MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Without looking at an equivalent control group it's hard to know how much is just to do with the changing economy and how much is down to the actual cap.
IMHO the benefits cap could never be a bad thing, benefits are there to provide support in times of difficulty not be a career choice!!
I'm earning about £1500 over the benefits cap as a Paramedic. A lot of my colleagues earn much less than the cap of £26000. How is that fair and an incentive to work. Some of the scumbags abusing our staff are actually "earning" a higher standard of living, but choose to piss it up the wall/into a vein/smoke and eat themselves to death.
Don't forget benefits are tax free. You would need to earn mid 30Ks to be left with 25k after tax and NI and pension contributions were taken off.
[img] 
[/img]
^What notlocal said.
HB is included in the amount paid, so the landlord gets his overpriced buy to let mortgage/rent payments paid while making profit from the state.
But then HB also pays the intrest element on your mortgage idf unemployed or unemployable.
The benefits cap amount is approx twice what i get paid per year for a 40hr week in two separate jobs, the funny thing is i could prob get disability allowance thrown at me due to a spinal injury and associated problems…..I think i may research a career change as having no work to go to will allow me to ride my bike and do stuff/exercise when i like which would only aid my health rather than come in from a days work and be so absolutely ****ed it's a struggle to lift my legs up the steps to my door.
Lets not turn this site into the Daily Mail.
The benefits cap is the maximum you can get in certain circumstances ie multiple dependants etc. Not the amount you automatically get. If you earn less than that and meet those criteria you will be getting benefits to top you up to at least that level anyway.
So, if a life on benefits is such a great career choice, why not not give it a shot? Pop back in a couple of years and let us know how it's working out for you.
No problem with a system that scrutinises the validity of someone's claim for state benefits. I have a massive problem with political spin used to justify rampant cuts to the poorest and most vulnerable people within our so called civilised society.
One question. How many of these people "forced" in to work due to the benefits cap are still claiming top ups due to poor wages or the availability of low hour contracts.
There is no evidence that the benefit cap "is working".
Only a Daily Mail reader would think that no one receiving benefit ever goes back to work.
[b][i]"There is insufficient information to establish the causal links between: the Benefit Cap; affected claimants engaging with employment support; and the likelihood of affected claimants entering work. We recommend that DWP conducts and publishes research into these causal links in 2014, in order to establish whether the Benefit Cap is achieving one of its key policy aims".[/i][/b]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/479/47909.htm#n131
47% of those affected by the benefit cap live in London. This has nothing to do with "a career choice" and everything to do with extremely high housing costs.
The benefit cap is unfair and immoral.
But it does serve the purpose of demonizing those who have become victims of a failed socioeconomic model, and the disastrous housing policies of successive governments, as is illustrated by the use of the term "scumbags" on this thread.
So expect it to stay in place as politicians continue to blame the victims for their own failures.
We'll that smoked Ernie out anyway - welcome back fella, we were worried!
What proportion of the people affected would have returned to work without a benefits cap?
🙂
I was raised in a council house, by a loving single parent Mother. She worked around my school hours and with family help. Our house was also clean and warm, and the kitchen was used to preparehhealthy nutritious meals for my sister and me.
The word scumbags was applied to those that prefer alcohol /tobacco/drug addiction to the harder choice of not existing in one's own faeces or urine and general life detritus.
Having to check the floor for needles and other biohazards before treating these "victims" may have hardened my attitude a tad.
The simplicity of sweeping generalisations is a beautiful thing.
But it does serve the purpose of demonizing those who have become victims of a failed socioeconomic model, and the disastrous housing policies of successive governments, as is illustrated by the use of the term "scumbags" on this thread.
+1
Sad to see people taken in by propaganda to direct hate against people on benefits.
The fact is that the vast majority of benefits go to pensioners and those that are in work but either underemployed or badly paid. The unemployed are quite a small proportion of the total bill.
The amount of people actually abusing the system is very small - you might not think so if you read the Daily Mail or listen to the government. Less than 1% is lost to fraud - which is significantly less than that lost to mistakes, or the amount of legitimate benefits that go unclaimed.
People apparently think this figure is around 25% because they believe all the crap they read in the 'newspapers'.
3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)[iv].4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100[v].
9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households.
People should really make a bit of effort to look at a few facts before furiously knee-jerking.
Ernie is right however.
One question. How many of these people "forced" in to work due to the benefits cap are still claiming top ups due to poor wages or the availability of low hour contracts.
Is not necessarily a bad thing, you are a lot more employable with a job than with no job and if your work record is old you need to prove yourself again. Plus most work, well paid or not is generally good for personal well being.
The benefit cap is unfair and immoral
When I was unemployed last year I got £77 every 2 weeks/week (I forget now) despite having paid in, with no breaks since I was 17. So for 25 years.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year. But hey, I guess I'm wrong. I guess they are entitled to it.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year.
Lucky for you that they can't then isn't it.
That figure is per household. And you're comparing Jobseeker's Allowance against Jobseeker's Allowance plus Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit and Carer's Allowance.
"Our reforms are creating an alternative to life on benefits and already we are seeing an increasing number of people changing their circumstances so they are no longer subject to the cap," said Lord Freud.
They really have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this claim.
See, told you I was wrong.
I'm with peter poddy here. Also the time was limited and I had no help with paying the mortgage whatsoever, really boiled my piss going to sign on, see the utter scummers who we're claiming.
[i]People should really make a bit of effort to look at a few facts before furiously knee-jerking. [/i]
Eh, the world is built on believing rather than knowing.
[i]When I was unemployed last year I got £77 every 2 weeks/week (I forget now) despite having paid in, with no breaks since I was 17. So for 25 years.
I think it's unfair and immoral that someone who's never paid a red cent in tax can claim £26k a year. But hey, I guess I'm wrong. I guess they are entitled to it. [/i]
Working OH I assume, as that would be just JSA.
See, told you I was wrong.
Apologies for bringing facts into the debate.
I'm with peter poddy here.
Knee-jerking based on factual errors you mean?
grum + 1
dailymail-esque comments minus a million.
What would cut the benefits bill the most is removing the reliance on working tax credits by 'encouraging" low wage employers to pay more. As it stands middle income and above earners are effectively subsidising the profits of these low wage businesses.
Rent control wouldn't be a bad idea either. Spending only 5p on building houses for every pound spent on housing benefit doesn't seem that clever either.
But hey, let's not worry about that, instead let's focus on tiny minority of "scumbags". We can scowl at them on the TV and bristle at the stories in the newspaper knowing that we are better than them and it could never happen to us
the funny thing is i could prob get disability allowance thrown at me due to a spinal injury and associated problems
Indeed you could it is not means tested and not related to employment.
Its an allowance because you are disabled
Today's figures show that 9% of those households had a family member in work by the end of 2013.
Does not say how many hours or whether it is an older child
I would also assume there was alarger % of high earners who fell into this trap during the recession who may bump the figure - I would also like to see a baseline as I agree that claiming this
Our reforms are creating an alternative to life on benefits and already we are seeing an increasing number of people changing their circumstances so they are no longer subject to the cap," said Lord Freud.
Is posturing and unproven
Welcome back ernie good contribution and they have been missed
Tax avoidance is the bigger problem.
Smoke and mirrors.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I can't blame anyone for doing it and don't see it as a problem. The tax system might be in need of root and branches overhaul which probably the real issue. People on benefits look to maximise the benefits they're entitled to, why would someone not exploit the tax rules to minimise their tax bill. Who's going to pay more tax than they have to? I got my bike on the c2w scheme to be more tax efficient rather than buying it with cash or interest free credit, therefore I'm avoiding tax.
The reality is that there are people who are turning down work to remain on benefits, either because they're better off, or just bone idle. I know that to be a fact thanks to an unpleasant person within my family. It's probably a small proportion of people on benefits, but let's not be so naive to say it doesn't go on so it's perfectly reasonable to take measures to deal with it. I don't really care if benefit caps get more people to work. its the fair and right thing to do anyway. I don't get a pay rise from my boss if we were to have another child, and neither do those working people who are earning less than some take home in benefits and also contribute to the tax system.
wobbliscott - MemberThe reality is that there are people who are turning down work to remain on benefits, either because they're better off, or just bone idle.
Of course there are! But until the day every benefit recipient is like this, punishing those who aren't abusing it because of those who are is wrong.
Can someone tell me what a family of 4 from an EU country is entitled to as soon as they step off the plane please.
@grum, I don't think @notlocal has been taken in by propaganda he's telling us what he sees first hand as a front line paramedic. I also thn you're being cute with statistics about benefits going to the elderly. Pensions are not a benefit. If you factor in the disability benefits and associated payments those over 65 are not the main recipients.
@zippy, I think what benefits they are entitled to "straight off the plane" is missing the point. It's the benefits they can claim within a few months whilst never havng had a job here in the UK.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I can't blame anyone for doing it and don't see it as a problem. Pointless loopholes should be closed.
The average loophole exploiter is swindling more than the average benefit swindler.
Neither is morally correct. Maybe legal, but shouldn't be.
jambalaya - MemberPensions are not a benefit.
Well, state pension is included in the government's benefits budget, and accounts for 47% of that budget- and for some reason it's the total budget that gets used every time someone wants us to think we spend too much on benefits. So...
The average loophole exploiter is swindling more than the average benefit swindler.
The average loophole exploiter is already contributing to society, the benefits scrounger does nothing but take from it.
The average loophole exploiter benefits far more from society than those in need of state help.
I was brought up on council estates/in social housing by parents on benefits.
I made a choice to listen at school, get a job, learn a trade, work hard, get promoted, start my own business, be good at what I do and graft hard - thus bringing in a constant flow of work, start another business, help Mrs STR set-up her business, in our 40's we are now pretty comfortable (certainly not rich) however - some weeks I'm working 7 days, some times have been hard, a lot of my work is away from home.
Nothing has been handed to me on a plate - becoming an electrician 25 years ago was done through a YTS apprenticeship - £35 per week (I was paying £25 board to live at home).
My second business employs a lad I've known for years - it pays minimum wage, but he knew that and was happy to take that (he asked me for the job) - the business wouldn't be viable at this stage paying much more. To deal with that, he gets off his arse and does something with the days he isn't in the shop. The area where I live hasn't got high unemployment, but still has a good number of scroungers who can't be arsed. A girl who is going to start doing the odd day for me has 4 different employers and looks after a young kid - she isn't worked to death, she just does what she needs to do.
I do empathise with people born into what must seem like impossible situations, but on the flipside, have no time for those that won't help themselves.
@grum, I don't think @notlocal has been taken in by propaganda he's telling us what he sees first hand as a front line paramedic.
Some of the scumbags abusing our staff are actually "earning" a higher standard of living, but choose to piss it up the wall/into a vein/smoke and eat themselves to death.
So how does he know all this? All he knows is the way they behave in encounters with paramedics - the rest of this is pure supposition/hearsay and sounds like it could come straight from a Daily Mail editorial.
I also thn you're being cute with statistics about benefits going to the elderly. Pensions are not a benefit. If you factor in the disability benefits and associated payments those over 65 are not the main recipients.
Re state pensions - they are part of the welfare system. They are paid to everyone regardless of whether they've worked a day in their lives or not. You can claim it's somehow different if you like, but it's not.
Do these 'scummers' people are moaning about suddenly become deserving once they reach pension age BTW?
'Being cute with statistics' = stating facts. But if they don't fit in with your prejudices you'll just discount them I suppose.
The average loophole exploiter is already contributing to society, the benefits scrounger does nothing but take from it.
Oh, that's OK then.
Rent control wouldn't be a bad idea either.
It's a crap idea. Once it's in, it never gets raised enough to make it worthwhile for landlords to maintain the buildings and it all goes to shit. Why should landlords pay for market failure?
NYC has a dwindling amount of rent control and it's one of the biggest middle class scams around - those who have rent controlled apartments either get subsidized to live in a s****ier part of town than they would be willing to pay for while everyone else commutes, or they illegally sublet and cream off a profit for nothing.
Can someone tell me what a family of 4 from an EU country is entitled to as soon as they step off the plane please.
I suppose "a hearty welcome" probably isn't the right answer.
Good news that 3,000 people are working rather than claiming benefits above all FOR THEM. Widely recognised that work is the best solution so churlish not to welcome that news. Ditto the fact that overall UN is likely to fall below (a still high) 7% this year and that the economic recovery is becoming more entrenched.
Whether that is an indirect result of the introduction off the benefits cap is another issue altogether, so Lord Freud is correct with the "encouraging" comment but perhaps not in his attempt to argue the causation. Lots of factors are likely to be involved.
Despite flaws in design, the benefit cap enjoys an unusually high level of public support if polls are to be believed and broad x-party consensus (with debates on the structure) So in that different context, then it would seem to be working.
Despite flaws in design, the benefit cap enjoys an unusually high level of public support if polls are to be believed and broad x-party consensus
Does anyone want to argue the case that no one believes what the Government tells them, particularity when it is written so colourfully through the media?
I suppose its Human nature to blame someone other than ourselves, for the problems that have been created in "society."
Rent control wouldn't be a bad idea either.It's a crap idea. Once it's in, it never gets raised enough to make it worthwhile for landlords to maintain the buildings and it all goes to shit. Why should landlords pay for market failure?
Rent controls were abolished in the 1950's. If you look at somewhere like Notting hill back then, it was a slum where the poor were housed, now the houses are bought by the wealthy for many millions.
So whether rent controls would encouraged landlords not to maintain buildings, the current situation of no controls has led the poor to be ejected, so either way they are screwed.
The poor or working poor have to live somewhere if they are to continue to service the needs of the economy as a source of cheapish labour, all we, and I mean the ones further up the ladder, are doing is cutting back on the support network that helps these people continue to do this, in our mean attitudes and collective rush to fill our pockets, be that as landlords ourselves(some of you are), or through cutting the benefits system.
If we cannot be responsible for each other, through all peaks and troughs, then there is no society.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I can't blame anyone for doing it and don't see it as a problem.
Why do you have a problem with benefit scroungers doing the same - both exploiting societies rules for personal gain?
.why would someone not exploit the tax rules to minimise their tax bill
They dont need the money and they have a moral conscience - not every person or company does this only the really selfish ones.
You think folk admire Ebay, amazon , starbucks etc for their noble actions? Non doms etc. We dont hear much about them because they set the agenda.
Who's going to pay more tax than they have to? I got my bike on the c2w scheme to be more tax efficient rather than buying it with cash or interest free credit, therefore I'm avoiding tax.
Its a bit pointless to compare you to folk who avoid millions by elaborate tax arrangements and trust funds and/or companies who avoid billions with an individual who has an ISA or does c2W.
I don't get a pay rise from my boss if we were to have another child, and neither do those working people who are earning less than some take home in benefits and also contribute to the tax system.
I think you need to avail yourself of the rules- eveyone is bette roff in work - the system is designed to achieve this - the net gain may be marginal [ less than a tenner ] but you are always better off in work.
Child benefit and working tax credits would both increase so they would both get a "rise" from the benefits system.
I doubt knowing the actual facts will change your opinion though.
They have another mouth to feed - would you rather the child suffered so you can feel better about the scroungers?
The average loophole exploiter is already contributing to society, the benefits scrounger does nothing but take from it.
Both are giving less than they should and taking more than they should.
Both exploit societies rules for their own personal gain
One gets demonised one is admired [ the ones who take the most]
I fail to see why tbh neither is good and I know which costs us the most.
the benefit cap enjoys an unusually high level of public support if polls are to be believed
So would the death penalty
Its like a number of our [s]citizens[/s] subjects are ****s ....you can decide which ones on this issue 😉
I can see why, considering the misrepresentation of life on benefits, why working folk are angry but they are other things that cost us much more that they are comfortable with.
they dislike poor exploiters and admire rich exploiters....its the Tory way.
Neither are admirable to me and both need tackling.
The likes of Ebay and Amazon choosing to pay tax in a tax efficient way is really the obligation they have to their shareholders. The problem is countries who set themselves up with low rates of tax in order to attract business to be based there - in a global economy this has a terrible net effect.
Despite flaws in design, the benefit cap enjoys an unusually high level of public support if polls are to be believed and broad x-party consensus (with debates on the structure) So in that different context, then it would seem to be working.
However, the price we have paid for this 'support' is very high. We have gone from a society which was sympathetic to the disabled and indifferent to the unemployed to one which is becoming increasingly hostile to both. This cannot be a good thing.
Yes some people exploit benefits, they always have and always will, but to label everyone on benefits as 'scum' stealing from the 'hard working masses' is a national disgrace.
I don't like the idea of 'benefits scroungers' any more than the next well-adjusted Daily Hate reader, but let's not loose sight of the bigger picture...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Beyond the headlines, the number of people abusing the benefits system is relatively small. So universal labels ("scum") etc, to the extent that they actually exist beyond sensational headlines, are clearly wrong. As it's the notion that we are a nation that is hostile to the disabled or the unemployed. Like the use of words like "scum" that idea does not hold up to scrutiny. The UK has an imperfect but still largely impressive system of looking after the needy of all sorts.
The Tories and labour both agree that the balance between rewards to working and support from benefits needs to be addressed but they disagree on the means. On the broad issue, they do have strong national support.
As it's the notion that we are a nation that is hostile to the disabled or the unemployed.
The problem is. like immigration, that the loud shouty voices [ of the far right but this is not a political point, is often heard the loudest.
Couple this. like the EU , where all the media stories are negative of scroungers rather than tales of honest hard working folk who have fallen in hard times and now need food banks to feed their families despite working for the last 25 years.
The UK has an imperfect but still largely impressive system of looking after the needy of all sorts.
Indeed we do and we should be proud of it rather than having a chancellor pointing out how much the EU spends on benefits v the world and presenting it like it is a bad thing.
As you note its a minority who abuse the system but the agenda is always about them and never about those who fall through the gaps and are in real hardship, loosing houses, unable to eat etc
The Tories and labour both agree that the balance between rewards to working and support from benefits needs to be addressed but they disagree on the means. On the broad issue, they do have strong national support.
Only because Labour and the Lib Dems have failed to challenge any of the nonsense pedalled by the Tories. The unemployed and disabled are being scapegoated for the drop in living standard of the middle classes and no one seems prepared to stand up to this.
We have tabloid papers, egged on my the Tory party, happy to peddle half truths about the massive benefit cost (ignoring the facts it's half pensions) and that we cannot afford it (when we obviously can). We have endless extreme examples given as 'typical' cases of excessive benefit payments.
From a purely budgetary standpoint, the cost of benefits and benefit fraud is far less than tax avoidance by the rich, yet one is never discussed and the other is a major issue which 'must' be addressed.
This is not about economics or fairness it's a ideological agenda about persecuting those who are least able to defend themselves.
As it's the notion that we are a nation that is hostile to the disabled or the unemployed.
Can't find it now but I seem to remember an opinion poll showing that we are becoming increasingly more so.
As JY says, yes by world standard we are great at looking after the disabled and unemployed - why are we constantly being told this is a bad thing rather than something to be proud of?
footflaps +1
Depressing to see so many people falling for it.
Can't find it now but I seem to remember an opinion poll showing that we are becoming increasingly more so.
http://www.scope.org.uk/news/attitudes-towards-disabled-people-survey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19048294
Can't find it now but I seem to remember an opinion poll showing that we are becoming increasingly more so.
Is that a general trend or one that's affected by recession? Or more specifically, will that same poll show us becoming less hostile as people (in general) are less hard up?
One of the finest pieces of graffiti I've seen:
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8246/8654976662_6f349fc6c8_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/8654976662/ ]Blame poor people[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/brf/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
Is that a general trend or one that's affected by recession? Or more specifically, will that same poll show us becoming less hostile as people (in general) are less hard up?
It's not rocket science:
There has been a significant drop in living standards in the UK since 2008. No shit, we had a financial crash.
However, from day 1, the coalition have been continually telling us, via the media and directly, that we have a massive unmanageable deficit all due to the unemployed and disabled living a life of riley, whilst the hard working families stay less well off BECAUSE of the deficit and therefore the unemployed / disabled.
Not a lot of mention of global economic conditions, reckless behaviour by the banks, oh no, that's nothing to do with it. Everything is wrong because the poor are stealing your money in benefit fraud!
rusty your second graphic makes my eyes hurt
mrs told me about a girl who lives near her surestart centre, she was confused by these people turning up everyday and asked why they came. "We come here to work to earn money to buy things"I do empathise with people born into what must seem like impossible situations, but on the flipside, have no time for those that won't help themselves.
"but my parents don't and we have things"
Girl was 9ish so still a way to go to learn about life, but how does someone who is 3rd or 4th generation benefits claimant with no concept of work help themselves? There's got to be some sort of outreach to them, not kicking all the ladders away and waiting for them to climb out of the pit themselves.
Grum haven't you got powder to shred*?
* pretty sure you don't shred powder but meh.
Girl was 9ish so still a way to go to learn about life, but how does someone who is 3rd or 4th generation benefits claimant with no concept of work help themselves?
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.
Having a day off today DONK - it's snowing really heavily so visibility is poor and I'm a bit knackered. Tomorrow should be grand though and I will be shredding mad pow with my gnarpoon again. 🙂
I'd like to stand behind junkyard and just say "yeah!" after every paragraph.
Footflaps.
You mention The Great Deficit Swindle. I can't remember the source of the quote, "The Tories, cutting the N out of cuts", but it has pinpoint accuracy.
To quote Joseph Goebbels:
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
yes by world standard we are great at looking after the disabled and unemployed - why are we constantly being told this is a bad thing rather than something to be proud of?
Are we? Confirmation bias, or perhaps a more selective choice of news source is required. I have yet to hear a politician say that we should not be proud of looking after the disabled and the unemployed. I have heard quite a few argue that we could do it better mind.
In the last few weeks, the much chastised IDS:
said people should stop “disapproving” of people on benefits, whom he terms “our fellow citizens”, and instead blame politicians for creating a failing welfare system that traps people on benefits.
Worth remembering that the big jump in housing benefit costs was due to a former "socialist" government ignoring all the expert advice and introducing local housing allowance.
The current bunch of Muppets are just making a pigs ear of trying to control it again.
sorry that was our guess....probably based on cobblers media reports. Does the point still stand tho? that some have no concept of work?Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families.
day off? sorry does not compute 🙂
said people should stop “disapproving” of people on benefits, whom he terms “our fellow citizens”, and instead blame politicians for creating a failing welfare system that traps people on benefits.
Confirmation bias, political rhetoric that doesn't match his actions.
former "socialist" government
Nothing socialist about nu labour.
was it not helped by private landlords [s]milking the state[/s] taking advantage of the market and putting up their prices and the previous previous government flogging a load of the council housing?Worth remembering that the big jump in housing benefit costs was due to a former "socialist" government
LOL you say confirmation bias whilst claiming you have never heard a politician say anything bad about benefits to the unemployed [ which is a straw man as that is not what the quote says anyway]
You have both used clumsy language tbh and I am sure you know what they meant - they always bash the system never praise it - you saying no politician does this?
Your broader point is also true generally everyone accepts they should exist the debate is about what the level is
EDIT: that IDS speech is somewhere between delusional - who he comapres himself/his mission with and quite good
the big jump in housing benefit costs was due to a former "socialist" government ignoring all the expert advice and introducing local housing allowance
It was introduced in 2008 and was designed to reduce HB costs.
To blame the "socialists" for HB is somewhat at odd with reality and just lets us know how right wing and blue tinted your glasses are
So whether rent controls would encouraged landlords not to maintain buildings, the current situation of no controls has led the poor to be ejected, so either way they are screwed.
Bit of a weird argument: A doesn't work but neither is B, so we should do A again.
I'd question the accuracy of the claimed 1% figure for benefit fraud. By it's very nature fraud is hard to detect. Someone might claim benefits by claiming to live alone while living with a partner earning a good wage. How will that be detected?
1% detected benefit fraud maybe.
http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/
Can I just make a prediction?
On looking into my crystal ball, I foresee that the utterly incompetent IDS's Universal Credit (and the caps, and benefits reforms generally) will rapidly dissolve into the biggest cluster-* that this country has ever seen. And theres been a good few.
It already appears to have become an utter shambles that, far from producing the savings predicted, will end up costing billions. This is what happens when you let ideology, rather than any actual evidence, dictate policy. IDS has been repeatedly exposed as peddling shameless disinformation to justify further cuts. The problem seems to be that he appears to actually believe the figures he's pulling out of the air
I suspect a lot of the shouty, finger-pointy stuff at benefits 'scum', sorry … 'claimants, is largely a cover to distract from this almighty * up!
The whole thing is going to end up as a completely unworkable farce, which will end up costing vast sums of money, while making the lives of millions of people imeasurably more miserable
This is what happens when you let ideology, rather than any actual evidence, dictate policy.
Well Binners it may get even worse! Ed Balls will not only broadly follow suit, he will also add pensions to the cap. These politicians must be cut from the same cloth! It's shocking isn't it and to think that so many folk fall for it?
The whole thing is going to end up as a completely unworkable farce,
End up???
Are we? Confirmation bias, or perhaps a more selective choice of news source is required.
What a stupid thing to say. The tabloid press is full of vile demonisation of people on benefits. I don't read them, but I see the headlines. Plus both the main parties make similar-sounding noises.
One cherry-picked quote from IDS doesn't prove anything.
Ed Balls will not only broadly follow suit, he will also add pensions to the cap.
If there's going to be a cap (which basically solves nothing) - why shouldn't it be applied to pensions too?
Well Binners it may get even worse! Ed Balls will not only broadly follow suit, he will also add pensions to the cap. These politicians must be cut from the same cloth! It's shocking isn't it and to think that so many folk fall for it?
Indeed. Thats a neo-liberal consensus for you. I'd blame Thatcher, but actually its mainly Blairs fault
You have proved the point Grum - the tabloid press. Exactly. If I was you I would ignore the headlines especially. The text is bad enough, but the headlines........
Of course one quote form IDS does not prove anything. But still waiting to see the quotes that show a politician who claims that we "should not be proud of looking after the disabled and the unemployed."
My choice of words was very precise.
It's all completely insane and economically unsound, concentrate on very expensive to implement changes to a system which will make an insignificant difference to the total costs of benefits, whilst offering absolutely no policies for encouraging growth.
What's more shameful is that all three parties are equally complicit in this failure of leadership.
Basically, blame the poor and hope the economy picks up in the meantime (of it's own accord) and then we can say 'told you so, it was the poor all along'.
But still waiting to see the quotes that show a politician who claims that we "should not be proud of looking after the disabled and the unemployed."
They're not that stupid, they set the sentiment and let the friendly tabloids to their dirty work.
Of course one quote form IDS does not prove anything. But still waiting to see the quotes that show a politician who claims that we "should not be proud of looking after the disabled and the unemployed."
Well I didn't specify politicians did I? Or specify that particular phrase. It's the general atmosphere deliberately created by the press and government.
You're straw-manning yet again.
Why should we ignore what the tabloid press is doing, especially when so many people believe it, and it then informs government policy? Because it doesn't suit the spurious point you are trying to argue?
'told you so, it was the poor all along'.
Source? There are serious politicians and commentators saying that, really? I must have missed those headlines that attribute the crisis directly to the poor.