Benefit capping
Comments
-
SimonAH wrote:At least judging by the number of posters in windows come election time I saw far more political activism and inclusion in the Rhondda during my time there than anywhere else I've lived in my life.
Political exclusion my arrse.
South Wales is a special case though, don't you think? Strong politicisation of the working class there. Besides, this is around election time... You just have to compare coverage of parliamentary issues in the broadsheets versus the tabloids, or watch Question Time, or listen to Any Questions to get an idea of what kind of demographic actually follows the political discourse.0 -
It is also worth noting that there is (with the exception of perhaps some homeless - and I exclude the addicted and mentally ill) no such thing as a poor person in the UK.
Poor means below the breadline. It means malnutrition and no shoes for your kids, it means disease and short life-expectancy.
It does not mean still using a CRT television or wearing your clothes out before replacing them.
I doubt you could find mainstream poor by this definition this side of 1970 in the UK.
If you want to see real dirt poor go to any third world country (or even the Appalachians in America and some of the really polluted bits in Florida for a slightly watered down version, but still inside the richest nation in the world)
The concept that capping benefits at the equivalent of a £35K wage for a UK family is unfair on the poor is, by comparison, nauseating.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
W1 wrote:
I don't think I've missed your point, but you are dodging my question....notsoblue wrote:
You've missed my point. They're well represented by Polly Toynbee et al. The arguments I've heard that could be considered to even vaguely be against capping benefits (I don't think I've heard any who have overtly against them to be honest) seem to be put forward by people who recognise that there is a significant group of people for which the transition will be a major upset. And its not those who would be featured as "benefit scroungers" in The Sun. Its just people of a lower socio-economic group that live within Zone 4 of London. Ian Duncan Smith's statement that the current situation encourages this group of people to be too dependant on the state is pretty accurate, and again, I haven't heard anyone disagree with this. Its the attitude to managing the fallout of the transition thats the main point of argument.W1 wrote:
So how have we got to the stage where there are even arguments against capping benefits (for the poor) at more than the average salary of someone who works? It would indicate that the poor are in fact very well represented and protected.notsoblue wrote:The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.
Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk
If the poor are badly represented, how come they are so well looked after (relatively)? How have we got to this state of affairs if they are so unengaged or unrepresented?
It is notable how most people only really care about something when it threatens them! For what it's worth, I think CB should be scrapped alltogether - if you're relying on a £20 a week safety net from the state in order to look after your child properly then I'd question the sanity and responsibility of having the child in the first place. By all means have other benefits if they are required as a short-term safety net, but the current position is barking.
Well your question doesn't really have relevance to anything I've said... You say that they're being well represented because theres an outcry about the welfare system changes. My point is that theres only an outcry about the bits that affect average or above earners. Those who are speaking up about this want to keep CB at the expense of Housing Benefit. I'd argue that its Housing Benefit cap that will affect the poor more than any changes to CB, in the South East at least.
The outcry is coming from the "Squeeze middle" who were as you (I think it was you) said bribed by New Labour with CB.0 -
Seems strange timing.
More and more people on benefits. The argument goes that, since unemployment is growing, benefits should be smaller to keep it affordable.
However, on the other hand, the cuts hurt more people.
It's another cut in gov't expenditure, however you look at it. In this case, it's a cut on spending on the poorest there are.
Given that the people on the least income spend the biggest proportion of what they do get (as opposed to saving, so the gov't gets the best multiplier return for money spent) you'd think it'd make economic sense in a time of slumping aggregate demand that they'd suggest a cap later rather than now.
Also, why get the massive popularity bump now, when you can do it 8 months before an election?
Anyone?0 -
Nobody is arguing this in this thread, you're preaching to the converted.SimonAH wrote:The concept that capping benefits at the equivalent of a £35K wage for a UK family is unfair on the poor is, by comparison, nauseating.0 -
I no longer have a SWTOR subscription. :xnotsoblue wrote:
Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk
And if £8.99 (the cost of a SWTOR subscription) was my only luxury from my disposable income would you begrudge me or any person a single luxury whilst living this hell called life!" because I or they claim child benefit and don't want to lose it when it's clearly stated that it is being used it properly.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Also, how likely is it to adversely affect the makeup of London?
If the caps, as suggested, are likely to force the poorest out of the centre, you might get a Paris-esq set up - with a large wealthy bougeoisise in the centre, surrounded by suburbs of the poorer.
From the little I know of Paris, I'd suggest that's not a particularly useful way to enhance social integrity.
From a more personal perspective, the mixture of rich/poor in London makes it a more interesting and attractive place.0 -
Housing benefit needs to be capped as it makes a far larger impact on society than child benefit - which is available to all and thus fair.
I live in Wimbledon, £400 housing benefit would pay for half my rent. Even if I moved to a reasonable nicer place in the same area I'd pay £1100, which £400 a month would take a juicy chunk out of.
If I needed to live in a bigger place, which I do then I would consider moving to an area (further out from the centre of London presumably) where it is more affordable to own and live in a larger property. You don't need to live in the centre of London. This is the norm for all hard working people not entitled to housing benefit. "Want a bigger property move away from the centre of London and find somewhere more affordable". Why then should this general practice not apply to those receiveing housing benefits or being housed? "On housing benefits - here's a 4 bedroom in Kensington".
It's wrong to house people in zone 1 and 2 or provide them with the means to do so while hard working people are forced to live in zone 6 or further because they cannot, by themselves, live any closer to the centre.
It annoys me that I work and cannot afford at present to buy place (around London within reasonable distance of where we both work) without making some sacrifices and there are those that don't work/do work and are claiming housing benefits in excess of what I currently pay or are simply housed in property like mine. Simply because I aspired to a certain wage (yes I am saying this) I am now being penalised?
£400 a month in housing benefits makes a far larger impact on public funds than, say, an £80 a month gesture to familes to buy nappies and formula. It's not the same andyou grumble bums complaining about the squeezed middle complaining about child benefit and not housing benefit.
Well maybe housing benefits do need to be reformed.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No no, you're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the outcry now - I'm asking how we have got to this position in the first place, where it is even possible to be "better off" on benefits if, as is your view, the poor are not well represented.notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:
I don't think I've missed your point, but you are dodging my question....notsoblue wrote:
You've missed my point. They're well represented by Polly Toynbee et al. The arguments I've heard that could be considered to even vaguely be against capping benefits (I don't think I've heard any who have overtly against them to be honest) seem to be put forward by people who recognise that there is a significant group of people for which the transition will be a major upset. And its not those who would be featured as "benefit scroungers" in The Sun. Its just people of a lower socio-economic group that live within Zone 4 of London. Ian Duncan Smith's statement that the current situation encourages this group of people to be too dependant on the state is pretty accurate, and again, I haven't heard anyone disagree with this. Its the attitude to managing the fallout of the transition thats the main point of argument.W1 wrote:
So how have we got to the stage where there are even arguments against capping benefits (for the poor) at more than the average salary of someone who works? It would indicate that the poor are in fact very well represented and protected.notsoblue wrote:The wailing is just liberal paternalism, you can't say thats the poor representing themselves and being politically engaged. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that they're under represented in voter demographic spread.
Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk
If the poor are badly represented, how come they are so well looked after (relatively)? How have we got to this state of affairs if they are so unengaged or unrepresented?
It is notable how most people only really care about something when it threatens them! For what it's worth, I think CB should be scrapped alltogether - if you're relying on a £20 a week safety net from the state in order to look after your child properly then I'd question the sanity and responsibility of having the child in the first place. By all means have other benefits if they are required as a short-term safety net, but the current position is barking.
Well your question doesn't really have relevance to anything I've said... You say that they're being well represented because theres an outcry about the welfare system changes. My point is that theres only an outcry about the bits that affect average or above earners. Those who are speaking up about this want to keep CB at the expense of Housing Benefit. I'd argue that its Housing Benefit cap that will affect the poor more than any changes to CB, in the South East at least.
The outcry is coming from the "Squeeze middle" who were as you (I think it was you) said bribed by New Labour with CB.
CB was around long before new Labour, so I don't think I said that.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's another cut in gov't expenditure, however you look at it. In this case, it's a cut on spending on the poorest there are.
How can people on benefits be "the poorest there are" when they can receive a higher income than someone who works? Surely they are poorer!
Maybe they're not doing it for electioneering purposes, but actually to tackle a long-term problem quickly?0 -
Actually W1 is completely right. It's widly accepted that it can work out financially better to claim benefits than to work. In that case there are those that work who are worse off and ultimately poorer than those on benefits.W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's another cut in gov't expenditure, however you look at it. In this case, it's a cut on spending on the poorest there are.
How can people on benefits be "the poorest there are" when they can receive a higher income than someone who works? Surely they are poorer!
Maybe they're not doing it for electioneering purposes, but actually to tackle a long-term problem quickly?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sorry cheap shotDonDaddyD wrote:
I no longer have a SWTOR subscription. :xnotsoblue wrote:
Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk
And if £8.99 (the cost of a SWTOR subscription) was my only luxury from my disposable income would you begrudge me or any person a single luxury whilst living this hell called life!" because I or they claim child benefit and don't want to lose it when it's clearly stated that it is being used it properly. Though I don't really think anyone has a *right* to benefits for something they can afford themselves. To each according to their need and all that.
Point still stands though. Its the squeezed middle thats being listened to here, rather than the urban poor.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Housing benefit needs to be capped as it makes a far larger impact on society than child benefit - which is available to all and thus fair.
I live in Wimbledon, £400 housing benefit would pay for half my rent. Even if I moved to a reasonable nicer place in the same area I'd pay £1100, which £400 a month would take a juicy chunk out of.
If I needed to live in a bigger place, which I do. I would consider moving to an area (further out presumably) where it is more affordable to own and live in a larger property. You don't need to live in the centre of London. It's wrong to house people in zone 1 and 2 while hard working people are forced to live in zone 6 or further because they cannot, by themselves live any closer to the centre.
It annoys me that I work and cannot afford at present to buy place (around London within reasonable distance of where we both work) without making some sacrifices and there are those that don't work/do work and are claiming housing benefits far in excess of what I currently pay.
£400 a month in housing benefits makes a far larger impact than, say, £80 a week to buy nappies and formula - you grumble bums complaining about the squeezed middle complaining.
The reason housing benefit isn't being talked up or protested about is because it's a given that it is too generous and needs to be capped.
Tangentially relevant anecdote alert: I had a friend who was unemployed for 6 months. He had a 2 bed flat with his girlfriend in docklands. They split up. She moved out. And Housing Benefit covered the entire cost of rent for the period he was unemployed. It was around £1000 pcm. Thats pretty generous.0 -
W1 wrote:No no, you're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the outcry now - I'm asking how we have got to this position in the first place, where it is even possible to be "better off" on benefits if, as is your view, the poor are not well represented.
Well I think my original statement was that the poor aren't as politically engaged. I'm not sure how that is related to the welfare state growing to the point where people are too dependant on it. Unless you think the growth of the welfare state is primarily due to a sustained campaign of political lobbying from organised groups of the unemployed?
For the record, I think the fact that someone can be better off financially on benefits while not working at all indicates a broken system. Long term unemployment is a pretty wretched situation to be in. Even if your material needs are being met.0 -
That's very generous. Sure it kept him in his life, off the street and all that. And in some ways that's, arguably, an example of benefits working.notsoblue wrote:Tangentially relevant anecdote alert: I had a friend who was unemployed for 6 months. He had a 2 bed flat with his girlfriend in docklands. They split up. She moved out. And Housing Benefit covered the entire cost of rent for the period he was unemployed. It was around £1000 pcm. Thats pretty generous.
The real issue would be - what if he went unemployed for 12months + or 2 years even. Would he have his enitre rent paid for that period?
The problem esculates IMO when you've got a family living - indefinantely - somewhere between zone 3 - 1 and the entire housing costs (or part of it) is being paid for. Why? What justifies this?
I'm asking.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
That's very generous. Sure it kept him in his life, off the street and all that. And in some ways that's, arguably, an example of benefits working.notsoblue wrote:Tangentially relevant anecdote alert: I had a friend who was unemployed for 6 months. He had a 2 bed flat with his girlfriend in docklands. They split up. She moved out. And Housing Benefit covered the entire cost of rent for the period he was unemployed. It was around £1000 pcm. Thats pretty generous.
The real issue would be - what if he went unemployed for 12months + or 2 years even. Would he have his enitre rent paid for that period?
The problem esculates IMO when you've got a family living - indefinantely - somewhere between zone 3 - 1 and the entire housing costs (or part of it) is being paid for. Why? What justifies this?
I'm asking.
Yeah, its a pretty good safety net. I think of this when I consider the tax I pay. Its a form of insurance. For the whole country. Some kind of country wide insurance. Maybe someone will come up with a snappy name for it some day... Anyway, its good to know that if I do lose my job the government will be there to make sure I don't have to get "On my bike" and can get myself back on track quickly enough.
I'm not sure how long it lasts for though. Its not indefinite. Maybe it only lasts as long as JSA? Is it the same type of housing benefit that the permanently jobless in central London are using?0 -
Because there is an arguable correlation between the poor being represented, and the growth of the welfare state to this level.notsoblue wrote:Well I think my original statement was that the poor aren't as politically engaged. I'm not sure how that is related to the welfare state growing to the point where people are too dependant on it. Unless you think the growth of the welfare state is primarily due to a sustained campaign of political lobbying from organised groups of the unemployed?
Sorry, I didn't intend to get bogged down - all I was saying was that I am unable to accept that the poor are not well represented when in fact we are at a position where a "safety net" has become a "lifestyle choice". That would indicate that the "poor" are very much over-represented. That is more likely to be due to people or groups acting on their behalf, rather than them being personally engaged politically.0 -
notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
That's very generous. Sure it kept him in his life, off the street and all that. And in some ways that's, arguably, an example of benefits working.notsoblue wrote:Tangentially relevant anecdote alert: I had a friend who was unemployed for 6 months. He had a 2 bed flat with his girlfriend in docklands. They split up. She moved out. And Housing Benefit covered the entire cost of rent for the period he was unemployed. It was around £1000 pcm. Thats pretty generous.
The real issue would be - what if he went unemployed for 12months + or 2 years even. Would he have his enitre rent paid for that period?
The problem esculates IMO when you've got a family living - indefinantely - somewhere between zone 3 - 1 and the entire housing costs (or part of it) is being paid for. Why? What justifies this?
I'm asking.
Yeah, its a pretty good safety net. I think of this when I consider the tax I pay. Its a form of insurance. For the whole country. Some kind of country wide insurance. Maybe someone will come up with a snappy name for it some day... Anyway, its good to know that if I do lose my job the government will be there to make sure I don't have to get "On my bike" and can get myself back on track quickly enough.
I'm not sure how long it lasts for though. Its not indefinite. Maybe it only lasts as long as JSA? Is it the same type of housing benefit that the permanently jobless in central London are using?
That's if you pay tax.....
What if someone doesn't contribute? Should they get anything? I note from my (as yet unanswered) post on the other thread (about Private Sector strikes), that in Norway your unemployment benefit is based on your contributions in the previous year.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Sorry cheap shotDonDaddyD wrote:
I no longer have a SWTOR subscription. :xnotsoblue wrote:
Also, the biggest outcry was about Child Benefit rather than Housing Benefit. The latter of which is less of a concern for the average or above average salaried. It was when CB was at risk that the the DDD's of the country took notice. After all, their nappy/beer/SWTOR Subscription/Trust Fund money was at risk
And if £8.99 (the cost of a SWTOR subscription) was my only luxury from my disposable income would you begrudge me or any person a single luxury whilst living this hell called life!" because I or they claim child benefit and don't want to lose it when it's clearly stated that it is being used it properly. Though I don't really think anyone has a *right* to benefits for something they can afford themselves. To each according to their need and all that.
Point still stands though. Its the squeezed middle thats being listened to here, rather than the urban poor.
Well maybe child benefit is named incorrectly. It is an indiscriminate cash payment for families who have children. It isn't dependent on whether you are 'poor' or unemployed. In this case I don't think it is wrong to claim said payment from the Government. It is not fraud, illegal or even morally wrong to do so. It's there for everyone (with children).
And, aside from having children, there is no requirement to determine that you need it. So it's not like anyone can really moan.
Child benefit is such a minor thing to argue over. It's managed well and the amount is relatively small. Those with large family living off benefits claim far more than just Child Benefits to achieve the reported £20,000 - £40,000 yearly benefits. Those who really need financial support (if they have kids can, if they qualify, claim for the following):
Children and tax credits: -
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start ... /index.htm
Child benefit: -
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/sta ... /index.htm
Council Tax Benefit: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018923
Cold Weather Payment: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/moneytaxand ... g_10018668
In work credit: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10013908
Local Housing Allowance: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018928
Ordinary statutory paternity pay: - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018750
Sure Start maternity Grant: -
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... G_10018854
Tax Credits: -
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/TAXCREDITS/
I looked up everything when Ms DDD told me she was pregnant. Only thing I qualified for was Child Benefit.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Well maybe child benefit is named incorrectly. It is an indiscriminate cash payment for families who have children. It isn't dependent on whether you are 'poor' or unemployed. In this case I don't think it is wrong to claim said payment from the Government. It is not fraud, illegal or even morally wrong to do so. It's there for everyone (with children).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you shouldn't claim it. It whether it should be available for you to claim in the first place.
You are quite right, you are not obliged (and I wouldn't) air your finances in public. But I would be genuinely surprised if the only thing between your child and being nappy and milk-less is £20 a week from the state. And, trying not to make this personal, I think the same could be said for a large number of recipients of CB. And that's why it's a waste of money that should (and could) be better spent elsewhere.0 -
Gotcha, well I'm on board with that. And I'd go so far as to say that those groups acting on their behalf (paternalistic leftwingers I guess you'd call them?) may have had good intentions, but the results have been detrimental.W1 wrote:Because there is an arguable correlation between the poor being represented, and the growth of the welfare state to this level.
Sorry, I didn't intend to get bogged down - all I was saying was that I am unable to accept that the poor are not well represented when in fact we are at a position where a "safety net" has become a "lifestyle choice". That would indicate that the "poor" are very much over-represented. That is more likely to be due to people or groups acting on their behalf, rather than them being personally engaged politically.
Put crudely, I think the group we're talking about here is stuck between the right wing who disregard them in pursuit of opportunity for those who want to grab it ("Life isn't fair") and the left wing who mollycoddle them out of a feeling of guilt ("Think of the children!").
My thought on the matter is that we should really grasp the nettle and look at the root cause of benefit dependency which appears to me to be related to our implementation of capitalism in this country. Like it or not, big business needs to be socially responsible. That employers like Tesco can get away with not paying their employees a living wage because the government picks up the rest of the tab is part of the problem.
I'm sure you disagree with that though
0 -
I don't have the answer to that to be honest. Though in the UK you get notified when you've claimed more in JSA than you've contributed while employed. So its being tracked.W1 wrote:What if someone doesn't contribute? Should they get anything? I note from my (as yet unanswered) post on the other thread (about Private Sector strikes), that in Norway your unemployment benefit is based on your contributions in the previous year.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's another cut in gov't expenditure, however you look at it. In this case, it's a cut on spending on the poorest there are.
How can people on benefits be "the poorest there are" when they can receive a higher income than someone who works? Surely they are poorer!
Maybe they're not doing it for electioneering purposes, but actually to tackle a long-term problem quickly?
They're hardly rich are they? And my point still stands re-likeliest to get a good multiplier for the investment. Given the number of people per household for the households getting the most from benefits, I'd suggest they easily fall into the 'poorest' catagory, per head.
You're not going to get £26,000 as an able bodied bachelor, wherever you live.0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Well maybe child benefit is named incorrectly. It is an indiscriminate cash payment for families who have children. It isn't dependent on whether you are 'poor' or unemployed. In this case I don't think it is wrong to claim said payment from the Government. It is not fraud, illegal or even morally wrong to do so. It's there for everyone (with children).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you shouldn't claim it. It whether it should be available for you to claim in the first place.
You are quite right, you are not obliged (and I wouldn't) air your finances in public. But I would be genuinely surprised if the only thing between your child and being nappy and milk-less is £20 a week from the state. And, trying not to make this personal, I think the same could be said for a large number of recipients of CB. And that's why it's a waste of money that should (and could) be better spent elsewhere.
But as a gesture and benefit of investing and being a productive part of this society Child Benefit does far more good endearing the populous with the society we live in and its Government. Honestly, a universal Child Benefit scheme makes paying taxes more palatable especially when all other benefits I seemingly appear exempt from.
There is also a question of waste. Does the sum total of child benefit spent exceed that of housing and disability benefits for those that don't need them or don't nearly need as much?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I don't completely disagree, no. I read your views on t'other thread about Tesco et al, and see that as less about a living wage and perhaps more about job security/security of income.notsoblue wrote:
Gotcha, well I'm on board with that. And I'd go so far as to say that those groups acting on their behalf (paternalistic leftwingers I guess you'd call them?) may have had good intentions, but the results have been detrimental.W1 wrote:Because there is an arguable correlation between the poor being represented, and the growth of the welfare state to this level.
Sorry, I didn't intend to get bogged down - all I was saying was that I am unable to accept that the poor are not well represented when in fact we are at a position where a "safety net" has become a "lifestyle choice". That would indicate that the "poor" are very much over-represented. That is more likely to be due to people or groups acting on their behalf, rather than them being personally engaged politically.
Put crudely, I think the group we're talking about here is stuck between the right wing who disregard them in pursuit of opportunity for those who want to grab it ("Life isn't fair") and the left wing who mollycoddle them out of a feeling of guilt ("Think of the children!").
My thought on the matter is that we should really grasp the nettle and look at the root cause of benefit dependency which appears to me to be related to our implementation of capitalism in this country. Like it or not, big business needs to be socially responsible. That employers like Tesco can get away with not paying their employees a living wage because the government picks up the rest of the tab is part of the problem.
I'm sure you disagree with that though
What is bizarre is that so many people have jobs yet receive benefits. That just seems bonkers to me. Wholescale reform is clearly required - but perhaps if tax credits, housing benefits etc were reduced, then employers would have no choice but to pay an actual "living wage" otherwise they will find themselves with no employees at all - because they couldn't afford to live near work, or commute? Maybe reform of minimum wages and/or revisions to the employment position of part-time workers would go hand in hand with changes to the welfare state so that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time?0 -
The poor wait to see the representatives. The rich have our representatives waiting on them.jds_1981 wrote:
Load of crap. They have votes. They have charities lobbying, plenty of leftwing press, they have MPs and I'd suggest that the unemployed have more free time to go and see their representatives on workshop days.SimonAH wrote:Especially since they have no voice or means of fighting back.0 -
W1 wrote:
What is bizarre is that so many people have jobs yet receive benefits. That just seems bonkers to me. Wholescale reform is clearly required - but perhaps if tax credits, housing benefits etc were reduced, then employers would have no choice but to pay an actual "living wage" otherwise they will find themselves with no employees at all - because they couldn't afford to live near work, or commute? Maybe reform of minimum wages and/or revisions to the employment position of part-time workers would go hand in hand with changes to the welfare state so that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time?
We both know the highlighted does not work in practice.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Well maybe child benefit is named incorrectly. It is an indiscriminate cash payment for families who have children. It isn't dependent on whether you are 'poor' or unemployed. In this case I don't think it is wrong to claim said payment from the Government. It is not fraud, illegal or even morally wrong to do so. It's there for everyone (with children).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you shouldn't claim it. It whether it should be available for you to claim in the first place.
You are quite right, you are not obliged (and I wouldn't) air your finances in public. But I would be genuinely surprised if the only thing between your child and being nappy and milk-less is £20 a week from the state. And, trying not to make this personal, I think the same could be said for a large number of recipients of CB. And that's why it's a waste of money that should (and could) be better spent elsewhere.
But as a gesture and benefit of investing and being a productive part of this society Child Benefit does far more good endearing the populous with the society we live in and its Government. Honestly, a universal Child Benefit scheme makes paying taxes more palatable especially when all other benefits I seemingly appear exempt from.
There is also a question of waste. Does the sum total of child benefit spent exceed that of housing and disability benefits for those that don't need them or don't nearly need as much?
OK, well as a childless man (so far, that I know of, nudge nudge), what do I get as a "gesture and benefit of investing and being a productive part of this society"? What "makes paying taxes more palatable" for me? I can assure you that it isn't the thought that if, god forbid, I had kids, I'd get £20 a week for them!
Just because CB isn't the most wasteful benefit doesn't mean it should be reconsidered.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
What is bizarre is that so many people have jobs yet receive benefits. That just seems bonkers to me. Wholescale reform is clearly required - but perhaps if tax credits, housing benefits etc were reduced, then employers would have no choice but to pay an actual "living wage" otherwise they will find themselves with no employees at all - because they couldn't afford to live near work, or commute? Maybe reform of minimum wages and/or revisions to the employment position of part-time workers would go hand in hand with changes to the welfare state so that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time?
We both know the highlighted does not work in practice.
Do we?0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
What is bizarre is that so many people have jobs yet receive benefits. That just seems bonkers to me. Wholescale reform is clearly required - but perhaps if tax credits, housing benefits etc were reduced, then employers would have no choice but to pay an actual "living wage" otherwise they will find themselves with no employees at all - because they couldn't afford to live near work, or commute? Maybe reform of minimum wages and/or revisions to the employment position of part-time workers would go hand in hand with changes to the welfare state so that if you are working, it is worth doing and you have some sort of protection even if you are part time?
We both know the highlighted does not work in practice.
Do we?
Yeah, take a look at any developing nation with poor worker legislation.
If people are desperate for any money at all, they will work for whatever they can get.
If that is a ridiculously small amount, it's better than nothing.
Without strict guidance (legislation), firms cannot be expected to be fair at their own expense.
There will always be people who are desperate enough to take on exploitative jobs. Things like minimum wages etc are there to stop those exploitative jobs existing.0
