Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[Third Opinion]

edit: double post

 

[Morba]

I think you're confusing justifiable with unsustainable. When benefits increase faster than the salaries from which tax is drawn to fund them there is a serious issue.

Nope, not at all. I don't see why you think that I am confusing the two.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

RPI or CPI inflation means nothing to benefits, seeing as a lot of the costs in inflation measure are already covered via other means (eg housing) or not relevant anyway, such as airfares, petrol etc.

There should be a specific benefits price index, say the BPI. This should pick up basic foods, basic heating/cooking fuel, basic communications, and childrens clothing. Thats what benefits should be covering and thats what should be the basis on how they are calculated as to whether they need an increase or decrease year on year.

I am 100% opposed to means testing practically everything in this country it feeds more and more into the hands of the financially inept and those who do not plan for their own old age or short term lack of income. If you make everything means tested your better off spending every penny you earn and rely on someone else to pick up the pieces.

 

[elmarko]

Public sector wages should be done on a wage by wage basis, those which ourpaced the private sector frozen then unfrozen when the private sector catches up, but those which are behind should get pay rises & those who are significantly above should get pay cuts.

That would be a more reasonable approach to it.

For private sector the government has no control, but wage freezes in the public sector will directly impact economic growth, as shock horror - the money paid out in wages also happens to be the money that get's spent in the local economy.

I find it hilarious that you see the CEO's justifying pay cuts/freezes for the staff while simultaneously using reduced demand as a reason for it - blissfully ignorant of the basic economics involved.

Actual benefits (when no fraud is involved, in most cases) is already a pittance & I don't think it's worth the money saved - as if you put another 500,000 on the poverty line you will increase crime/poor health/social disruption & mental illness for this group which is likely to cost more in the long-run.

If we want to grow economically then strangulating the spending power of the population then freezing pay (via benefits or in the public or private sector) is a stupid thing to do.

I guess that's what happens when you have somebody in charge of the UK economy who has had no formal education in economics.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

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.

But then you run into the same old issue of, people becoming dependant on benefits, if there is little to incentive to get a job, they wont bother at all. Public sector wages have been frozen for the past 3-4 years. Well mine has

In my line of work I've seen thousands of people claiming benefits that are doing just fine, single parents pulling in well in excess of £1500/month through benefits, a figure they would never be able to attain through work, because they are not the sharpest tool in the box.

It's easy to see why one would choose that option as well. Go work in a shop for 50 hours a week for £1000/month, or have a child and get £1500/month untaxed.

Yes bringing up a child is hard work and stressful, but its also a damn sight more fun than working 50 hours a week and having nothing to show for it afterwards.

 

[Freefaller]

I personally believe that there should be a method of means-testing everyone. The cost of living should be calculated on a regional basis and those that are in most need given what they require, those that are not in need (ie those in receipt of benefits they are entitled to but actually do not need the benefits - such as wealthy OAPs that collect a state pension and winter fuel allowance and other generic payments that they don't need) do not receive the payments.

It would be a huge overhaul of the current system, but it is needed.

I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is just continuing to increase benefits. I'm a little on the fence as I can see both sides of the argument - but find myself more towards the cap than not....

 

[Spook187]

single parents pulling in well in excess of £1500/month through benefits, a figure they would never be able to attain through work, because they are not the sharpest tool in the box.

See there we go again, your pigeonholing people classing as single parents as not job worthy, some people don't choose to be single parents it's just the way it happens sometimes.

 

[elmarko]

But then you run into the same old issue of, people becoming dependant on benefits, if there is little to incentive to get a job, they wont bother at all.

In my line of work I've seen thousands of people claiming benefits that are doing just fine, single parents pulling in well in excess of £1500/month through benefits, a figure they would never be able to attain through work, because they are not the sharpest tool in the box.

It's easy to see why one would choose that option as well. Go work in a shop for 50 hours a week for £1000/month, or have a child and get £1500/month untaxed.

Yes bringing up a child is hard work and stressful, but its also a damn sight more fun than working 50 hours a week and having nothing to show for it afterwards.

1. What line of work.
2. What benefits exactly give them £1,500.

If you are going to give specific figures I'd assume you have some evidence or data.

JSA is £3640 a year.
CM is £1750 a year (first child), £1500 a year about for all after IIRC).

So that means they need to have 10 children (about) to get the £1500 a month you speak of.

That's ignoring the cost of raising 10 children, which on average is £3762 a month.

Let's say half that to start off.

£1,881 a year per child, that's £18,810 per year for all the children if they spent half of the average on the children.

The total a parent would gain on this £1500 a month is about £18,000.

Do you see a problem with the figures you are banding about?.

Either the children are living in poverty, or they are not having the great lifestyle you so suggest.

(even if you include housing benefit/council tax, which isn't that much for most people, council estates are not exactly desirable places to live - this reduces it to around 6 children & still gives the parents a few grand to spend all other expenses for the house-hold such as food for them/energy/water etc)

 

[Danthus]

What about the people who earn just enough to take them out of benefits all together, their wage is being squeezed yet that will see no rise in their pay.

 

[dowie]

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.

Not sure I'd agree with that - if you can afford to buy alcohol, cigarettes and fit a sky dish to your council flat then you've got some level of disposable income.
If you live in an area with a relatively low cost of living yet get the same level of benefits as someone living in an area with a higher cost of living (less housing) then we're paying out a bit more than necessary.

We do have a deficit problem and the benefits system does need to be reformed.

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

All of them.

That's just silly... there are any number of areas where that is blatantly not true

the majority of professions for a start....

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Public sector wages should be done on a wage by wage basis, those which ourpaced the private sector frozen then unfrozen when the private sector catches up, but those which are behind should get pay rises & those who are significantly above should get pay cuts.

That would be a more reasonable approach to it.

For private sector the government has no control, but wage freezes in the public sector will directly impact economic growth, as shock horror - the money paid out in wages also happens to be the money that get's spent in the local economy.

I find it hilarious that you see the CEO's justifying pay cuts/freezes for the staff while simultaneously using reduced demand as a reason for it - blissfully ignorant of the basic economics involved.

Actual benefits (when no fraud is involved, in most cases) is already a pittance & I don't think it's worth the money saved - as if you put another 500,000 on the poverty line you will increase crime/poor health/social disruption & mental illness for this group which is likely to cost more in the long-run.

If we want to grow economically then strangulating the spending power of the population then freezing pay (via benefits or in the public or private sector) is a stupid thing to do.

I guess that's what happens when you have somebody in charge of the UK economy who has had no formal education in economics.

Wow, did you learn your economics from the 1970s union handbook on wage negotiation?

Saying that frozen wages is impacting growth is whilst technically true a very short termist approach.

So in reverse if we gave everyone a 100% pay rise we would suddenly get massive economic growth! Superb the solution to the global problems are solved.

Oh wait 5 years on and the problems even worse in the UK but better elsewhere? Oh that would be the massive economic impact of pricing ourselves out of the global markets and the massive job cuts that were the direct consequence.

Economic growth based on spending means diddly, it really does. Its underlying value adding growth we need to see, just spending more money is false growth since the vast majority of any benefit will be seen elsewhere e.g. China where jobs will be created making the tat thats boosted our "growth".

 

[elmarko]

Wow, did you learn your economics from the 1970s union handbook on wage negotiation?

Saying that frozen wages is impacting growth is whilst technically true a very short termist approach.

So in reverse if we gave everyone a 100% pay rise we would suddenly get massive economic growth! Superb the solution to the global problems are solved.

Oh wait 5 years on and the problems even worse in the UK but better elsewhere? Oh that would be the massive economic impact of pricing ourselves out of the global markets and the massive job cuts that were the direct consequence.

Economic growth based on spending means diddly, it really does. Its underlying value adding growth we need to see, just spending more money is false growth since the vast majority of any benefit will be seen elsewhere e.g. China where jobs will be created making the tat thats boosted our "growth".

If you wanted further clarification I'm happy to provide it.

Wealth distribution is the problem, pay freezes (for only those on lower wages) greater increases the wealth gap which really does cause problems for economic growth.

I fail to see how you could not think that diminished demand through wage repression would not cause economic problems in the long-term.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...nd-slideshow-that-was-too-hot-for-ted/257323/

If you want to read up, it's a compelling argument.

So in reverse if we gave everyone a 100% pay rise we would suddenly get massive economic growth! Superb the solution to the global problems are solved.

To counter this specifically.

No. You give a pay rise to those who need it & a cut to those who don't - it's a zero sum equation.

 

[bloodiedathame]

Just another thing reminding me how much I loathe politics. No one in Government has a clue.

 

[Danthus]

No. You give a pay rise to those who need it & a cut to those who don't - it's a zero sum equation.

On what basis do you justify cutting certain peoples wages?

 

[estebanrey]

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)

They owed 1.2 billion as of 2010, they've paid no tax at all from then to now.

The tax you are referring to is being paid, in Germany as it is tax on products sold IN Germany.

Now if you think they should pay all their tax here, where they are domiciled that's fine but the same people who make the Vodafone argument also tend to name companies like Boots as well who are domiciled in Switzerland so why should they pay tax on British goods sold here?

You can't have it both ways, the trouble is when you get your facts from people like UKUNCUT that's what happens.

You may have heard of UK Uncut? They’re certainly good at attracting attention: forcing their way into Barclay’s bank the other week and
managing to close a branch of TopShop temporarily.

But what they have in noise they lack in substance. New research by the Institute of Economic
Affairs exposes how the ‘grassroots movement’ want Vodafone to pay tax in the UK on the profits it makes in Germany. It’s a reasonable principle – taxing companies
based on where they are domiciled is fine. But they also want Boots, a Swiss company, to pay tax in the UK on the profits it makes selling items to Britons, from British shops. You can have one
principle or the other, but not both – not unless we want businesses to locate elsewhere. In fact, corporation tax systems are carefully designed with reciprocal agreements between countries
for the very purpose of ensuring that profits are taxed once and not twice.

Vodafone have not avoided paying ANY tax, they paid it, in Germany. Why should they pay the same amount in the UK as well? Don't get me wrong I'd prefer they paid it here too but you can't expect them to pay the same tax, twice.

 

[darael]

I see people scraping by already, before any increase. A 1% increase is better than no increase, but the increase inline with inflation would seem fairer. If only bills increased 1% each year!

 

[Deleted User 234324]

snip

No one benefit will pay out that much a month.

When you add them all together though then things are very much different.

Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit all add up to a decent enough figure.

If the parents works part time, which a majority will do then you can add Working Tax Credits onto that as well, which in most cases can be a very sizeable chunk of change.

You mention that people on benefits are basically living in poverty, what about the thousands of people working in low paid jobs, in fact most people I know who work are classed as being in poverty in one form or another.

The most common being fuel poverty. If more than 10% of your income is going on heating or electricity/gas you are in fuel poverty. I know A LOT of people who are under this category.

 

[Gilly]

I see people scraping by already, before any increase. A 1% increase is better than no increase, but the increase inline with inflation would seem fairer. If only bills increased 1% each year!

Any increase below inflation is effectively a decrease.

Should be frozen, if not the next best thing is a cap. I've never had a near or above inflation pay rise in 6 years, so why should people not working be afforded that luxury? I've stopped spending as much on unnecessary items as a consequence, and so should they not have to do that too?, sense of "entitlement", it stinks in this country, everyone thinks they're entitled to anything they want with minimal effort. Yes I know there are people who "can't" work, blah, blah, people who won't work, people who've only just lost their job,, then there's the 3rd generation oxygen thieves who should just be culled, but there's not much can be done, no cuts doesn't punish anyone, so obviously cuts will punish some more than others, but that's something I'm willing to accept because I don't think getting rises above inflation for benefits is the correct thing.

Can I read the last part of that as 'that is something I'm willing to accept because it doesn't affect me'?

 

[Tunney]

The government should be doing more to raise wages than lower benefits. A race to the bottom doesn't help anyone in society.

Let's remember that the majority of those receiving benefits are in work or a pensioner. The Tories are trying very hard to demonise the poor and turn people against each other.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Any increase below inflation is effectively a decrease.

Fiscal drag; like what has been happening with tax bands every year for the last decade.