Election 2015: Conservative benefit cut options leaked

[Ethel Street]

No, I'm not interested, I was generalising and that is just splitting hairs and adds up to the same thing.

 

Suit yourself. You weren't generalising though, you were highly specific. And wrong. Just saying.

[Old Cogger]

O.H. National Insurance/Taxes paid up to date, out of work and a grand total of:- £Nothing why ???? I am a pensioner who had his private pension raided by Governments so ended saving for next to nothing and I am expected to cope from my limited income, ?? he who could not bother gets it all £20,000+ in what land is that???

[citizenB]

In the interests of historical accuracy I have to challenge that. CB originated (as Family Allowance) in the landmark Beveridge White Paper of 1942, and neither that nor the speeches supporting it in Hansard cite war widows as a reason. There were a range of reasons, mainly around alleviating poverty and 'nutruring' the next generation, and later in the 1950s to bring about greater equality of opportunity by encouraging families to let children stay in school rather than take them out to earn income at the earliest opportunity.

 

The text of the Family Allowances section of the Beveridge Report is widely available online if you are interested

 

http://www.sochealth.co.uk/resources/public-health-and-wellbeing/beveridge-report/beveridge-childrens-allowances/

 

I don't suppose any party would invent it from scratch today as a universal benefit if it didn't already exist, but abolishing things people already receive isn't something politicians want to do.

 

 

Very interesting, thank you for that. I remember when I had my first Son, this benefit was NOT paid - it was only for the 2nd child. Then all of sudden it became the norm for every child.

[Unforgiven]

A lot of savings to the benefits bill will surely be made because, from now on, the DWP will have access to peoples pension pots once they reach 55 if they don't have an annuity (they might even be able to re-jig that) So if they fall ill/become unemployed, after the contribution phase, anyone will a pot of over £16k will have to support themselves and I believe the deprivation of capital rules will also apply.

[notmeguvhonest]

People would be able to support themselves if the last Labour government hadn't stolen money from pensions.

[SabreSheep]

People would be able to support themselves if the last Labour government hadn't stolen money from pensions.

 

And people wouldn't have to worry if the country did not have to bail out the banks for the mistakes made by mostly tory supporting bank directors

[sadone]

Exactly. We have to suffer for the banks stupidity and greed.

[Old Cogger]

History repeating itself = 20 yrs Tory mess with NHS, Labour had to deal to correct, then Tory mess now!!

[sillygirl1]

I now need to claim to top up my pitiful SSP as I am signed off, the PIP form is filled in, just need to get phoning round later on and chase council, housing benefit, etc etc.

 

Don't even get me on the pension pot shambles, I am still having problems convincing companies that I did move back in May last year (old and new postcodes similar so have caused much confusion with certain databases).

 

The government (whichever one is chosen) only looks after its OWN interests and not the general interest - they cannot fool me that we have 0% inflation, tht is a red herring to stop 'runaway' public sector pay rises, which are calculated on the basis of inflation at February/March of the year.

[goodatresearch]

Yes, depending on situation. But what situation morally justifies someone bringing in more than a working person or a person who works full time not part time? Now to be clear, I'm not talking about carers or the disabled here. The way they are treated is awful. For example, you really need to look at single parents working 16 hours PW, WTC, CT benefit (whatever its now called) and housing benefit. For example, my daughter who works 16 hours, gets over £900 WTC/CTC per month, pays very little CT and no rent. If you gross up what she actually gets, she's more money than a person working full time. Yes she has 2 children, but even taking that into account, she had more disposable income than my husband and I (one wage and entitled to nothing). This can't he right. You can understand why people are bitter.

 

If had this argument with my daughter who always says "but iv got children". So what. We managed without WTC yet there would now be riots if it was withdrawn.

 

The government is punishing the wrong people, the ones who cannot work. These are the ones who should receive benefits.

 

 

 

 

But a working person can also take home (depending on their situation) benefits on top.

[antone]

I suppose, on some level, I can understand why people are "bitter". They are misinformed and directing their anger at the wrong people.

 

Sure, it does seem wrong, doesn't it, that employers can get away with paying people so little that a life as impoverished and grim as that on benefits can seem preferable. Insult is added to injury by the fact that the taxpayers subsidise these bad wages in the form of benefits for working age people. So yes, people in the UK have indeed got used to something for nothing: a fair number of employers seem have adopted the idea that paying their staff is the government's responsibility.

 

In short: I do believe there is an "entitlement culture" in this country, and the solution is not to further impoverish its victims.

[goodatresearch]

Oh yes for gods sake I'm really misinformed.- yeh right. My daughter is so badly off she works 16 hours week on minimum wage and spends £200 per month at a beauty sallon, the kids wear designer clothes and she only buys food at expensive supermarkets.

 

 

 

To be clear, it annoys me that employers are getting away with low salaries. But the real victims ate he single people who cannot claim wtc

[antone]

Everyone knows someone who gets too much in benefits, or at least, someone who spends their benefits in ways of which they disapprove. That's not the issue. Well, it's the issue the Daily Mail would like you to focus on, I suppose...

[citizenB]

The more government gives by way of benefits, the less employers will pay their staff.

[notmeguvhonest]

There is an entitlement without obligations culture in this country, what needs to happen is that people are made significantly better off by working than not. At the moment, I am looking for work, but if i work full time at minimum wage, I will only be about £50 a week better off (less any transport costs). I would take this if offered it, but a lot of people would rather just not bother. An increase in the minimum wage would not significantly make me better off by working, as most of any increase that I would receive would have to go to housing costs.

[Nystagmite]

Oh yes for gods sake I'm really misinformed.- yeh right. My daughter is so badly off she works 16 hours week on minimum wage and spends £200 per month at a beauty sallon, the kids wear designer clothes and she only buys food at expensive supermarkets.

 

 

 

To be clear, it annoys me that employers are getting away with low salaries. But the real victims ate he single people who cannot claim wtc

 

Designer clothes can be picked up really cheap. Heck, I can go into somewhere like Sports Direct and pick up Addidas tracksuit bottoms or t-shirts for about £13.

[sadone]

If there's any kind of 'something for nothing' culture (another Tory sound bite like 'hard working' that I despise) it's within the 'upper classes such as politicians who's double standards astound me every time they open their greedy corrupt mouths.

 

If anyone thinks people on benefits have it easy, well they obviously haven't lived for long on them, and dear god under the dreaded UC it's only set to get worse.

[goodatresearch]

The problem is that many firms justify low wages on the recession, yet make hugh profits. Look at all those business leaders who are now panicking over the proposed rules re zero hours.

 

Im also looking for a job and have noticed how many advertisements want someone with numerous qualifications but only offer very low salaries. However like you I to would take the job. Unfortunately there are to many people without qualifications who see low paid jobs beneath them.

 

I wasnt previously having a pop at single parents specifically, at least the system does encourage some single parents to get at least a part time job. I just think its wrong that someone working part time can be so much better than someone full time, and that WTC is essentially subsidising low paying employees.

 

I also think its wrong that the benefits culture that has been allowed to grow is now a way of life for some but the government is now trying to address this by targeting the wrong people, the disabled and carers.

 

There is an entitlement without obligations culture in this country, what needs to happen is that people are made significantly better off by working than not. At the moment, I am looking for work, but if i work full time at minimum wage, I will only be about £50 a week better off (less any transport costs). I would take this if offered it, but a lot of people would rather just not bother. An increase in the minimum wage would not significantly make me better off by working, as most of any increase that I would receive would have to go to housing costs.

[sadone]

If there's a 'benefit culture' (where do some people get these terms from...oh yes, let me guess the government) It's because we're deep in a recession and there aren't many jobs going, particularly unskilled.

[Conniff]

We aren't in a recession, and there is full employment at the moment ie, there are more job vacancies than people of working age. So you argument doesn't add up.

[goodatresearch]

Yes I know there's not many jobs going, I'm unemployed. However the benefits culture pre dates the recession and the powers that be has encouraged it in the past. Because of the recession, the government is slowly trying to dismantle the benefit system but instead of targeting those that would be workshy even when there's not a recession, they are targeting the wrong people. So they foster this idea that there's plently of jobs but were all to unskilled or plain lazy and many of the disabled aren't actually disabled. Then there's the cut in benefits because you have to many bedrooms, although there's nowhere more appropriate to move to.

 

What's the answer, I don't know. Who ever you vote for, they'll all break their promises. The rich will get richer and the poor, poorer.

 

 

 

 

If there's a 'benefit culture' (where do some people get these terms from...oh yes, let me guess the government) It's because we're deep in a recession and there aren't many jobs going, particularly unskilled.

[goodatresearch]

I didnt realise Addidas is considered designer. Anyway the point I was making is that my daughter has more disposable income than someone who works full time. By disposable I mean money left over every month to spend on anything she likes. Many full time workers barely have enough money each month to cover essential bills and expenses, nothing left at the end of the month at all. Basically they're living hand to mouth. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

 

Designer clothes can be picked up really cheap. Heck, I can go into somewhere like Sports Direct and pick up Addidas tracksuit bottoms or t-shirts for about £13.

[goodatresearch]

I'm not sure whether your being sarcastic or not.

 

Where have these figures come from, a government website? All I know is that myself and many of my friends cannot get a job. However I won't appear in those figures as I'm not entitled to JSA or any benefits. Essentially I'm invisible.

 

Anyone who is actually looking for a job will tell you that many jobs are duplicated across numerous job sites, many are bogus because they don't actually exist, others are commission only or zero hour and many are part time (some only a couple of hours per week paying less than transport costs).

 

 

We aren't in a recession, and there is full employment at the moment ie, there are more job vacancies than people of working age. So you argument doesn't add up.

[Old Cogger]

O.H. out of work = Agency finished due to Factory redundancies this week, no orders from supermarkets, another factory on brink, job centre staff rude, off CJSA = now income nil Sorry for not being immigrant,

and not paid taxes, I have and O.H. get nort!

[antone]

We aren't in a recession, and there is full employment at the moment ie, there are more job vacancies than people of working age. So you argument doesn't add up.

 

I too would be interested in seeing a cite for that second claim, given that it contradicts both generally accepted principles of economics and observable reality. If there actually was more work available than people willing and able to do it, we'd see competition between employers for scarce labour drive up wages. This would apply even if the only reason for the labour shortage was a sudden outbreak of laziness.

 

The first claim is technically true, but misleading - unemployment is always one of the last things to improve in a recovery, and this has been a very long recovery.