Autumn Budget 2022

200sols said:
I'd have liked to have seen the triple lock gone and benefits not rising with inflation, these extra bungs just rub salt in the wound. I dont think it is fair all the burden falls on working people.
Click to expand...

robfosters said:
So basically you would have liked the poorest to suffer as it would have made you happy.

Whar a lovely world we live in.
Click to expand...

I think @200sols was saying he'd rather that the benefits and pension increased by average pay rise (around 5%} rather than double that as it would mean that the working people's tax burden would have been less given its this section that pay for those.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
200sols said:
I'd have liked to have seen the triple lock gone and benefits not rising with inflation, these extra bungs just rub salt in the wound. I dont think it is fair all the burden falls on working people.
Click to expand...


until of course - until you arent able to work anymore and/or a pensioner.

Just heating costs alone hit the elderly or infirm far harder than "working people".
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
But that’s an issue for your employer. Stop blaming the government and those on benefits for your work not giving you adequate pay rises
Click to expand...
That's a horribly simplistic view. My employer dealt with the issue of rising inflation by making me redundant recently. I managed to get a new job but on a significantly lower salary. Yet it looks like I will be funding benefit increases on top of a lower salary. I'm not necessarily against benefit increases as people obviously need it. But people in the private sector are in for a very rough time, with tax rises, risk of unemployment and, as demonstrated by my specific case, lower salaries.
 
Richie said:
I think @200sols was saying he'd rather 5hat the benefits and pension increased by average pay rise (around 5%} rather than double that as it would mean that the working people's tax burden would have been less given its this section that pay for those.
Click to expand...
But that would be a cut in real terms, and with the benefit freezes already over the years and removal of the uplift, another cut now would have been disastrous
 
Hades said:
That's a horribly simplistic view. My employer dealt with the issue of rising inflation by making me redundant recently. I managed to get a new job but on a significantly lower salary. Yet it looks like I will be funding benefit increases on top of a lower salary. I'm not necessarily against benefit increases as people obviously need it. But people in the private sector are in for a very rough time, with tax rises, risk of unemployment and, as demonstrated by my specific case, lower salaries.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry for what happened to you, but people attacking the poorest for being given inflation matching increases is not justifiable.

Your salary will still be a lot higher than the average person on benefits. I don’t mean that to sound callous, but being on benefits doesn’t make their energy or food costs less than your own.
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
But that would be a cut in real terms, and with the benefit freezes already over the years and removal of the uplift, another cut now would have been disastrous
Click to expand...
See the NHS worker above, they got 2.4% and they have had pay freezes over the years. Truly disastrous for the health service. All the circumstances you describe are not unique to benefit claimants. Why should the government give nurses 2.4% but benefits claimants and pensioners 10%? Workers are also suffering cuts in real terms pay, it wouldn't be unique to people on benefits.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
I think @200sols was saying he'd rather that the benefits and pension increased by average pay rise (around 5%} rather than double that as it would mean that the working people's tax burden would have been less given its this section that pay for those.
Click to expand...
The issue with that is that whilst in theory those in work have some leeway with their finances, by design and intent the government has spent the last 12 years cutting benefits in real term to the point where for many on them tthey are already not getting enough to live/barely getting enough to live on so another 5% real terms cut would have made things even worse.

It's telling that even the Tory MP's are starting to realise how low the benefits are in comparison to the cost of actual survival for many. Remember back at the start of covid the government tried very hard to hide from new claimants the reality of how low benefits were, by adding a £20 a week uplift to people claiming UC (but apparently they couldn't do that for anyone on the older benefits because of reasons).
 
200sols said:
See the NHS worker above, they got 2.4% and they have had pay freezes over the years. Truly disastrous for the health service. All the circumstances you describe are not unique to benefit claimants. Why should the government give nurses 2.4% but benefits claimants and pensioners 10%? Workers are also suffering cuts in real terms pay, it wouldn't be unique to people on benefits.
Click to expand...

It's not fair on nurses etc, but at the same time a nurse earning 25k a year is bringing home something like £400 a week (and may be able to claim "in work" benefits), someone on ESA will be getting something between 77 and 135 a week (probably with additional help for housing), in theory a nurse should have a little bit more a cushion, but the benefits for someone who is out of work are designed intentionally to have little if no cushion for unexpected increases..
 
Last edited:
I suspect that there'll be more help on energy bills next year. There's no point announcing anything now as this winter is already taken can of with the £400 boost. This then gives them 12 months to see how energy prices are likely to look going into next winter.
 
robfosters said:
But that would be a cut in real terms, and with the benefit freezes already over the years and removal of the uplift, another cut now would have been disastrous
Click to expand...

Almost everyone is getting a cut in real terms so that argument is just white noise to me now (see my continuation below if you want to reply)

Werewolf said:
The issue with that is that whilst in theory those in work have some leeway with their finances, by design and intent the government has spent the last 12 years cutting benefits in real term to the point where for many on them tthey are already not getting enough to live/barely getting enough to live on so another 5% real terms cut would have made things even worse.

It's telling that even the Tory MP's are starting to realise how low the benefits are in comparison to the cost of actual survival for many. Remember back at the start of covid the government tried very hard to hide from new claimants the reality of how low benefits were, by adding a £20 a week uplift to people claiming UC (but apparently they couldn't do that for anyone on the older benefits because of reasons).
Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with @200sols, I was merely restating his position as @robfosters seemed to take a different meaning from it. I understand why though - As a recipient of benefits, @robfosters' unconscious bias would take what @200sols said as a dig rather than leaving emotion aside and reading it from a 3rd party kind of angle
 
Richie said:
Almost everyone is getting a cut in real terms so that argument is just white noise to me now (see my continuation below if you want to reply)



I wasn't necessarily agreeing with @200sols, I was merely restating his position as @robfosters seemed to take a different meaning from it. I understand why though - As a recipient of benefits, @robfosters' unconscious bias would take what @200sols said as a dig rather than leaving emotion aside and reading it from a 3rd party kind of angle
Click to expand...

Sorry but no, it is not white noise.

Benefits have not kept up with inflation for YEARS now, possibly even decades. So any "cut in real world terms" hits those who are unable to work the hardest, by FAR.

It's a truly disgusting position to hold to believe that those on benefits should continually be punished by intentionally keeping the benefits so low a person can barely survive.

The entire reason Universal Credit recipients had to get extra during Covid Lockdown / Furlough was so that the general public wouldn't realize just how little people were being asked to survive on. The moment the "general public" got back to work, they took that extra money away again.

It is also very noticeable that those on benefits now have had at least 2 "Cost of Living" payments to help make ends meet. - If this isn't 100% proof that the Benefits system is broken and is not paying anywhere near enough for those unable to work, I don't know what is...

Why is it still preferable to hit those who have the least, vs hauling in a larger tax take from those at the top with incomes of hundreds-of-thousands per year?
 
Last edited:
We are in this situation because of the Tories, don't thank them for giving you a larger slice of a smaller pie when they themselves shrunk the pie.

No wonder nobody is happy.

Maybe we'll remember this come the next GE eh folks???
 
Last edited:
Devilman said:
It's a truly disgusting position to hold to believe that those on benefits should continually be punished by intentionally keeping the benefits so low a person can barely survive.
Click to expand...

Sounds exactly like what Braverman was saying a few weeks ago. I think she's been told to wind her neck in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom