Poll: Benefit cap vote.

What do you think should happen to benefits

  • The Government Proposal of a 1% increase

    Votes: 146 25.5%

  • Labour proposal of increase in line with inflation

    Votes: 195 34.1%

  • A freeze with no rise at all

    Votes: 231 40.4%
  • Total voters
    572
Moothead2 said:
I think 1% rise brings a happy medium for everyone. It reduces the impact of the inflation on those who will obviously be struggling anyway money wise and it's also not a huge kick in the teeth to workers who have pay freezes.
Click to expand...
Why include the disabled in this freeze?, genuine question.

It's not like they are choosing not to work, or are able many of them.
 
The issue of benefit payments is different to the issue of entitlement, although the bullingdon club members running the country are trying to blur the edges. Benefits are generally too low for those that really need them. We need to weed out scrounges, but that is a different issue.
 
What I wonder is if half the people on these forums are too young to realise half these benefit payments given are relatively new and almost completely introduced by Labour in recent times?

The reason so many working families get tax credits or similar is that they were given them in quite recent memory, they never used to exist! Help with nursery fees etc.

Great move in a way knowing the tories would always favour top earners a little more than bottom earners is to try to make the middle more aligned with bottom earners, what better way than to start giving them benefits!
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20950691

"Labour argues that millions of low-income families will be worse off but ministers say benefits should not be going up at a faster rate than wages."

That sounds logical to me, any one else convinced?

As long as benefits don't go up at a faster rate than wages then everyone's happy?! Seriously?! Please tell me people aren't buying into this charade?
 
Infographic from the article I posted earlier:

benefit-myths.png


1.44% of the benefit budget is spent on the long-term unemployed people (aka "scroungers").
 
I am an old, lefty Guardianista at heart, but something went wildly wrong during the Labour years. The "Goldilocks" economy and their foolish "end to boom and bust" optimism led them to put in place policies and systems which were totally unsustainable. There has to be a long period of rebalancing.

We can choose to rip the plaster off slowly or quickly, and we can choose to do it ourselves or wait until harsh global reality does it for us. But the plaster's coming off one way or another.
 
elmarko1234 said:
Hadn't seen that information till just, thanks for the link.

But one point, what about disabled children - it's still a cut for parents of a disabled child.

Child benefit - Frozen until April 2014. Will rise by 1% in each of the next two years
Click to expand...

Are you sure of that too?
 
Andrew_McP said:
I am an old, lefty Guardianista at heart, but something went wildly wrong during the Labour years. The "Goldilocks" economy and their foolish "end to boom and bust" optimism led them to put in place policies and systems which were totally unsustainable. There has to be a long period of rebalancing.

We can choose to rip the plaster off slowly or quickly, and we can choose to do it ourselves or wait until harsh global reality does it for us. But the plaster's coming off one way or another.
Click to expand...
And the child underneath must be a hairy sissy cos their aint half a lot of complaining!
 
Tunney said:
Infographic from the article I posted earlier:

benefit-myths.png
Click to expand...

Problem with this graphic is we don't know how the question was asked.

In that graphic "unemployed" means "people of working age who are fit to work but are out of employment". But to a lot of people on the street, they may have taken it as anyone out of work (which would include children, pensioners and the disabled).

The fraud figure is silly. By it's nature you cannot put a figure on how much there is because if you knew then you would know who was fraudulent and you'd stop them. Fraud by it's nature its hidden and the 0.7% figure comes from the DWP who have a vested interest in reporting a low figure (as high fraud would make them look bad).
 
Hatter The Mad said:
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).
Click to expand...


This -

Of course the coalition will be labelled the bad guys for making tough decisions labour have forced them to do.

Swings n roundabouts and all that
 
Tunney said:
1.44% of the benefit budget is spent on the long-term unemployed people (aka "scroungers").
Click to expand...

If anything is true, that graph goes a long, long way to show just how much benefit is handed out when we have 2.5 million people only taking 3% of the total.
 
Judging by my ex (who has 2 kids, not worked in years and is doing some bullcrap degree which she is dragging out forever) who just got back from a holiday at Disney World in Florida at a cost of over 5500quid I think the 'poor' have no idea what the value of a pound really is.

I want scrubbers to feel some more hardship and look after those who work. Working part time and refusing offered overtime so you can claim your tax credits is also money grabbing off the state.
 
Tunney said:
Infographic from the article I posted earlier:

benefit-myths.png


1.44% of the benefit budget is spent on the long-term unemployed people (aka "scroungers").
Click to expand...

would be nice if that were true... if we were to assume that the only long term unemployed people were on JSA and that they claimed no other benefits then maybe it would be true.... except it isn't.

Obviously housing eats into the budget considerably, there is also the issue that people have been moved off the likes of JSA and only other benefits... (opening a can of worms here but...) how many people are now no longer jobseekers but are claiming benefits on the basis that they're 'depressed' or have some other mental condition that can only be diagnosed by its symptoms.

As for the fraudulent aspect... can only really be estimated and given the figures used in the rest of the article that is just an estimate of fraudulent (presumably just JSA) claims based on people caught and so in reality doesn't come close.... Reassessing people who are claiming they can't work due to some medical condition, disability or otherwise is certainly needed.
 
robskinner said:
Stat from the BBC :

On average the bottom 60% of households in the UK by income receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Thats one hell of a burden on the 40% no matter your political leanings...
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how that stat was calculated as well. For example my parents have now both retired so as of now they are taking in more in benefits than they are paying in tax, but what about the amount they paid in the past?

Per head over a lifetime would be a better stat.
 
estebanrey said:
I'd like to know how that stat was calculated as well. For example my parents have now both retired so as of now they are taking in more in benefits than they are paying in tax, but what about the amount they paid in the past?

Per head over a lifetime would be a better stat.
Click to expand...

Well I dont agree it would be a better stat,a different stat yes, better is very much a matter of opinion.

It depends what your interested in, if you interested in balancing a budget you have to live now and what happened in history is simply that, history. The fact that the net contributors have to support 1.5 times their number is quite startling, bear in mind this is simply talking about welfare, the other 70% of spending the government do hasn't even been mentioned.

Your parents may have been net contributors only time will tell if they end their lives as contributors or takers, but comparing things over decades with the different changes the UK, the world, etc have seen makes it a pretty worthless stat imo. It would be interesting, but not anything to help in the current situation.
Unfortunately pretty much every government has taken the money available and not takenmoney to invest to pay for the benefits they have promised (they are all as bad as each other). If they had of actually invested it then I agree your lifetime view would be much more telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom