Rewarding Work

[MYstIC G]

So, this appeared today:

Wondered where FH falls on this?

 

[rynnor]

I don't like it personally - its all Conservative dogma and saves bugger all in the scale of the welfare bill which is overwhelmingly payments to pensioners.

It shouldn't include housing benefit or child benefits imho - do we really want kids to be made poorer because their parent(s) cant find work?

What saddens me more than the idiot Cons bringing it in is the fact that Labour is not fighting it to any meaningful degree - its all fucking nonsense and just works on peoples stupid preconceptions that the welfare budget goes largely on the jobless - if they did understand the stats they would see how insignificant this change is.

How does a recession brought on by risky banking come round full circle to demonising the poor?

Note - I am not in receipt of any benefits - not even child benefit anymore so I have no vested interests in benefits.

 

[DaGaffer]

*Sigh* "Average" is utterly meaningless in the context of the UK overall. A family on benefits of 26K in the south-east will be much worse off than a family on similar money on Tyneside. I don't have a problem with capping benefits, but it needs to based on disposable income (particularly ex housing costs) not overall figures.

 

[rynnor]

It doesn't really save money either - as soon as they get a crappy low pay job they can access a whole load of other benefits - working family tax credits can be worth thousands a month.

 

[ECA]

What saddens me more than the idiot Cons bringing it in is the fact that Labour is not fighting it to any meaningful degree - its all fucking nonsense and just works on peoples stupid preconceptions that the welfare budget goes largely on the jobless - if they did understand the stats they would see how insignificant this change is.

Labour are not fighting it because it polls extremely well.

And I agree, blaming the poor is stupid.

 

[Moriath]

If you on benefits you shouldn't have any disposable income. It should just be for essentials. The amount of people who are on benefits claiming they are broke but still smoke, drink and have pets is just amazing.

 

[DaGaffer]

If you on benefits you shouldn't have any disposable income. It should just be for essentials. The amount of people who are on benefits claiming they are broke but still smoke, drink and have pets is just amazing.

Another bit of Daily Mail mythology. In real terms the actual amount of money the taxpayer gives the unemployed that's leftover after housing and food is tiny. But hey, its easier to demonise the unemployed for their smoking habits than fix the problem isn't it?

 

[rynnor]

Another bit of Daily Mail mythology. In real terms the actual amount of money the taxpayer gives the unemployed that's leftover after housing and food is tiny. But hey, its easier to demonise the unemployed for their smoking habits than fix the problem isn't it?

Plus the smokers/drinkers are basically returning their benefits in taxation straight back to the Government so they are actually reducing the net cost of benefits.

It's interesting that people like that Philpott guy who murdered his kids wouldn't have been affected by this change because his Mrs had a cleaning job which automatically removes the cap - I don't see this having any real impact.

 

[rynnor]

If you on benefits you shouldn't have any disposable income. It should just be for essentials. The amount of people who are on benefits claiming they are broke but still smoke, drink and have pets is just amazing.

So as soon as a person is made redundant they should just take their pets to the chronically overstocked local animal charity? They already have been since the recession started.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Labour can just let it go through without a fight then use it in the next election as something easy to beat up the Tories. Because its all a game, isn't it?

 

[rynnor]

Because its all a game, isn't it?

So it appears - it's pretty disgusting that there are no consciences anymore amongst the major parties - the only time any of them do anything unpopular nowadays is when they have been well paid to do so.

 

[Aada]

Guess one member of the family will have to go and get a low paid job then instead of sitting on their arse all day.

This has been a long time coming IMO and doubt you will find many working people who disagree with it.

 

[ECA]

So it appears - it's pretty disgusting that there are no consciences anymore amongst the major parties - the only time any of them do anything unpopular nowadays is when they have been well paid to do so.

Yeah it's fucking sad.

It's like, pick labour, fuck everyone.
Pick the conservatives, fuck the poor.
Pick the lib dems, fuck your own arsehole.

 

[DaGaffer]

Guess one member of the family will have to go and get a low paid job then instead of sitting on their arse all day.

This has been a long time coming IMO and doubt you will find many working people who disagree with it.

Despite the fact that its the initiative that saves the least money out of all of those proposed.

26K earnings cap: Savings £290m
Cut child benefit for households earning over £50K: Savings £1.7bn
Raise retirement age for everyone to 66: Savings £5bn

If you're going to do austerity, at least fucking do it right.

 

[Moriath]

They are raising the retirement rate. To 67 from what I have seen if not further

But the earnings cap will be more than 290m. As it will make working a more financially viable choice for many who will also then generate tax revenues. So it more than just the saving

 

[Moriath]

So as soon as a person is made redundant they should just take their pets to the chronically overstocked local animal charity? They already have been since the recession started.

As soon as they start saying I don't have enough money to feed my kids then yes they should put the animals in rehoming centres. If they can't afford to feed the kids they can't afford vets bills and shouldn't be putting animals food before their own.

It's common sense to cut down your out goings to meet your in comings. If that meas a few dogs or cats being put down then that's the price of the recession.

 

[rynnor]

As it will make working a more financially viable choice for many who will also then generate tax revenues.

They generate tax revenues now - its completely impossible to exist without paying tax in some form.

 

[rynnor]

If they can't afford to feed the kids they can't afford vets bills and shouldn't be putting animals food before their own.

Some will put their pets before their own welfare though - no way you can stop that and for poor people theres the PDSA to pay their vets bills (I saw a couple using the PDSA at my local vets when I had the dog vaccinated a few weeks ago).

 

[Job]

I can see every argument..but in my job I visit endless houses packed with long term unemployed scroungers who have become a sub class of anti social fuckers who dont give a living fuck about anything because the government will always bail them out..they have 50 inch tvs..iphones..laptops and just sit on their fat asses all day without a care in the world while talking to each other about some cool lad in the area who steals from the people who work and gets them knock off stuffthey are just pointless human beings

 

[DaGaffer]

I can see every argument..but in my job I visit endless houses packed with long term unemployed scroungers who have become a sub class of anti social fuckers who dont give a living fuck about anything because the government will always bail them out..they have 50 inch tvs..iphones..laptops and just sit on their fat asses all day without a care in the world while talking to each other about some cool lad in the area who steals from the people who work and gets them knock off stuffthey are just pointless human beings

And this benefits cap will have zero impact on those people.

 

[DaGaffer]

They are raising the retirement rate. To 67 from what I have seen if not further

But the earnings cap will be more than 290m. As it will make working a more financially viable choice for many who will also then generate tax revenues. So it more than just the saving

Nope. The net benefit is 290M. Tax revenues are accounted for (in fact there's an argument the tax credit system could end up costing more than the saving). And the retirement age won't be 66 until 2020, 67 isn't until 2026-28.

 

[Chilly]

It's such a small amount and nearly always only affects those claimants with kids that it's almost certainly bad for society, on balance. It's going to cause higher crime, drug problems and all the other stuff associated with being poor.

£110m is not a saving worthy of the amount of fanfare this is getting, either, which is a very strong signal that's it's purely about the PR and the money is a fringe benefit. I fucking hate this kind of politics. It helps no one and the opportunity cost of passing this piece of shit legislation instead of meaningful reform elsewhere is staggering. Shame on the whole government and opposition for letting this pass.

 

[Himse]

There's so many problems with the entire system it's unreal, the job centre from what i've heard (i've never actually been out of work) is just lots of paper pushing and not a lot of action. (If somebody could clarify that'd be cool)

It's kind of a tough subject really, so many aspects and points from either side. Some of these plans the governments put in though, 2020, 2026? Come on, at least speed it up.

I think a small part of the problem is people believe they are entitled to everything, to have the latest smart phone, to go out and get drunk with their friends, yada yada.

You have some people who really seem to wing it on benefits and some others who seem to actually struggle? It seems like the people who have gone to work, lose their job and end up on benefits are the ones really just struggling to survive?

 

[rynnor]

You have some people who really seem to wing it on benefits and some others who seem to actually struggle? It seems like the people who have gone to work, lose their job and end up on benefits are the ones really just struggling to survive?

That's because you cant get housing benefit for a mortgage - only for renting. On benefits they will pay towards the interest proportion of your mortgage only but thats only after 3 months and then they only pay at the base rate and you have to make up the rest. They will never repay any of the capital on your mortgage.

Pretty shitty deal really - people who are renting get their rent fully covered but people who bought will have to spend their jobseekers just to stand still.

 

[rynnor]

Apparently its just the beginning - they are considering lowering the cap by another 6K and other friendly ideas like taking away child benefit if you have a third child etc.

89% of those affected by the cap have kids - they are the real victims of this crackdown on the poor and in the end you reap what you sow - for a piddly saving you could be incurring large future costs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23325667

 

[Moriath]

but those on the dole or whatever you call it now dont have to make the choice to have kids cause the state is always there to support them at a low level. However anyone working and not on benefits has to calculate if they can afford that first second third child support them feed them etc etc.

How is it fair that jo tax dodger can have kids with impunity and they will be supported. there are exceptional cases where coucils have build 6 or 7 bedroom houses for unemployed families because all they have done is breed like rabbits. There are people who are in work would like large families but cant afford it. As they wont get all the assistance that those on benefits get.

There needs to be a cap so people think what if .. not carry on regardless of the consequences to everyone else because they feel like it

 

[Chilly]

Yeah it's a horrible balancing act. On one hand you don't want to encourage people to have kids they can't afford, but on the other it is completely (as in 100%) unacceptable to punish children (which is the upshot, frankly) because their parents are dicks. There obviously has to be some kind of compromise but you can't ever have a system that treats everyone (the claimants and the tax payers) totally fairly. The real problem is that some people are dicks and so you can't run a truly fair system that everyone would be happy with.

 

[Scouse]

but those on the dole or whatever you call it now dont have to make the choice to have kids cause the state is always there to support them at a low level

Humans, through no choice of their own, are now born into a world and an economy where they no longer fend to feed and house themselves their family.

We've had that "luxury" since we were apes. If we're going to run a world economy in the way we are then it's the morally right thing to support the human animal's right to have children - or why are we running that economy in the first place, and who for?

 

[DaGaffer]

but those on the dole or whatever you call it now dont have to make the choice to have kids cause the state is always there to support them at a low level. However anyone working and not on benefits has to calculate if they can afford that first second third child support them feed them etc etc.

How is it fair that jo tax dodger can have kids with impunity and they will be supported. there are exceptional cases where coucils have build 6 or 7 bedroom houses for unemployed families because all they have done is breed like rabbits. There are people who are in work would like large families but cant afford it. As they wont get all the assistance that those on benefits get.

There needs to be a cap so people think what if .. not carry on regardless of the consequences to everyone else because they feel like it

You're doing it again; acting like "jo tax dodger" is an issue; in the great scheme of public spending, its not. People like that are outliers (0.7% of benefit payments go to fraudulent claimants for example). Plus, you're talking about people who have kids while on the dole, they're not what the benefits system is for, its far more important to consider the people who already have families and are suddenly at the mercy of the benefits system through redundancy etc. Believe it or not most people do actually want to work, and cutting them off at the knees doesn't really help much.

 

[rynnor]

but those on the dole or whatever you call it now dont have to make the choice to have kids cause the state is always there to support them at a low level. However anyone working and not on benefits has to calculate if they can afford that first second third child support them feed them etc etc.

Endemic lifelong welfare junkies are one thing but these changes impact anyone who finds themselves out of work through redundancy etc.

It takes no account of people who may never have been in the welfare system before - who may have worked for decades and had kids then one day are made redundant.

Demonising people for having no job potentially for a short period in the midst of a recession is stupid.