Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[estebanrey]

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata...&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

The problem with that graph is there are ways to manipulate the unemployment figures by changing the boundries and shifting things around.

For example, a University Student is not counted as being 'unemployed'. When Labour got they set a target of 50% school leavers going to Uni (from 10% when they got it) and they got to something like 40% by the time they left office. That's hundreds of thousands of potential youth unemployment that would otherwise be counted.

They also massively increased the amount of jobs in the Public Sector (some would say they made jobs up) which again artificially massaged the figures.

 

[Dr Jack]

They also massively increased the amount of jobs in the Public Sector (some would say they made jobs up) which again artificially massaged the figures.

Between '97 and 2008, 3.5 million private sector and 800,000 public sector jobs were added. Over four times as many private as public sector jobs.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Nadine Dorries was on Question Time last night and said that she supported ring-fencing the in line with inflation increase to the state pension because a retired couple on a combined income of £25,000 had 'just enough to survive'.

In the same breath she defended the 1% cap for other benefits despite my 'back-of-a-fag-packet' figures earlier showing that a young couple on JSA would get around £10k between them.

 

[Gilly]

Nadine Dorries was on Question Time last night and said that she supported ring-fencing the in line with inflation increase to the state pension because a retired couple on a combined income of £25,000 had 'just enough to survive'.

In the same breath she defended the 1% cap for other benefits despite my 'back-of-a-fag-packet' figures earlier showing that a young couple on JSA would get around £10k between them.

Was that picked up on?

 

[estebanrey]

Between '97 and 2008, 3.5 million private sector and 800,000 public sector jobs were added. Over four times as many private as public sector jobs.

And?

That doesn't disprove the point I was making. It's also obvious given the private sector is much bigger than the private sector (if it were 50% of people were employed in the civil service we'd be living in a semi-communist country).

By your numbers that means nearly a million was shaved off the unemployed figures by creating jobs in the public sector (and creating Uni places). I never said they didn't improve employment numbers in the private sector, merely that by increasing the amount of kids at Uni and creating 800k public sector jobs the unemployment figures were massaged.

The government can't easily influence unemployment in the private sector (although by your figures it seems Labour did well in that area) but you can easily change the unemployment figure by changing things you can control, like University admission targets and creating jobs in the public sector, which was the point I was making.

 

[Hagar]

Nadine Dorries was on Question Time last night and said that she supported ring-fencing the in line with inflation increase to the state pension because a retired couple on a combined income of £25,000 had 'just enough to survive'.

In the same breath she defended the 1% cap for other benefits despite my 'back-of-a-fag-packet' figures earlier showing that a young couple on JSA would get around £10k between them.

The retired couple have very little option for increasing their household income to any extent and so rely on cost of living increases to maintain it. Savings are pegged at a low return at this time and for the forseeable future, the income they have now dictates their standard of living.

The young couple on JSA have every chance of improvement and should consider JSA as a means to an end. Not relying on it as a lifestyle but as a safety net in the short term until one or both can train or obtain employment.

 

[Gilly]

The retired couple have very little option for increasing their household income to any extent and so rely on cost of living increases to maintain it. Savings are pegged at a low return at this time and for the forseeable future, the income they have now dictates their standard of living.

The young couple on JSA have every chance of improvement and should consider JSA as a means to an end. Not relying on it as a lifestyle but as a safety net in the short term until one or both can train or obtain employment.

That said, there is still far too much disparity.

 

[smelly_legend]

Like what we think matters anyway.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Was that picked up on?

Unfortunately not. They quickly moved on after she stopped speaking and it was her final rushed remark.

The retired couple have very little option for increasing their household income to any extent and so rely on cost of living increases to maintain it. Savings are pegged at a low return at this time and for the forseeable future, the income they have now dictates their standard of living.

The young couple on JSA have every chance of improvement and should consider JSA as a means to an end. Not relying on it as a lifestyle but as a safety net in the short term until one or both can train or obtain employment.

I can't deny with what you're saying but I have to agree with Gilly:

That said, there is still far too much disparity.

If £25k is the minimum a couple (of any age) needs to survive, living off £10k or less is surely impossible, sort term or otherwise.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't think you should be able to live "comfortably" on benefits. You should have just enough to get by.

In an ideal world we'd be able to support those who need it, and support them well. The reality is that people who don't need support will often claim it.

Benefit has to be a last resort, and not a viable lifestyle choice.

 

[Hagar]

£25k is not the minimum you need to survive, it is probably nearer to the JSA level quoted.

£25k pension would include a personal or occupational pension which the retired person has worked for and saved during his lifetime. You cannot be saying surely that a state benefit level should be based on average pensioner income.

Also that level of pension would be taxable above £11k which the benefit couple would not be paying.

The two are just not comparable in any circumstance.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Nadine Dorries said £25k was the minimum a retired couple could survive on not me.

I'm simply suggesting it's on odd belief to hold if you also believe that benefit rises should be capped at 1% for the next three years.

 

[Muffin`]

you really are mad if you think minimum wage is a bad thing, its not even possible to live independently on it is it really

Why is NMW set at such a paltry level? Why didn't they make it £10 p/h from the offset?

 

[Hagar]

Why is NMW set at such a paltry level? Why didn't they make it £10 p/h from the offset?

Off topic but,

Many employers cannot afford £10ph. Many people are not worth £10ph

 

[cymatty]

Why is NMW set at such a paltry level? Why didn't they make it £10 p/h from the offset?

As that would drive prices up netting off most of the benefit and reduce our competitiveness.

 

[Woden]

Why is NMW set at such a paltry level? Why didn't they make it £10 p/h from the offset?

Companies won't (many can't, newsagents, small shops etc) pay for that. Even the ones that can afford it, simply will not bear the brunt of the cost. It will just be passed onto customers, offseting any increase in the minimum wage with an increase in living costs.

Unfortunately the oposite isn't true. I would rather a decent basic wage didn't need to be set in law, but history has proven we aren't capable of that.

 

[dowie]

Why is NMW set at such a paltry level? Why didn't they make it £10 p/h from the offset?

Not everyone who works is worth £10 an hour...

If you're an employer and you can get £8 of utility from a worker you employ for £6 something an hour then it might be marginally worth employing them.... if you had to pay them £10 an hour then perhaps its not worth while employing them in the first place.

 

[Stoner81]

How about the government raise the national minimum wage to £8 an hour or more so as people don't have to claim! Companies make millions and millions of pounds a year just so as the fat bosses can buy a new boat each year!

If people can earn more then they don't need to claim benefits.

Stoner81.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

That is actually a large amount and you need to do both, both uk and Germany governents have agreed to cracdown on tax loopholes.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/uk-germany-tax-loopholes-multinationals

George Osborne, the chancellor, has joined forces with the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, to announce an international crackdown on tax avoidance by multinational companies.

You can not save 10s of billions in one area, the cuts have to be wide.
Also compare the 1.9billion to the fact there's only ~29million people employed in the uk, it's a huge cost.

Benefits should be enough to survive and no more and should never be an alternative to work. If you look at benefits and NHS, it is responsible for most of are expenditure.

That's 2010 estimated at 587billion, uk tax income for 2010 was just 529billion, this is the issue, for ages we have been running at a loss.

People also say oh look it's only a few quid a week. Ignoring the myriad of other benefits available.

It should also reflect what workers have to do, so things like 8 people house shares should be the norm.

 

[Biohazard]

Benefits v Weapons of Mass Destruction

You decide.