Government Benifit Cap

[Dolph]

Firstly, we're in no risk of being anything like Greece, that's nonsense. Secondly, there is an alternative to cuts: higher taxation. Thirdly, growth is a massively more effective way to reduce our deficit than austerity.

Again, the benefit cap will make a trivial difference. There's no big saving here.
I'm not totally opposed to cuts, but I profoundly disagree that targeting the small proportion going to the unemployed to such a great extent is justified especially while spending on badly judged vanity projects like free schools. The government has chosen to target the poorest and most vulnerable in society back by a war of false rhetoric. This is both cruel and unnecessary, moreover, many of their cuts are likely to have their effectiveness reduced by downstream costs.



Nice of you to completely ignore the point. You have four kids, everything is fine because your wife has a good job. Then your wife leaves you for a younger model and you're left supporting four young kids while she's naffed off to the USA and is refusing to pay child support.

Historically the uk has never sustained a tax take of over 40% of gdp for any significant length of time, irrespective of taxation rates or approaches taken. Knowing that, it should be clear that spending has to align with what the country is willing to pay, which means our public spending is way to high.

 

[oldbag]

What they need to do is cut business taxes and raise the minimum wage so that people on low incomes can have a fighting chance of living on minimum wage, because around here you'd struggle on 25k a year. Probably building a shed load of affordable housing would work, since they flogged that all off in the 80s.

 

[Dolph]

What they need to do is cut business taxes and raise the minimum wage so that people on low incomes can have a fighting chance of living on minimum wage, because around here you'd struggle on 25k a year. Probably building a shed load of affordable housing would work, since they flogged that all off in the 80s.

we also need to harmonise tax and benefit rates to stop the 'them and us' issue that surrounds both, where group a always wants to take from group b to give to group c. of course, such an approach is generally umpopular with those who want a client state, because we couldn't afford to keep everyone in state dependency and they would no longer be able to bribe subsets of the electorate. I can also see that we would need a transition period, maybe a freezing of existing entitlements for existing claimaints while letting inflation erode the benefits slowly until they reach the universal level in the long term.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

Raising the minumum wage isn't a viable option in my opinion, I think there should always be a difference between "minumum wage" and "living wage", changing it, just devalues the whole system and job market. Why do NVQ's and BTEC courses etc. to become a technician, mechanic or whatever, when you could earn the same money by turning up a steering a broom or a mop around for the same amount of time? Low skilled jobs, are low paid for a reason.

I'm of the opinion that a higher tax free allowance, or tax breaks instead of all these boat loads of benefits would be a better solution. That way; lower paid people, pay less tax on what little money they do earn, and people like myself who break their backs X0 hours a week in decent paid jobs, probabley get a little tax break, but don't feel as if the money that they do contribute, isn't just being ****ed away to subsidise other people to their level. That would only really cover people who are working though, not unemployed, but at least it would do something about the shirkers who currently only do 16 hours a week, so that they don't lose any benefits.

£500 a week? FFS! I get that for working every and all damn days of the week, not subsidised by other taxpayers.

 

[melvis]

What they need to do is cut business taxes and raise the minimum wage so that people on low incomes can have a fighting chance of living on minimum wage, because around here you'd struggle on 25k a year. Probably building a shed load of affordable housing would work, since they flogged that all off in the 80s.

this, minimum wage works out to about 12.5k, pre-tax and thats if you get 40 hours,11k take home, rent for an average 1 bed flat around here is 650-700 leaving under 3k to live on for everything for the rest of the year, if you have to commute to your job kiss goodbye to another 1k a year (probably more when TFL hike the train prices yet again) after food and clothing theres not much left, make the minimum wage a decent wage instead of topping it up with benefits from taxing the employers imo.

 

[Hagar]

Firstly, we're in no risk of being anything like Greece, that's nonsense. Secondly, there is an alternative to cuts: higher taxation. Thirdly, growth is a massively more effective way to reduce our deficit than austerity.

I am in a reasonably well paid job and gross about £43k per annum. I take home about £32.4k per annum. I believe that I pay my fair share of tax and do not avoid paying tax. There is a limit to how much tax people should be asked to pay, in order to be able to look after themselves and their dependants now and in the future.

It is also important that people believe that the tax they pay is not being spent in a profligate manner. Support of people genuinely unable to work through disability is acceptable. Support of people to find employment and some light coercion to do so is also acceptable.

I am in favour of capping benefits to a level which provides the 'safety net' and £26k per household to me appears reasonable.

Growth will be enhanced through mobility and placing more people into work. Personally I and my family have had to move to follow work. I have travelled throughout the UK to pursue my career

 

[GAC]

Raising the minumum wage isn't a viable option in my opinion, I think there should always be a difference between "minumum wage" and "living wage", changing it, just devalues the whole system and job market. Why do NVQ's and BTEC courses etc. to become a technician, mechanic or whatever, when you could earn the same money by turning up a steering a broom or a mop around for the same amount of time? Low skilled jobs, are low paid for a reason.

I'm of the opinion that a higher tax free allowance, or tax breaks instead of all these boat loads of benefits would be a better solution. That way; lower paid people, pay less tax on what little money they do earn, and people like myself who break their backs X0 hours a week in decent paid jobs, probabley get a little tax break, but don't feel as if the money that they do contribute, isn't just being ****ed away to subsidise other people to their level. That would only really cover people who are working though, not unemployed, but at least it would do something about the shirkers who currently only do 16 hours a week, so that they don't lose any benefits.

£500 a week? FFS! I get that for working every and all damn days of the week, not subsidised by other taxpayers.

problem is a lot of places pay min wage for jobs that require nvq's and btec's now. so how much more devalued can you get ?

thanks to the state of the jobs market its a race to the bottom with wages at the mo as there are just too many people looking for work and not enough jobs, no matter what various mp's and dwp officials claim.

upping the tax allowence would be a start as would upping the min wage a bit more (it goes up in october this year again to £6.31) so at least people on lower pay dont have to claim tax credits.

and yet again people are swallowing the red top and daily mail bullocks. they dont get £500 take home a week, the vast majority is gone on rent and tax, which the claimants dont even get to see.

now sure it maybe hard for people working to pay up but maybe thats more to do with the idiotic rental prices and house prices which in london just dont want to come down, was watching jeff randall on sky news last night and yet again he and his two guests where talking about the housing industry lifting the uk gdp figures and how prices need to rise ?! talk about being greedy as possible.

hopefully rents will come down otherwise londons service industry's are going to be in a right old state within a year, and no amount of illegal labor is going to save it as there just wont be enough places they can stuff them over night.

 

[dowie]

Firstly, we're in no risk of being anything like Greece, that's nonsense. Secondly, there is an alternative to cuts: higher taxation. Thirdly, growth is a massively more effective way to reduce our deficit than austerity.

OK that is another ideological difference... ideally for another thread though I should point out that higher taxation often also has a negative effect on growth and doesn't necessarily result in greater revenue being collected.

Again, the benefit cap will make a trivial difference. There's no big saving here.
I'm not totally opposed to cuts, but I profoundly disagree that targeting the small proportion going to the unemployed to such a great extent is justified especially while spending on badly judged vanity projects like free schools. The government has chosen to target the poorest and most vulnerable in society back by a war of false rhetoric. This is both cruel and unnecessary, moreover, many of their cuts are likely to have their effectiveness reduced by downstream costs.

They're not targeting the poorest at all - they're targeting people who are receiving far in excess of the minimum wage in free handouts... I really don't see the issue there. Its just one area of many that is being cut and tbh... personally I think its just a small step in the right direction - we really need to overhaul housing, start means testing and make further reductions in the amount we're giving away in handouts.

Nice of you to completely ignore the point. You have four kids, everything is fine because your wife has a good job. Then your wife leaves you for a younger model and you're left supporting four young kids while she's naffed off to the USA and is refusing to pay child support.

I'm not ignoring the point at all - the whole point is that we shouldn't be encouraging extra kids in general... I'd say you'd need a rather good job to sensibly afford 4 kids and you'd likely have to have a male as the main breadwinner as a woman taking significant time out of their career 4 times and being very successful is going to be rather rare...
I guess you'd have to move out of the prime central London accommodation you're currently occupying and not expect others to carry on subsidising you simply because you used to have a rich wife... You'd also have to perhaps get a job!!!

 

[DampDog]

Am I missing a trick here or is it not blindingly obvious? (at least part of it) I've just had a little "Google", as you do. And since 1979 1.6 million homes have been sold under the "right to buy" scheme. So where once we had people in social housing with an associated level of rent we are now paying folks rent in the private market at market rates. Even better than that, because there is such a huge demand for rented accommodation and so little stock the rents that are in place are at the maximum asking price. So the huge proportion of these ridiculous £500 quid a week paid to benefit claimants never get seen by them as it goes straight to the landlords. No wonder the buy to rent market is such a goldmine.

Why not invest in social housing stock and save millions in benefit/rents in the long term. Even better than that with 2.5 million out of work it would stimulate the building and associated industries. Set up apprentiships for brickies, electricians, gas, etc. And get some of the young unemployed back into work. And some of the older guys to train them.

You only have to look around and there are huge swathes of empty brownfield sites were industry used to be. If the government had the will and wanted to they could buy up that land cheaply and build affordable homes. Those homes could be built cheaply, they shouldn't be looking to make the mark-up the building industry makes and the savings in like for like and quantity should see them easily building homes for £75-100K probably much less.

Even better than that the long term savings on rent would be manifest. Any HB benefits paid out as rent would significantly less and come back to the government instead of into the landlords pockets never to be seen again.

Now even in today's economic disaster we find ourselves in I would borrow money to achieve it. because in the long term it would save more than it cost. The majority of money paid in HB, just props up inflated prices so it's catch 22.

To some extent those within the system are being blamed for it's shortcomings. But it's not really their fault, it's the fault of successive governments Con & Lab, for screwing the system up for their own political gain.

 

[jas72]

This is nothing more than punishing the poorest for the failure of repeated governments to deal with the price of housing. Money that is reaped primarily by the rich. Remember that money paid in housing benefit goes to the owner of the property not the person living in it.

The ConDem's presentation is misleading to the point of dishonesty. As usual they're simply ignoring the fact that people in work continue to see multiple benefits paid to them. Since this cap almost exclusively effects people with several children, and mostly single mothers with several children, they'd still get child benefit if they were working and likely working tax credit and child tax credit on top of the "average" wage. I put "average" in quotes because the cap will, almost exclusively, hit people living in areas where the average wage is higher because, again, it's going on housing not on living costs.

The only alternative available to those hit is to move. There will be no money nor help to move; no provision for dealing with the fractured support network resulting from leaving their communities; no assistant for children shifted to new schools in new areas where they have no friends; no extra cash for the increased costs of visiting friends and families and so on.

It's cruel; it's pointless since it will save precious little money and it's based on bad politics.

not yet read all posts but I guess this POV won't be popular on these forums.

 

[Xordium]

not yet read all posts but I guess this POV won't be popular on these forums.

Well I like it! I think Mr Jack had put together a very good post there. The whole housing situation in this country has been completely mismanaged by the Tories and Labour and someone needs to get a handle on it. And the situation will only be tackled by looking at a multitude of issues including the focus of London as an manufacturing, service, cultural, financial, governmental, tourist, immigration target, sporting, etc etc centre. That in itself is not a healthy situation to be in - it artificially creates problems where there need not be and raises competition on space which impinges on many sectors of society.

 

[elmarko]

Well I like it! I think Mr Jack had put together a very good post there. The whole housing situation in this country has been completely mismanaged by the Tories and Labour and someone needs to get a handle on it. And the situation will only be tackled by looking at a multitude of issues including the focus of London as an manufacturing, service, cultural, financial, governmental, tourist, immigration target, sporting, etc etc centre. That in itself is not a healthy situation to be in - it artificially creates problems where there need not be and raises competition on space which impinges on many sectors of society.

Indeed.

Lower the cost of housing/mortgages/rent & not only do you massively decrease our housing benefit bill, but we also increase the disposable income of the majority of the population.

This increases spending in the local economy which in turn encourages economic growth/job creation as a result of the increased demand.

You have to ask yourself, who really benefits from a massively inflated house prices & who pays the price?.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

They should have put in rent caps too.

Agee,

Also how about energy bill caps? reason poor are poor is because everything is ripping into you from every angle and their aim is solely profit. I think when it comes to essential things everyone must have as basic living standard should be government controlled and based on minimal profits (cause of course they'd need money for expanse etc)

 

[CREATIVE!11]

We can't afford it though - this is the reason we need to make cuts in the first place. An no, we shouldn't be rewarding people when they behave irresponsible... if you can't afford to support yourself then what the heck are you doing having 4 kids....

Increase family planning advice, access to abortions tbh...

but we can afford 5bn on nuclear submarine? a pointless thing anyway because of anyone nuked anybody the size of bombs today in megatons it'll take a few to wipe our whole planet...

 

[JonJ678]

but we can afford 5bn on nuclear submarine?

5bn on a nuclear submarine would go to UK engineering companies, who pay lots of tax. The companies pay engineers, who pay lots of tax. The companies and the engineers then buy services from the UK, thus more tax. They also buy products, which are unlikely to be from the UK, because we don't really make anything. So there's a loss there.

The only part of the 5bn which is lost to the UK economy is that which is sent abroad to import goods from elsewhere. It's not even close to a 5bn loss.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

5bn on a nuclear submarine would go to UK engineering companies, who pay lots of tax. The companies pay engineers, who pay lots of tax. The companies and the engineers then buy services from the UK, thus more tax. They also buy products, which are unlikely to be from the UK, because we don't really make anything. So there's a loss there.

The only part of the 5bn which is lost to the UK economy is that which is sent abroad to import goods from elsewhere. It's not even close to a 5bn loss.

That was just one random example to drive the point, there is more, the UK's military budget it's up there at the top is outrageous, yet people say oh can't afford X and Y

Yet saving 200m on a benefit cut is going to change things drastically is it? (Not even 200m because poor people pay VAT etc. back into the economy anyway)

LORD ITS A MIRACLE A FEW PALTRY BENEFIT CUTS ARE GOING TO SAVE US!!! sun shines out of my ass along with 50 pound notes.

people need to get real. (people in this thread acting as if its going to make such a huge deal)

 

[JonJ678]

There's a difference between benefits and military spending.

I'm in favour of military spending, because I can spot the correlation between military and war, and because military spending fuels much of the exciting cutting edge research that keeps our economy running. We wouldn't have widespread aircraft without the world wars. Britain would be a very different place if we hadn't gone for imperialism with such enthusiasm, along with the industrial revolution.

I'm not in favour of unemployed/unemployable people receiving large amounts of money, because I can spot the correlation between social support and the ridiculous amounts of tax the rest of us pay.

 

[realBabelfish]

Am I missing a trick here or is it not blindingly obvious? (at least part of it) I've just had a little "Google", as you do. And since 1979 1.6 million homes have been sold under the "right to buy" scheme. So where once we had people in social housing with an associated level of rent we are now paying folks rent in the private market at market rates. Even better than that, because there is such a huge demand for rented accommodation and so little stock the rents that are in place are at the maximum asking price. So the huge proportion of these ridiculous £500 quid a week paid to benefit claimants never get seen by them as it goes straight to the landlords. No wonder the buy to rent market is such a goldmine.

Why not invest in social housing stock and save millions in benefit/rents in the long term. Even better than that with 2.5 million out of work it would stimulate the building and associated industries. Set up apprentiships for brickies, electricians, gas, etc. And get some of the young unemployed back into work. And some of the older guys to train them.

You only have to look around and there are huge swathes of empty brownfield sites were industry used to be. If the government had the will and wanted to they could buy up that land cheaply and build affordable homes. Those homes could be built cheaply, they shouldn't be looking to make the mark-up the building industry makes and the savings in like for like and quantity should see them easily building homes for £75-100K probably much less.

Even better than that the long term savings on rent would be manifest. Any HB benefits paid out as rent would significantly less and come back to the government instead of into the landlords pockets never to be seen again.

Now even in today's economic disaster we find ourselves in I would borrow money to achieve it. because in the long term it would save more than it cost. The majority of money paid in HB, just props up inflated prices so it's catch 22.

To some extent those within the system are being blamed for it's shortcomings. But it's not really their fault, it's the fault of successive governments Con & Lab, for screwing the system up for their own political gain.

about 75% of MPs are landlords. wonder why they arent in any big rush to change these laws? why build houses at tax payer expense when you can invest in a house and let the gov pay off your mortgage in 10 years. rinse and repeat and in no time you own loads of houses.

one of the guys i used to work with owned around 100 houses in my county. he only came into work to pass the time. he made a mint on being a landlord.

 

[realBabelfish]

Indeed.

Lower the cost of housing/mortgages/rent & not only do you massively decrease our housing benefit bill, but we also increase the disposable income of the majority of the population.

This increases spending in the local economy which in turn encourages economic growth/job creation as a result of the increased demand.

You have to ask yourself, who really benefits from a massively inflated house prices & who pays the price?.

+1 always ask who benefits from every decision. house prices, even since the crash, are still a big chunk more than before the boom. someone is raking it in and its not the common pleb like most of us.

 

[realBabelfish]

Agee,

Also how about energy bill caps? reason poor are poor is because everything is ripping into you from every angle and their aim is solely profit. I think when it comes to essential things everyone must have as basic living standard should be government controlled and based on minimal profits (cause of course they'd need money for expanse etc)

blame the morons who sold off all our services so that now we are subsidising the french with their nuclear energy (where most of our energy comes from). services like energy should be state owned and not run for profit. any extra should be used to improve the service.

has anyone looked at the belgian folks who put their supplier to ransom and reduced their bills massively? it was on TV recently. club together and force cheaper bills.