Autumn Budget 2022

I’m sorry for what happened to you, but people attacking the poorest for being given inflation matching increases is not justifiable.
My household outgoings are now higher than my joint family income. I am already sitting in the dark in the evenings and avoiding putting any heating on. I'm pretty much eating cereal and bread for my meals to keep costs down. We haven't been on holiday for at least 10 years; we were finally going this year and cancelled it due to my redundancy. There isn't much I can cut out now to reduce costs apart from selling the house (and then paying massive amounts of stamp duty on a smaller one).

I haven't attacked the poorest at all and even said I appreciate they are in need of help. I don't begrudge them it. Good luck to them. I'm not on the poverty line and I will make it work somehow, probably with a second job. But one day I would like the government to help me and my family rather than us being a constant cash cow for everyone.

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.
That is just changing the subject. My point was that simply saying it's the employers problem to find a solution is naive at best. They will do what they did to me and simply reduce their workforce. That's how companies work. Being made redundant doesn't help make my energy or food costs less that theirs either.
 
Last edited:
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.

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?

Yeah, I should have asked EVERYONE to read the continuation rather than just @robfosters .

If you had bothered then you'd realise I wasn't asking benefit recipients to be punished.... Please read again.


Regarding the white noise comment - every person interviewed and every news report you see from rail to teachers to NHS to police to fire and a whole host of others all say the same thing - "what we are being offered is a real terms pay cut"... Just about every person out there is getting a real terms pay cut so, yes, it becomes white noise I'm afraid.


If you still believe me to hold disgusting positions after reading it fully then that's your choice.
 
It's ridiculous - if we both earned £99,999 we'd qualify for 30 free hours for childcare, and tax free choldcare etc... (though our youngest will be starting school so not really relevant anymore). But if 1 of you earns over 100k even if the other earns 0, you don't qualify. So apparently earning 180k+ as a household enables you to get all the benefits, but earning 101k doesn't if it's down to 1 individual. It's bonkers. It should be based on household income.
That is bonkers!
 
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...
Or perhaps the benefit system wasn't designed with 300% increases in energy costs in mind and extra payments were needed because of that.
 
Yeah, I should have asked EVERYONE to read the continuation rather than just @robfosters .

If you had bothered then you'd realise I wasn't asking benefit recipients to be punished.... Please read again.


Regarding the white noise comment - every person interviewed and every news report you see from rail to teachers to NHS to police to fire and a whole host of others all say the same thing - "what we are being offered is a real terms pay cut"... Just about every person out there is getting a real terms pay cut so, yes, it becomes white noise I'm afraid.


If you still believe me to hold disgusting positions after reading it fully then that's your choice.

Your "white noise" comment was comes across as an attempt to try and "cover up" or "blend in" the outrageous BS that has gone on with the benefits system with payrises in the private sector.

There is a vast difference between the two.

People in employment who feel they are not being paid enough have choices... They can push for a payrise... They can change job...

Those on benefits (especially those unable to work) have NO choices at all.

They are at the mercy of the government and it seems blatantly obvious the government see them as nothing but a burden and treat them as 2nd class citizens by paying so little in benefits that most people barely manage anything beyond basic survival.

So your white noise comment is not really true.. The reality is the shouts of those least well-off in society are being drowned out by a bunch of selfish "Oh what about me?" screams from those in full-time employment.
 
Your "white noise" comment was comes across as an attempt to try and "cover up" or "blend in" the outrageous BS that has gone on with the benefits system with payrises in the private sector.

There is a vast difference between the two.

People in employment who feel they are not being paid enough have choices... They can push for a payrise... They can change job...

Those on benefits (especially those unable to work) have NO choices at all.

They are at the mercy of the government and it seems blatantly obvious the government see them as nothing but a burden and treat them as 2nd class citizens by paying so little in benefits that most people barely manage anything beyond basic survival.

So your white noise comment is not really true.. The reality is the shouts of those least well-off in society are being drowned out by a bunch of selfish "Oh what about me?" screams from those in full-time employment.

It was not my intention to sound dismissive..
I am currently on JSA so I am not exactly unfamiliar with being on benefits...
 
And now the lib Dems are saying they're not in support of nuclear. Well this is the problem we have now. No investment in clean and plentiful energy generation. They state renewables are the only way forward but they take an equal amount of investment and time to deliver. We should do both until renewables are no longer needed to be supported by other energy sources. Then you can phase out others.

If we grow our economy we'll need more power and more infrastructure to support it.

This is why politics suck in this country, there's no continuity in investment for infrastructure or common goals, always one-upmanship which ends up with a lot of wasted time and money.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were cross party agreements for investment??
 
Or perhaps the benefit system wasn't designed with 300% increases in energy costs in mind and extra payments were needed because of that.

While energy costs may well have increased massively, The government put in place the energy price cap etc... to attempt to help deal with this.

What's your excuse for the hike in Universal Credit during Furlough / Lockdown? There was no war then, there was no 300% increase in energy prices, so what was the reason for the government to "artificially" inflate Universal Credit ONLY for the period when more "average working joe's" were on Universal Credit due to Lockdown / Furlough?

The reason is simple.... It was a lame attempt to "disguise / hide" just how little the average person on Universal Credit has to live on from the masses. As soon as "the masses" went back to work, they took that money away again.

Also, the 2 "Cost of living payments" we have received have been nothing to do with energy prices, but the rising cost of ALL bills, including food etc.. which while it may be a knock-on effect of the energy problem it demonstrates a deeper underlying issue.... Those unable to work are simply not paid enough to do anything beyond survival.
 
It's ridiculous - if we both earned £99,999 we'd qualify for 30 free hours for childcare, and tax free choldcare etc... (though our youngest will be starting school so not really relevant anymore). But if 1 of you earns over 100k even if the other earns 0, you don't qualify. So apparently earning 180k+ as a household enables you to get all the benefits, but earning 101k doesn't if it's down to 1 individual. It's bonkers. It should be based on household income.
I remember coming across this when my daughter hit three and found it utterly bonkers.
 
Last edited:
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..
But people in work also have to pay rent/mortgage, council tax, commuting costs, etc. For the record I don't think benefits shouldn't be increased in line with inflation, because they damn well should. But working people need increases as well and there was nothing in this budget for them except more taxes and real terms cuts.
 
It's all just a long, drawn out car crash isn't it?

I await the 'imalrightjack' and the hard of thinking to arrive and state whataboutcorbyn.
 
DOnt put everyone on benefits in the same category though

There are those that are on benefits because they CANNOT work (Injurys, long term illness etc)

and there are those that are just lazy and DO NOT want to work and are on benefits

they are not the same, those in category 2 dont deserve any inflation rises

While this is very true and should not be ignored, it is however GROSSLY overplayed by Tories and their supporters as it fits their narrative of "lazy lay-abouts who cannot be bothered to work"

If you look at the figures for benefit fraud, you'll find that less than 1% of the budget ends up "fraudulently" claimed and in the hands of individual recipients.

In fact, in recent years the government has been "banding together" Benefit fraud from individuals (false claims) and companies / businesses who have falsely claimed against the system (i'll admit, I'm not entirely sure how a company claims, perhaps it has to do with things like tax credits, or housing credits?)

The net result allows them to portray "benefit fraud" as being around 3% - 3.5% of total budget.

The reality however, is that less than 1% of said fraud is individuals being "too lazy to work" and claiming falsely.

While you may be correct that those in "category 2" don't deserve anything, the other 99% in category 1 do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens and denigrated for it.

So the question becomes.... Is it honestly "worth" persecuting and demonizing 99% of benefit claimants in order to try and prevent a 1% loss?
 
Last edited:
It makes my blood boil it really does. Why shouldn't you be able to use of your partner's tax allowance to allow them to bring up the children?? I actually emailed my MP on the matter, I had a (albeit copy and pasted) reply from the gov saying it's been considered many times but it'd be inefficient to implement. I'm fairly sure a high level legal challenge could be a way forward as it does seem grossly unfair
Yep..

There is a lot of tax inequality because of this or a lot of lost tax revenue if you look at it that way..

Simplistically:
If both of you earn £50k, your net household annual income is £76044
If one of you earns £100k, and the other £0, your net household annual income is £67049

Or, you could both earn £43k PA and your net household income would be the same as someone earning a single salary of £100k

£9K difference, or £750 a month..
 
Those on benefits (especially those unable to work) have NO choices at all.
What? Why are we even talking about the people on benefits who are on them because they are lazy and don't want to work? They should be treated as second class citizens and made to live close to the breadline as a motivator to get into work.

For people who cannot work due to disability, then yes, they should be adequately supported by the state.

Can I ask you a personal question? Are you currently on benefits, or are you in work?
 
Back
Top Bottom