Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[Danthus]

MPs are to vote on controversial government plans to put a 1% cap on annual rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits until 2016.

Benefits have historically risen in line with the rate of inflation, and increased by more than 5% in 2012-3.

Labour, which opposes the cap, says it will result in a real-terms cut in support for millions of working people.

The coalition says public sector pay is capped at 1% and benefits should not be rising at a faster rate than wages.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said inaction would leave the UK "bankrupt", and that "like Greece and like Spain... we'll have huge borrowing costs".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the last Labour government had created an "outrageously messy system", which had to be reformed.

I support the cap, and hope that the coalition win the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20936833

 

[Gilly]

I do not support the cap, I think it's a stupid idea, the benefits that people that need them are getting aren't enough already.

Public sector wages are not a fair reflection on benefits given that public sector wages are astronomically high in comparison to private.

 

[JonJ678]

Increasing benefits in line with inflation seems a sensible thing to do. That said, the argument that benefits shouldn't be increasing faster than public sector pay is sound.

Perhaps public sector pay should be allowed to increase vaguely in line with inflation, large numbers of useless public sector staff should be fired (would like to say made redundant, but they're sort of already redundant), benefits actively reduced rather than passive-aggressively fixed below inflation.

edit: public sector wages >> private sector doesn't sound right, what industry do you have in mind?

 

[dunn2010]

I do not support the cap, I think it's a stupid idea, the benefits that people that need them are getting aren't enough already.

Public sector wages are not a fair reflection on benefits given that public sector wages are astronomically high in comparison to private.

+1

the rich get richer and the poor must just get by.

Iain Duncan Smith said inaction would leave the UK "bankrupt", and that "like Greece and like Spain...

Lol after all cuts and draw backs to pull country out of debt already we will still end up bankrupt because of not having this cap... yeah ok. almost as stupid as fergie saying that ball could have killed RVP

 

[Mitzy]

So this will save 1.9 billion by 2016, lets be honest, in real terms that's not awfully a lot. Instead of taking money away from people who need it and don't have any other option why doesn't the Government get tough on the multinationals and their tax avoidance schemes.

 

[robj20]

No one on benefits should be better off than someone on minimum wage. IMO they should be given vouchers for food and a bus pass so they cant go out buying new tvs and beer.

 

[elmarko]

I do not support the cap, I think it's a stupid idea, the benefits that people that need them are getting aren't enough already.

Public sector wages are not a fair reflection on benefits given that public sector wages are astronomically high in comparison to private.

Exactly my thoughts.

In addition if this includes disability it's pretty shameful to target the disabled for cuts when plenty of others are more capable of shouldering the burden.

I firmly believe "those with the strongest shoulders".

I'd happily take a small tax rise for my bracket to pay for the 1.9 billion if they want it that bad - better than going after the people on the lowest wages (who rely on top-ups) or people who are disabled.

 

[dunn2010]

No one on benefits should be better off than someone on minimum wage. IMO they should be given vouchers for food and a bus pass so they cant go out buying new tvs and beer.

Thats quite a large statement to make. not everyone on benefits are there out of choice. disability benefits for example. some people just arn't able to work and you think they should suffer a life of poverty because of this?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Unfortunately, it is necessary. The government have no choice but to paint with the gigantic welfare brush Labour left them; a giant, poorly targeted welfare brush which is far too lumbering and inefficient.

It's so bad that it simply isn't possible to do anything but slow down the increase for everyone, because the structural reforms needed to fix the mess are so big and would take too long (and of course, Tories will be too scared to do it).

 

[Gilly]

Increasing benefits in line with inflation seems a sensible thing to do. That said, the argument that benefits shouldn't be increasing faster than public sector pay is sound.

Way to sit on the fence

Perhaps public sector pay should be allowed to increase vaguely in line with inflation, large numbers of useless public sector staff should be fired (would like to say made redundant, but they're sort of already redundant), benefits actively reduced rather than passive-aggressively fixed below inflation.

Why should public sector pay move with inflation? That's not what happens in the private sector and they already get paid more than private sector workers for the same jobs and have dined out on inflated wages and annual pay increases regardless of performance for decades.

I agree that there are large numbers of unnecessary staff. There are, in fact, whole swathes of them.

edit: public sector wages >> private sector doesn't sound right, what industry do you have in mind?

All of them.

 

[horseunderwater]

Removing certain benifits OAPs get would achieve the same objective such as free tv liences the goverment is not sugesting that as an option?

 

[darkgen]

No one on benefits should be better off than someone on minimum wage. IMO they should be given vouchers for food and a bus pass so they cant go out buying new tvs and beer.

Effectively this. Benefits should be provided through a voucher system which has stricter controls and is less likely open to abuse (as exampled above, alcohol/tobacco etc).

 

[pingwing]

So this will save 1.9 billion by 2016, lets be honest, in real terms that's not awfully a lot. Instead of taking money away from people who need it and don't have any other option why doesn't the Government get tough on the multinationals and their tax avoidance schemes.

Yeah these Torys in government have a really balanced world view.

Wasn't it Vodafone that owes something close to the sum saved by doing this? Seems to me they should be the ones to target, not the poor... (milking a turnip and all that)

 

[Gilly]

Removing certain benifits OAPs get would achieve the same objective such as free tv liences the goverment is not sugesting that as an option?

You know, it is possible to work on your spelling and grammar rather than simply excusing it in your sig.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is either. You haven't said whether you agree or disagree with the point outlined in the OP. You have simply mentioned another random benefit. Shall we also discuss the winter fuel allowance?

 

[Rotty]

I think it needs to be looked at on a "per benefit" basis, some such as disability could still receive a small increase but most should be frozen, many workers are struggling badly at the moment and have not had a rise for several years so it's very hard to tell them that there taxes should go to pay for increases for others


Of course things get very difficult when trying to decide between the derserving and undeserving

 

[robj20]

Thats quite a large statement to make. not everyone on benefits are there out of choice. disability benefits for example. some people just arn't able to work and you think they should suffer a life of poverty because of this?

Half the people on disability can do some sort of job, they choose not to though. Guy in our street has been on it most of his life for some unknown reason, yet he can drive a car so why cant he be a taxi driver or delivery driver for a takeaway. Guy in a wheel chair can do something from home. The system that helps people get jobs is as much to blame though.

 

[elmarko]

Effectively this. Benefits should be provided through a voucher system which has stricter controls and is less likely open to abuse (as exampled above, alcohol/tobacco etc).

Voucher schemes just create black markets, not worth the effort - it's also expensive to manage effective eroding any saving made.

If they wanted to make a semi-reasonable mid-way they would suggest in line with the average private sector rise (around 3% odd on average).

1% is a meaningless arbitrary figure with no thought put into it, freezing it will just result in a pay-cut to the disabled, something I'd never agree with (as they are the least able to shoulder the loss).

Spend more on tackling tax evasion & close loopholes to tax avoidance - that would save more than the 1.9b.

The winter fuel allowance should be means tested, as should the free TV licence, I fail to see why low paid workers should be subsidising freebies for the well-off old - but that won't happen due to how many of them vote for a certain party in power.

As usual unenlightened self interest trumps common sense.

 

[Gilly]

Half the people on disability can do some sort of job, they choose not to though.

Can you prove this?

 

[Calabi]

If the private sector was left to its own devices, ie a totally free market then wages would decline to next to nothing. The public sector has to lead in that area and the government has to regulate to keep things above unsafe minimums.

I'm betting this wont really save any money due to overspill spends in other areas(homeless increase perhaps), and lack of taxation through spending.

 

[robj20]

Can you prove they cant?
I have just given you an example.

I just don't see why people on benefits should be able to have things like Sky TV and cars even go on holidays.