt him from the cap, then yes.

So does almost everyone. The problem is that people focus on the malingerers, and those in genuine need suffer. This is wrong. And so far it has been an insoluble problem, at least for those whose job it has been.

But given that some fraud is inevitable - it is better to jut pay for the fraud to ensure that the genuinely needy are helped than to let them suffer.

Really? Its better to let people sit on their arses than contribute to society? I fully agree that those in genuine need shouldn't suffer in the process, but I cant support an approach of "ah, well, its too difficult, so we'll just let them get away with it" as that undermines the system for everyone else, both those that deserve it, and those who pay for it.

but only to those who could work but aren't

What about those who want to work but no-one will employ?

After all, even if there are vacancies, not every employer will want to give them to every seeker...

What about those who want to work but no-one will employ?

well if there wasnt readily available work, then surely immigration wouldn't be so high....;-)

"Ninfan would be excluded from the BenCap.

Facts people, facts."

Apologies. My mistake there. It shows just how out of touch somebody in my extremely privileged situation is; I have very little current knowledge of the benefits system, which appears very complicated. However, the point still stands that the cap is incredibly nasty and will be socially destructive.

Ninfan had the choice not to receive the benefits if he thought them too 'generous'.

"essentially, it doesn't apply to anyone who cant work, but only to those who could work but aren't, I cant really say thats unreasonable"

It also appears to apply to those who [i]are[/i] working but not earning enough to live on. In fact, a massive amount of people in the UK. I'd say what is 'unreasonable', is that the taxpayers are subsidising cheap labour for many companies making sizeable profits.

And then there's the quite frankly obscene system of assessment for benefits, which is fundamentally not fit for purpose.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/coroners-ground-breaking-verdict-suicide-was-triggered-by-fit-for-work-test/

And a massive chunk of benefits payments goes on rent to private landlords, an amount which is increasing exponentially. And then we're back to more tory vote-winning bribery...

However, the point still stands that the cap is incredibly nasty and will be socially destructive.

Whats laughable about it too, not that its funny, is that just like the bedroom tax, due to the laws of unintended (or un-thought through) consequences, it won't actually end up saving any money either.

Its being driven purely by ideology, not finances.

"Its being driven purely by ideology, not finances."

This is the indefensible part of it. It's being implemented by people who have absolutely no idea of what life is like for millions of people, who simply want to create more wealth for themselves and their friends, and increase their hold on power. Against the advice of countless people with in depth knowledge of the situation, legal experts etc. And undoubtedly, as we've seen before, there will be legal challenges to bureaucratic decisions, which will again add to public expense.

But those in power now will have long feathered their own nests by the time it comes for them to be held to account.

It also appears to apply to those who are working but not earning enough to live on.

My understanding is that the cap doesn't apply to anyone who works enough [u]hours[/u] to claim WTC. however I think this changes to the equivalent of 16 hrs week at minimum wage under universal credit.

its being driven purely by ideology,

If that ideology is to get people who [u]can[/u] work to work and contribute towards their own upkeep, is that really a bad thing?

I emphasise the importance of the word [u]can[/u]

I'd say what is 'unreasonable', is that the taxpayers are subsidising cheap labour for many companies making sizeable profits.

And a massive chunk of benefits payments goes on rent to private landlords, an amount which is increasing exponentially.

These are the things that are most ridiculous to me. It looks to me like the real recipients of many of these benefits are landlords and employers.

You can't look at this in isolation either. You have to look at other policies. So at the same time they are reducing benefits, they are forcing housing associations and councils to sell off their social housing.

Anyone capable of counting to ten can do the maths on this. Selling off already scarce social housing into the private sector, will only increase the housing benefit bill. But as this particular enormous chunk of taxpayers money goes straight into the pockets of BTL landlords, this is fine.

The benefit system is being changed not to save money, but to fundamentally alter where this money ends up. They're cutting out the middle man (the claimant) and putting it directly into the pockets of private landlords.

The benefit cap will mean that once the claimant has paid their housing costs, they can not afford heating of food or anything else. They exist at a just-about-subsistence level. But that doesn't matter because the landlord has his regular big wedge of taxpayers money, so the world keeps turning just fine. Maybe he could expand his property portfolio further with all this former social housing thats about to come onto the market?

"If that ideology is to get people who can work to work and contribute towards their own upkeep, is that really a bad thing?"

The ideology has nothing to do with getting people into work. Nothing. If that was indeed the tory plan, they'd be investing in training and supporting British industry and services, not running them into the ground and selling off the assets to the highest bidder. No, it's nothing to do with getting people into work. It's all to do with creating a weak, docile, subservient labour force who will do what they are told, because they are too fearful of the consequences of dissent.

putting it directly into the pockets of private landlords.

Who then hand it to the banks, who hand it to the pension funds, who then hand it to the pensioners, who then spend it in the economy, which then pays the taxes, which they...

Can I just float this out there
JRF figures from around 2014 put unemployment under employment and finicially inactive at a true figure of around 6.5 million, while job vacancies where in the region of 500000.
Now of those 500000 jobs, people in work with shit jobs or on zero hour contracts and such are also in competition with the six and half million unemployed.
Does anybody here remember my analogy of the ten dogs and one bone?

clodhopper - Member
"Ninfan would be excluded from the BenCap.
Facts people, facts."

Apologies. My mistake there. It shows just how out of touch somebody in my extremely privileged situation is; I have very little current knowledge of the benefits system, which appears very complicated. However, the point still stands that the cap is incredibly nasty and will be socially destructive.

Fair play to your self awareness but a lack of knowledge does rather undermine a commentator.

bearnecessities - Member
"The system" is a constant state of reform.

This is a genuine obstacle of increasing impact in recent years. Govts don't know what a good long term solution is so implement one change after another for whatever reason of varying credibility. It's a constant battle of competing tensions and reading this thread I'd say there's clear consensus to the core principle of benefits for those in need and a reduction in unnecessary benefits. The difficult bit is how to achieve that and what level of negative collateral impact is acceptable in doing so. One of the root issues and solutions is aspiration but addressing a reduction that's been cultivated over years takes time and the focus is too often on a short term politically beneficial win.

As an aside, our tax system isn't perfect but by comparison to others it's administered and policed better than most. The legislation that is exploited for avoidance is being slowly tightened but the potential 'savings' means there will always be plenty willing to reward those who can exploit the legislation to gain unintended advantage.

putting it directly into the pockets of private landlords.

Who then hand it to the banks, who hand it to the pension funds, who then hand it to the pensioners, who then spend it in the economy, which then pays the taxes, which they...

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/landlord-tory-mp-philip-davies-law-requiring-homes-be-fit-for-human-habitation-unnecessary-a6696931.html ]Ah... I get it now. So being a private landlord receiving huge state handouts direct from the taxpayer is actually an altruistic gesture?[/url]

JRF figures from around 2014 put unemployment under employment and finicially inactive at a true figure of around 6.5 million

the six and half million unemployed.

Wait a minute. Careful with those figures there.

Financially inactive includes people who don't want or need to work, doesn't it? Like for example stay at home spouses? Also rich people?

And why is this notion that folk are sitting at home on benefits "contributing nothing to society" seem prevalent?
I'd suggest like the benefit fraud figure of 0.7%,that the figure "contributing nothing to society" is also miniscule.

Yep, you're absolutely right, Mol, and i also understand it includes the million or so currently under benefit sanctions receiving no income

Surely to have a figure for fraud, they first have to, you know, catch and count those commiting fraud first?

And this study has been done, and the figure was an astonishing 0.7 percent, Plyphon

million or so currently under benefit sanctions receiving no income

This is just getting silly now!

Here's my story about my contact with the benefits system. And how I learnt how it works. Or doesn't work.

I had my own business for years. Built it up over about 6 years of bloody hard work, with my partner. I'd worked since leaving school at 16, paying tax all my life. Never had any contact with the benefits system.

Then the financial 2007/2008 shitstorm/meltdown happened and the economy basically stopped.

In an unbelievably short space of time, customers folded like dominoes, owing serious money, contracts pulled, jobs cancelled. Life got very hard, and very scary, very very quickly. I took on a lot of personal debt to try and keep the business going, but when our biggest client folded, owing us serious money, we admitted defeat.

I looked for jobs, but there were none. Not even freelance. And who wants to employ someone who's been their own boss for years. No-one. Thats who.

So at the age of 40, I walk into a benefits office for the first time in my life. I'm asked a series of questions about my situation. Very quickly I receive an answer regarding my entitlement....

Nothing. Not a penny.

Somewhat incredulously I ask why.

"Because you're still listed as a company director at companies house. As far as we're concerned you are 'employed', thus not entitled to any benefits"

"But my business has folded. i've got no income, 2 kids, a mortgage, bills to pay"

"Not our problem"

And that was that.

The main concern was making sure I didn't appear on any statistics. There was no concern as to my welfare, or that of my kids. This just wasn't on the radar. Not the issue.

At that time I knew 4 other people in exactly the same position, who'd been told the same thing.

I won't bore you with the details of losing everything, the breakdown, the dark days of depression, sinking deeper into debt just to pay bills, the never-ending stress, the anxiety, the dependency, the nights spent contemplating suicide... because who wants to hear that, right?

No I won't bore you with any of that.

I rebuilt my life with the help of some brilliant people (you know who you are), and a woman who stuck with me, even when I wouldn't have stuck with me. i was an absolute *ing mess. Because thats what it does to you. It destroys you! It takes away everything. Dissolves you from the inside. Shreds your self-esteem. Fills you with a constant sense of dread.

Its taken a lot of time to come out of the other side, and become the annoyingly cocky, cynical but happy bastard I was before. And its changed my outlook on everything. For the better. I'm a better person. A lot better. i used to be like some of you. Well... actually probably nowhere near that bad.

So before you condemn so readily. These people who you label as scroungers, who you are devoid of empathy for, these burdens on the state, are actually real people! And they are probably going through the most cataclysmic event of their lives. Where all the previous certainties are gone in an instant

And if you think that it can't happen to you....

Think again!

And the only thing that will save you is the kindness and compassion of others.

There is such a thing as society.

So we need to acknowledge that, and change this vile, toxic, corrosive narrative that allows the most desperate and needy to be demonised so that kindness and compassion towards them is considered a weakness

Thats actually quite upset me, typing this. Things got very, very dark. I nearly wasn't here. I blank it out. Try to put it all behind me, and pretend it didn't happen. But it did. And it scars you!

have some *ing humanity! And some humility! Acknowledge how lucky you are! And acknowledge that others aren't!

Well said Binners and sorry to hear your went through that. That's the bottom line, these are people we are talking about, people who are most likely at the lowest point they will ever find themselves at.

I'd be interested to hear what you feel when you see things like this then Binners:

Oh do **** off with your pathetic 'Benefits Street' poverty porn!!

You can dig around and find anything to justify whatever makes you feel better. If thats what makes you feel better.

Its easy in this day and age of social media, and 24 hour telly, for the hard of thinking to use simplistic things, to stop themselves having to think about complex issues, to justify their own lack of humanity.

If you think that's representative of the kind of people who are about to get hit with these latest cuts, then that tells us more about you than anything else. You realise these people are just trotted out, and given airtime, so that the state can then justify its cruel, degrading and dehumanising behaviour towards the genuinely needy, who are all but invisible to the rest of society, so who's voices go unheard

binners +1
ninfan - what do you feel when you see things like that?

So that person is indicative of every person claiming benefits?

Two valid lines above:

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

Binners: Its being driven purely by ideology, not finances.

I agree with Binners that this (benefit cap) is driven by ideology, not finances. But because it is also surrounded by misinformation, genuine emotion, complexities etc, we end up with mol's conclusion and the emotive debates ^

Ideology: There is a broad agreement among charities, politicians, economists etc that work represents the best route out of poverty and the social and economic harm that goes with it. Common ideology here. Among the many issues that surround the answers is the debate around whether benefits represent a disincentive/obstacle to work - much debate - and whether they are fair - again considerable debate. So by no means an easy answer. But what we so know is that the LT increase in benefits has not been a solution to the underlying problems

Finance - glad this is cleared up. Of course, capping benefits results in saving but they are irrelevant (<£0.1bn) in the context of the Tories plans to reduce the level of welfare spending from it current trends by over £12bn (n.b its not a £12bn cut in absolute terms BTW). So we can park the finance issue in NW's side tray.

Benefit caps in isolation are not the solution. Depending on your own ideology, they may or may not represent a disincentive to work and therefore be a bad thing. But equally the government's "stated" aims are perfectly sensible in terms of reforming them. But then we get to the crux of the issue. The numbers involved are small in the grander scheme of things - the IFS estimates 100,000 households. But, and it is a big but, the impact on this households is large especially for those with several children and high rents. Not difficult to find specific case studies as The Guardian has illustrated where real hardship is involved.

So what do you do? Any policy has winners and losers. In this case, the losers are small in number but they are hit badly. Equally, without reform and other measures, they will be condemned to never escaping poverty which is in no one's interests. So its a tough balance. Benefits are a band aid that treat the solution not the cause. They "may" even make it worse. But reform is always constrained as mol notes for the simple reason that there will always be losers. Hence the situation gets worse over time not better.

Where is Jeremy Bentham when you need him?

As an aside, it is total bllx to go on about an evil society that does nothing. Pre-taxes and benefits the income of the top 20% is 14x larger than the bottom 5%. Post taxes and benefits, this gap is reduced to 4x. So we have a progressive system that works albeit far from perfectly. So while the Dail Wail benefits headlines are bllx, so too is the idea that nothing is done about it.

Got a source for that last stat? Genuine question, as it surprised me.

If you think that's representative of the kind of people who are about to get hit with these latest cuts, then that tells us more about you than anything else. You realise these people are just trotted out, and given airtime, so that the state can then justify its cruel, degrading and dehumanising behaviour towards the genuinely needy, who are all but invisible to the rest of society, so who's voices go unheard

You *ing idiot!

You may want to tell Beveridge that he was a *ing idiot as well:

[i](ii) Men and women who have been unemployed for a certain period should be required as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training centre, such attendance being designed both as a means of preventing habituation to idleness and as a means of improving capacity for earning. Incidentally, though this is an altogether minor reason for the proposal, such a condition is the most effective way of unmasking the relatively few persons who may be suspected of malingering, who have perhaps some concealed means of earning which they are combining with an appearance of unemploy­ment. The period after which attendance should be required need not be the same at all times or for all persons. It might be extended in times of high unemployment and reduced in times of good employ­ment; six months for adults would perhaps be a reasonable average period of benefit without conditions. But for young persons who have not yet the habit of continuous work the period should be shorter; for boys and girls there should ideally be no unconditional benefit at all; their enforced abstention from work should be made an occasion of further training.[/i]