£12 billion in welfare cuts

13567…15

Comments

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    you tell me stevo, where would YOU make the cuts? you dont want to increase wages, so working benefits have to stay, you dont want the rich to pay more/or get less as thats the politics of envy, free childcare is going UP and Cameron is on rec as promisng no cuts in child benefit either, so unless he wants to do a Clegg.....
    But as you pointed out, pensions account for 50% of total welfare spending @114bn and you dont seem to want to cut that either, so whats left? education has been promised MORE, NHS protected and MORE money.

    that leaves defence but the Tories are committed to Tridents replacement, so no savings there.

    Working benefits may well be only 1/2 the welfare budget, but thats still way over 100bn and paying the living wage would help reduce that bill, as would more social housing and curbs on rent but you dont want any of that either :lol:
    Seems like I touched a raw nerve there when I put you straight on a few basic facts :wink:

    BTW you seems to be putting words into my mouth - where did I say that I did not want to touch pensions? And you are assuming that I automatically agree with everything Cameron is proposing.

    Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
    - Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
    - Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
    - Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
    - Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

    There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

    I agree in the most part, but I wouldn't necessarily means test pensions. If you do that, you remove the incentive to save to provide for your old age, depending on where you set the cut off point of course. If it is set so that the likes of Sugar, Branson etc and perhaps VTech :wink: miss out, then fine, but not at a level where 'ordinary' people are affected. But as this would affect relatively few people, the savings would be marginal.
    As people are living longer and in general are healthier, it makes sense to increase the retirement age at which people can claim state pension. I know that this is already under way and I feel the age will be raised even further.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
    - Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
    - Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
    - Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
    - Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

    There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

    I agree in the most part, but I wouldn't necessarily means test pensions. If you do that, you remove the incentive to save to provide for your old age, depending on where you set the cut off point of course. If it is set so that the likes of Sugar, Branson etc and perhaps VTech :wink: miss out, then fine, but not at a level where 'ordinary' people are affected. But as this would affect relatively few people, the savings would be marginal.
    As people are living longer and in general are healthier, it makes sense to increase the retirement age at which people can claim state pension. I know that this is already under way and I feel the age will be raised even further.

    People are living longer but not necessarily healthier and it does depend on your job.
    But unfortunately, leaving people longer in their work restricts opportunities for young people, unemployment levels are already around 25% and even higher, as many are in further education, learning what exactly?
    It might be better to be more imaginative and let people retire earlier but on a smaller pension, give incentives to employers to allow mentoring of young people with older part time workers.

    as for Stevos shot on supply/demand.... the various working benefit schemes, which keep wages artificiality low - hardly fit into a free market economy do they? let alone giving 30hrs free child care.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    mamba80 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
    - Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
    - Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
    - Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
    - Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

    There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

    I agree in the most part, but I wouldn't necessarily means test pensions. If you do that, you remove the incentive to save to provide for your old age, depending on where you set the cut off point of course. If it is set so that the likes of Sugar, Branson etc and perhaps VTech :wink: miss out, then fine, but not at a level where 'ordinary' people are affected. But as this would affect relatively few people, the savings would be marginal.
    As people are living longer and in general are healthier, it makes sense to increase the retirement age at which people can claim state pension. I know that this is already under way and I feel the age will be raised even further.

    People are living longer but not necessarily healthier and it does depend on your job.
    But unfortunately, leaving people longer in their work restricts opportunities for young people, unemployment levels are already around 25% and even higher, as many are in further education, learning what exactly?
    It might be better to be more imaginative and let people retire earlier but on a smaller pension, give incentives to employers to allow mentoring of young people with older part time workers.

    as for Stevos shot on supply/demand.... the various working benefit schemes, which keep wages artificiality low - hardly fit into a free market economy do they? let alone giving 30hrs free child care.

    All that does is shift the welfare burden from pensions to other benefits if the pension is too low.
    As regards supply and demand, Mark Carney has some views on immigration and its effects.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html
  • Diamant49
    Diamant49 Posts: 101
    Ballysmate wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Since we are on a thread about welfare, where would I cut welfare?
    - Pensions is the largest item and most likely to grow in future as people live longer and are healthier later into their life, so means test the state pension, scrap gold plated final salary pension schemes for civil servants and increase the age at which the pension can be claimed.
    - Make sure that welfare is a genuine safety net by (a) making sure it is not lucrative enough to be a lifestyle choice as it clearly is for too many these days (b) cutting out more of the obvious abuse.
    - Restrict the max that a household can claim in total benefits (already on the agenda).
    - Restrict child benefit to a certain number of kids. If you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em.

    There is more to it than cuts however. The other half of the equation of course is improving the UK as a business friendly environment - not just tax but reducing red tape, increasing ease of starting and doing business etc. As you will know this attracts/encourages investment and businesses - that go on to pay tax and employ people who - guess what - pay tax and VAT and excise duty etc. This also improves the unemployment rate, so reducing welfare payments and by reducing the number of available employees, increases wages (I assume you understand the law of supply and demand?) - again reducing welfare payments. It is a virtuous circle, although the principle always seems rather counter-intuitive for lefties.

    I agree in the most part, but I wouldn't necessarily means test pensions. If you do that, you remove the incentive to save to provide for your old age, depending on where you set the cut off point of course. If it is set so that the likes of Sugar, Branson etc and perhaps VTech :wink: miss out, then fine, but not at a level where 'ordinary' people are affected. But as this would affect relatively few people, the savings would be marginal.
    As people are living longer and in general are healthier, it makes sense to increase the retirement age at which people can claim state pension. I know that this is already under way and I feel the age will be raised even further.

    People are living longer but not necessarily healthier and it does depend on your job.
    But unfortunately, leaving people longer in their work restricts opportunities for young people, unemployment levels are already around 25% and even higher, as many are in further education, learning what exactly?
    It might be better to be more imaginative and let people retire earlier but on a smaller pension, give incentives to employers to allow mentoring of young people with older part time workers.

    as for Stevos shot on supply/demand.... the various working benefit schemes, which keep wages artificiality low - hardly fit into a free market economy do they? let alone giving 30hrs free child care.

    All that does is shift the welfare burden from pensions to other benefits if the pension is too low.
    As regards supply and demand, Mark Carney has some views on immigration and its effects.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

    And if you listened to him on Radio 4 Today programme you would have heard him say that he wanted to damp down that argument - he said it was a contributory factor, but not as significant as has been reported. His main argument was about the increase of low-paid jobs, mostly in the service sector - and that immigrants generally were over qualified for the jobs the took up initially, but tended to rise up the job chain to a higher level, making a significant contribution to the economy and productivity in the process.

    Unfortunately the Daily Mail is not a reliable source!
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    The financial challenge of raising kids has changed a lot in just a couple of generations. Go back to the 50s to 70s when men earned a far greater % of total pay and of course it represented little pain for the mum to stay at home and look after the kids.

    Today - whilst not yet equal, women early a much bigger slice of the total pay pie (as they should) and as a result it is now not affordable to have kids and keep one parent at home for many families. Unless we only want well off people to have kids then it is inevitable that the state needs to assist with childcare in an environment where there is greater equality in pay.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • sloppyschleckonds
    sloppyschleckonds Posts: 8,019
    Daz555 wrote:
    Today - whilst not yet equal, women early a much bigger slice of the total pay pie (as they should) and as a result it is now not affordable to have kids and keep one parent at home for many families.

    Why isn't it affordable? Would it mean a drop in living standards?
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    Ballysmate wrote:
    On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

    What a horrendous post. You seem to be suggesting that parents who work don't love their children as much as those that stay at home? You obviously have no children and have no concept of doing what's best for them other than your own ideals, of which you have no experience.
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I don't advocate keeping kids in poverty but we must get away from the dependency on the state attitude.
    One guy on here was moaning that his wife would have to give up a job paying in excess of 50k to look after their kid and is moaning about the cost of childcare, as the state only pays so much. Jesus wept!

    Let's get some facts straight because you obviously can't read.

    I wasn't moaning in the slightest. I was pointing out the simple fact that someone earning say £1000 per month with nursery age children cannot afford to pay nursery fees. They can't afford to work.

    More childcare from the government would mean more people going out to work, that's a simple fact.

    If my wife or I gave up work, we would still be entitled to exactly the same amount of free childcare as EVERYBODY gets, regardless of whether you work or not. The difference would be we wouldn't be paying anywhere near as much back into the system.


    As you made it personal - my wife doesn't earn in excess of £50k, she earns £40k and me £25k.I don't work 9-5, I work early hours so pick our son up early and neither of us have any intention of giving up work after our 2nd child comes later this year. We pay far more into the system than we will ever get back.

    And I'm not worried about our children getting a good start in life - my wife is head of foundation unit in a primary school, so I think our children will do just fine thank you.

    You obviously don't have any children and seem to have a problem with those that do - you have the same choices as everyone else, decide to have children and you'll get the same as everyone else does. Don't have any, fine, but don't moan about it.
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    SloppySchleckonds wrote:
    Daz555 wrote:
    Today - whilst not yet equal, women early a much bigger slice of the total pay pie (as they should) and as a result it is now not affordable to have kids and keep one parent at home for many families.

    Why isn't it affordable? Would it mean a drop in living standards?

    Seen house prices lately?
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    NorvernRob wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    On a more serious note, what better start in life is there than being reared by loving parents who brought you into this world?

    What a horrendous post. You seem to be suggesting that parents who work don't love their children as much as those that stay at home? You obviously have no children and have no concept of doing what's best for them other than your own ideals, of which you have no experience.

    I was responding to Rick who posted
    Those children will be the ones looking after you in your old age so it would make sense to give 'em a good start in life.

    Society needs people to reproduce so it makes sense government steps in to help.

    The implication being that a good start is dependent on earning power of the parents. I did not say or imply you or anyone else love their kids. How could I? I've never met you.
    You however seem to be gifted with second sight, knowing that I have no kids and also that I have no experience of my own ideals, whatever that means.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    NorvernRob wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I don't advocate keeping kids in poverty but we must get away from the dependency on the state attitude.
    One guy on here was moaning that his wife would have to give up a job paying in excess of 50k to look after their kid and is moaning about the cost of childcare, as the state only pays so much. Jesus wept!

    Let's get some facts straight because you obviously can't read.

    I wasn't moaning in the slightest. I was pointing out the simple fact that someone earning say £1000 per month with nursery age children cannot afford to pay nursery fees. They can't afford to work.

    More childcare from the government would mean more people going out to work, that's a simple fact.

    If my wife or I gave up work, we would still be entitled to exactly the same amount of free childcare as EVERYBODY gets, regardless of whether you work or not. The difference would be we wouldn't be paying anywhere near as much back into the system.


    As you made it personal - my wife doesn't earn in excess of £50k, she earns £40k and me £25k.I don't work 9-5, I work early hours so pick our son up early and neither of us have any intention of giving up work after our 2nd child comes later this year. We pay far more into the system than we will ever get back.

    And I'm not worried about our children getting a good start in life - my wife is head of foundation unit in a primary school, so I think our children will do just fine thank you.

    You obviously don't have any children and seem to have a problem with those that do - you have the same choices as everyone else, decide to have children and you'll get the same as everyone else does. Don't have any, fine, but don't moan about it.

    Again, the second sight about the size of my family. :wink:
    For what it's worth, i do regret singling you out as an example, but that is history. I reiterate my earlier position, children are the responsibility of the parents and I find the idea that people are automatically entitled to state funded childcare bizarre.
    People on low income may need help, I accept that. But I did find irony in someone coming onto a thread about welfare cuts, complain about the cost of childcare and then announce that is missus is on 40k
  • sloppyschleckonds
    sloppyschleckonds Posts: 8,019
    NorvernRob wrote:
    SloppySchleckonds wrote:
    Daz555 wrote:
    Today - whilst not yet equal, women early a much bigger slice of the total pay pie (as they should) and as a result it is now not affordable to have kids and keep one parent at home for many families.

    Why isn't it affordable? Would it mean a drop in living standards?

    Seen house prices lately?

    As was said above, those same dual income families have contributed to higher house prices.

    And its safe to assume that a couple both working deciding to have children already have a home to bring up their offspring so wouldn't be affected by house prices.
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    NorvernRob wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    I don't advocate keeping kids in poverty but we must get away from the dependency on the state attitude.
    One guy on here was moaning that his wife would have to give up a job paying in excess of 50k to look after their kid and is moaning about the cost of childcare, as the state only pays so much. Jesus wept!

    Let's get some facts straight because you obviously can't read.

    I wasn't moaning in the slightest. I was pointing out the simple fact that someone earning say £1000 per month with nursery age children cannot afford to pay nursery fees. They can't afford to work.

    More childcare from the government would mean more people going out to work, that's a simple fact.

    If my wife or I gave up work, we would still be entitled to exactly the same amount of free childcare as EVERYBODY gets, regardless of whether you work or not. The difference would be we wouldn't be paying anywhere near as much back into the system.


    As you made it personal - my wife doesn't earn in excess of £50k, she earns £40k and me £25k.I don't work 9-5, I work early hours so pick our son up early and neither of us have any intention of giving up work after our 2nd child comes later this year. We pay far more into the system than we will ever get back.

    And I'm not worried about our children getting a good start in life - my wife is head of foundation unit in a primary school, so I think our children will do just fine thank you.

    You obviously don't have any children and seem to have a problem with those that do - you have the same choices as everyone else, decide to have children and you'll get the same as everyone else does. Don't have any, fine, but don't moan about it.
    I do not have kids, and actually I am entitled to moan about my tax £s going to child benefit. If you want kids, fine, why should I have to contribute to their upbringing?
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    I do not have kids, and actually I am entitled to moan about my tax £s going to child benefit. If you want kids, fine, why should I have to contribute to their upbringing?
    Because that's the system that we have that wage structures and benefits structures are built around.
    In a blue sky world, I would rather people earned a living wage and didn't need all the benefits.
    I'm not talking about some socialist share the wealth type thing, I mean receive less benefits but pay out less in tax keeping the status quo broadly the same but remove the idea that the state is giving you money.

    On a more socialist note, the fact that people can't get by without state assistance when they're earning a reasonable wage shows that social structures are broken.

    Ed talked about securing benefits which is lame. His rhetoric should have been to remove the need for benefits just to get by when you're working. Tories need to stop attacking people who need benefits on top of wages whilst not really attempting to make work rewarding. All stick, no carrot.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Of course the payment of the living wage would make a huge difference but the right dont want that and we ve another 5 years of the Tories, however, I am with Bally on childcare costs, the state already give child benefit and i do not see that it is the states responsibility to pay private providers (who will make money out of this scheme) to look after other people kids, tbh it maybe old fashioned but generally speaking children should be with their parents in the early years, maybe a day or 2 per week in a nursery to dev social learning?

    Rather than private provision, which is a long way off from being able to provide the 30hrs promised, a better way would be to ensure school hours reflect the modern working world instead of what happened in the 1950's and have a state run system using schools?
    Kids get more access to extra curricular sports and other clubs plus help with numeracy etc and parents dont have to fit in a working life with out of date school hours, sure it will incur cost but would help our kids a whole lot more than paying the private school fees of the owners of the "little Daisy flying start nursery"
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Forget that it is the Mail.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

    If there is substance to the article, there were some eye watering amounts being handed out as benefits.

    Chancellor George Osborne has admitted to being 'shocked' upon entering the Treasury five years ago to discover some families collecting up to £90,000 in handouts.

    42 families claiming over 47k a year?


    @ Morstar.
    I too would like to see people earn a living wage, rather than live on benefits. I am all for helping people in need, but people need to first try to help themselves. There are some people in this country who won't work. Before anyone jumps up and down saying that is Tory bollox, I can point to members of my extended family as examples.
    Benefits - safety net, not a career choice.
    I think some people were living on more than just carrots. :wink:
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    It is very easy to tot up large amounts of cash when child benefit is paid per child. Hence, there is a real incentive for some ladies to have umpteen children from multiple fathers as it means that the cash just keeps flowing in with no accountability. My wife deals with some of these large families and, yes, one could point out that a large family takes a lot of upkeep...trouble is the kind of folks with some of these large families are more than happy to drink/smoke/lottery their lives away leaving the state to pick up the fallout because they really don't give a sh1t.

    It all sounds like a toryboy rant but this is real life for some poor kids and the easy money just keeps the circle turning as having kids becomes the only viable option to earn good money and get a free house for the next generation.
  • Diamant49
    Diamant49 Posts: 101
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    I do not have kids, and actually I am entitled to moan about my tax £s going to child benefit. If you want kids, fine, why should I have to contribute to their upbringing?

    Ok, but my kid and most others will (hopefully) end up making a net contribution to the economy, which will pay for your pension, health care etc. after you stop working. Its basically how society has always worked, if enough kids are not produced, then everyone is stuffed in their dotage - think pyramid, not inverted pyramid in terms of age structure.

    Having said that, I don't think all benefits should be open-ended (which child benefit isn't anymore, I think) - we stopped claiming child benefit a few years ago as we were lucky enough not to need it.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Forget that it is the Mail.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html
    If there is substance to the article, there were some eye watering amounts being handed out as benefits.

    Chancellor George Osborne has admitted to being 'shocked' upon entering the Treasury five years ago to discover some families collecting up to £90,000 in handouts.

    42 families claiming over 47k a year?


    @ Morstar.
    I too would like to see people earn a living wage, rather than live on benefits. I am all for helping people in need, but people need to first try to help themselves. There are some people in this country who won't work. Before anyone jumps up and down saying that is Tory bollox, I can point to members of my extended family as examples.
    Benefits - safety net, not a career choice.
    I think some people were living on more than just carrots. :wink:

    Bally, of course families claiming these sort of amounts is a disgrace but what is the alternative? rent takes up a huge amount of their benefits, years ago, they d have been on a council estate paying a peppercorn rent.
    last year i did some work in some poorer parts of plymouth and was shocked at the levels of poverty and of the people themselves, many are basically unemployable, they are are illiterate, innumerate and have zero skills or the ability to learn any that an employer would want, many also have mental health issues.
    Unless we want these kids turning to even more crime and begging, i dont see what the alternative is?

    the cycle needs to be broken but this is with their kids, the parents might be beyond our help.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    State paid childcare is a little bugbear for me right now. My child is going to reach the age we get free childcare by the end of the year. We are funding him on a few half days now and use a mixture of flexible working and grandparents to sort out childcare. The 15 hours is it we will get is something we will accept because it is there but we would have carried on as we were even if it wasn't there.

    What I find interesting is how families where there is one parent at home looking after children who are too young to claim free hours childcare are coming to pick their older kids up with a baby in tow. I wonder if you are already looking after pre-school age kids then why should the state pay for the older ones? You are not doing work during those hours so are not putting back into the state and you are available to look after your own kids without claiming off the state.

    Harsh? Perhaps but when there is often a shortage of available spaces for these free childcare from the state these people are blocking places for those who need childcare for employment. Perhaps I am misguided in my views but I feel in some ways people need to be honest and ask whether the benefit that is available to them is really needed. What I mean is don't take what you can from the state coffers if you really don't need it. Childcare is one thing this can apply to. If those 15 hours were at full cost or even part cost would you take them? I reckon a lot would not bother so perhaps they should not get those hours in that case.

    BTW if you want to look at incomes and benefits, we have less than 20k coming in and we are not claiming anything other than free prescriptions for our child (not exactly something you have to claim for though). We have made the decision not to claim for tax credits because we are managing ok without. That is what I am advocating. What you need as as safety net is what you should claim not what you can get.

    I will get into trouble for this if I am not careful because I know of someone who in the past was completely living off benefits with 2 kids. That person had a 3 bed semi-detached house fully paid for by the state in a really nice part of the town. This was quite some time ago probably under a much older system. That person was earning from the state more than a fully qualified engineer (civil, electrical, mechanical) with chartered status was earning about 6-10 years into their career, i.e. with experience and more training. We know that because that engineer an I looked into rental values of that house (or ones similar in the area) also compared mortgage costs if you were to buy it. We looked into other benefits that were likely to be available to this person and the family. It was well over £10k more than I earnt at the time and I was on reasonably money at that time. Also 3 holidays overseas without children on state benefits. I wonder if that is still possible now?

    Now benefits IMHO have left the safety net and moved into the living category. Should be reviewed and changed I reckon
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,269
    5 years ago there was a big noise about reform and simplification of the welfare system, Iain Duncan Smith took the lead. Remember that, big changes were promised. 5 years later, more noise about reduction in amount spent on welfare, promises of reform blah blah. Iain Duncan Smith to lead.

    So are the initiatives incompetent, or is the welfare system rather complex? Or bit of both?

    Yes there are freeloaders parasiting on the back of society. Yes there are people in need who struggle to get support. No, there are no easy answers.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Diamant49 wrote:
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    I do not have kids, and actually I am entitled to moan about my tax £s going to child benefit. If you want kids, fine, why should I have to contribute to their upbringing?

    Ok, but my kid and most others will (hopefully) end up making a net contribution to the economy, which will pay for your pension, health care etc. after you stop working. Its basically how society has always worked, if enough kids are not produced, then everyone is stuffed in their dotage - think pyramid, not inverted pyramid in terms of age structure.

    Having said that, I don't think all benefits should be open-ended (which child benefit isn't anymore, I think) - we stopped claiming child benefit a few years ago as we were lucky enough not to need it.
    Ah, that old argument - "the children are our future".
    You have of course assumed that I can (or will) stop working, sit on my 'arris and scream for my benefits. If we do need taxes to pay for benefits, we could always invite some immigrants to our great country and make them pay loads of tax while they are here. The benefit of this is that some other sucker has paid for their upbringing.
    Or you parents out there had better get them a good education so they can become high-earning, highly taxed wage slaves.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • arthur_scrimshaw
    arthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,596
    welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg

    Hasn't changed much - as you can see the Incapacity Benefit, JSA and ESA are a small percentage of the total bill, we need to bump off all the scrounging pensioners (living the high life) to make a real impact.
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    edited May 2015
    Bobbinogs wrote:
    It is very easy to tot up large amounts of cash when child benefit is paid per child. Hence, there is a real incentive for some ladies to have umpteen children from multiple fathers as it means that the cash just keeps flowing in with no accountability. My wife deals with some of these large families and, yes, one could point out that a large family takes a lot of upkeep...trouble is the kind of folks with some of these large families are more than happy to drink/smoke/lottery their lives away leaving the state to pick up the fallout because they really don't give a sh1t.

    It all sounds like a toryboy rant but this is real life for some poor kids and the easy money just keeps the circle turning as having kids becomes the only viable option to earn good money and get a free house for the next generation.

    This is absolutely true. The school my wife works in is in a rough area, I also work in the same area and although there are plenty of 'good' people there are a significant number of families who haven't had anyone working for years.

    They come in asking my wife to refer their kids to a local centre that deals with ADHD, Autism etc, because of their child is diagnosed with something like that they get extra benefits.

    On a school trip last week one mum took her child to the cafe for lunch as she hadn't brought any with her. The cafe later contacted the school, saying they had received complaints from customers that the mother had bought 2 bottles of Bulmers and given one to her 5 year old son. :shock:

    As shown by the pie chart posted earlier though, the real chunk of money spent on benefits (pensions etc) is only going to rise as the population gets older, and the actual bill for people out of work isn't actually that big, relatively speaking.

    It's obvious from the differing opinions on this thread that there is no easy answer, if there's an answer at all. You can't just leave people to starve with no money.

    As I posted earlier, the amount an average household needs to earn before actually making a net contribution to the state is £35k+. Households earning under that amount are a burden on the state no matter how many hours or how hard you work.
  • sloppyschleckonds
    sloppyschleckonds Posts: 8,019
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    State paid childcare is a little bugbear for me right now. My child is going to reach the age we get free childcare by the end of the year. We are funding him on a few half days now and use a mixture of flexible working and grandparents to sort out childcare. The 15 hours is it we will get is something we will accept because it is there but we would have carried on as we were even if it wasn't there.

    What I find interesting is how families where there is one parent at home looking after children who are too young to claim free hours childcare are coming to pick their older kids up with a baby in tow. I wonder if you are already looking after pre-school age kids then why should the state pay for the older ones? You are not doing work during those hours so are not putting back into the state and you are available to look after your own kids without claiming off the state.

    Harsh? Perhaps but when there is often a shortage of available spaces for these free childcare from the state these people are blocking places for those who need childcare for employment. Perhaps I am misguided in my views but I feel in some ways people need to be honest and ask whether the benefit that is available to them is really needed. What I mean is don't take what you can from the state coffers if you really don't need it. Childcare is one thing this can apply to. If those 15 hours were at full cost or even part cost would you take them? I reckon a lot would not bother so perhaps they should not get those hours in that case.

    BTW if you want to look at incomes and benefits, we have less than 20k coming in and we are not claiming anything other than free prescriptions for our child (not exactly something you have to claim for though). We have made the decision not to claim for tax credits because we are managing ok without. That is what I am advocating. What you need as as safety net is what you should claim not what you can get.

    I will get into trouble for this if I am not careful because I know of someone who in the past was completely living off benefits with 2 kids. That person had a 3 bed semi-detached house fully paid for by the state in a really nice part of the town. This was quite some time ago probably under a much older system. That person was earning from the state more than a fully qualified engineer (civil, electrical, mechanical) with chartered status was earning about 6-10 years into their career, i.e. with experience and more training. We know that because that engineer an I looked into rental values of that house (or ones similar in the area) also compared mortgage costs if you were to buy it. We looked into other benefits that were likely to be available to this person and the family. It was well over £10k more than I earnt at the time and I was on reasonably money at that time. Also 3 holidays overseas without children on state benefits. I wonder if that is still possible now?

    Now benefits IMHO have left the safety net and moved into the living category. Should be reviewed and changed I reckon

    Think you've pretty much summed up the problem with the system. I feel for you reading this and others in similar situations that really need assistance rather than those expecting it as part of their healthy joint incomes.
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    SloppySchleckonds wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    State paid childcare is a little bugbear for me right now. My child is going to reach the age we get free childcare by the end of the year. We are funding him on a few half days now and use a mixture of flexible working and grandparents to sort out childcare. The 15 hours is it we will get is something we will accept because it is there but we would have carried on as we were even if it wasn't there.

    What I find interesting is how families where there is one parent at home looking after children who are too young to claim free hours childcare are coming to pick their older kids up with a baby in tow. I wonder if you are already looking after pre-school age kids then why should the state pay for the older ones? You are not doing work during those hours so are not putting back into the state and you are available to look after your own kids without claiming off the state.

    Harsh? Perhaps but when there is often a shortage of available spaces for these free childcare from the state these people are blocking places for those who need childcare for employment. Perhaps I am misguided in my views but I feel in some ways people need to be honest and ask whether the benefit that is available to them is really needed. What I mean is don't take what you can from the state coffers if you really don't need it. Childcare is one thing this can apply to. If those 15 hours were at full cost or even part cost would you take them? I reckon a lot would not bother so perhaps they should not get those hours in that case.

    BTW if you want to look at incomes and benefits, we have less than 20k coming in and we are not claiming anything other than free prescriptions for our child (not exactly something you have to claim for though). We have made the decision not to claim for tax credits because we are managing ok without. That is what I am advocating. What you need as as safety net is what you should claim not what you can get.

    I will get into trouble for this if I am not careful because I know of someone who in the past was completely living off benefits with 2 kids. That person had a 3 bed semi-detached house fully paid for by the state in a really nice part of the town. This was quite some time ago probably under a much older system. That person was earning from the state more than a fully qualified engineer (civil, electrical, mechanical) with chartered status was earning about 6-10 years into their career, i.e. with experience and more training. We know that because that engineer an I looked into rental values of that house (or ones similar in the area) also compared mortgage costs if you were to buy it. We looked into other benefits that were likely to be available to this person and the family. It was well over £10k more than I earnt at the time and I was on reasonably money at that time. Also 3 holidays overseas without children on state benefits. I wonder if that is still possible now?

    Now benefits IMHO have left the safety net and moved into the living category. Should be reviewed and changed I reckon

    Think you've pretty much summed up the problem with the system. I feel for you reading this and others in similar situations that really need assistance rather than those expecting it as part of their healthy joint incomes.

    You could put it like that. You could also say how is it fair that family A, who earn very little (or don't work) and contribute very little, get free childcare - meaning they're even more of a drain on the state, whilst family B, who both carry on working and paying far more into the system than they will get back, get nothing and end up paying more in childcare than their mortgage/rent?

    In case anyone didn't know - the above is already true for 2 year olds. Families on low income get free nursery places whilst those who earn more have to pay for it. I have no issue with that as long as said families are working, as I've already said earlier low income families need more free childcare to make it worthwhile going out to work.

    Personally I think it's far stranger that those people who stay at home still get free childcare when they don't need it because they're not going to work!
  • arthur_scrimshaw
    arthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,596
    141104-welfare-tax-letter_chart11.png

    Total UK spend
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    Well that's 1.2% easily saved then...Overseas aid. If India want to buy some new fighter jets from Russia they can use their own bloody money.
  • arthur_scrimshaw
    arthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,596
    The other thing that strikes me is the massive amount of money paid in housing benefit. I'd like to know what percentage of this is paid to private landlords as opposed to local authorities. My suspicion is that as LA's were obliged to dispose of their housing stock a substantial proportion is paid to private landlords? So with the massive reduction in the supply of rental properties rents went up, with a large amount of this public money being paid to people already wealthy by taking advantage of the buy to let schemes with the added effect of sucking suitable properties for first time buyers out of the market? Well that's one theory.
  • vinnymarsden
    vinnymarsden Posts: 560
    Sell off all council housing, make them live in tents.[/quote]

    I'm kinda thinking you have never suffered the misfortune of being in a single parent family (through no fault of her own, my mum was widowed at 41, 3 young kids to bring up).If it hadn't have been for social housing I shudder to think how our lives might have turned out.And one thing I do know as a cast iron certainty, living in a tent would not have enhanced a very bleak childhood, so rather than glib, idiotic comments it might be more constructive, like some people in the thread have done, to make somewhat sensible, well balanced comments, that, whilst I don't agree with some, have at least been considered before trying for the "cheap" laugh!!

Categories