To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

@TheRicht ,

‘Not every firm was bailed out.
Lloyds fully repaid. RBS didn't fully repay and northern rock was nationalised. And people who worked for other institutions?’

Every firm was de facto bailed out. The whole system would have collapsed ex the bailout.

The BOE bought corporate bonds which would have been unsaleable otherwise, and have to be marked to close to zero. And the government effectively guaranteed the banks. In the real world, those guarantees would have cost a ton of money.

I’d have liked my mortgage (when I had I one) to be guaranteed by the government, rate would have been so much better.

@TheRicht ,

Who wouldn’t?!

Capitalise your winnings, socialise your losses, and get rich.

I find it scary how many people have incredibly strong opinions based on very little, mostly being served videos to reinforce a prejudice that they already have.

Are too many people reliant on benefits? I think we can confidently answer that in the affirmative.

But how different are we from our neighbours here? How many could easily find jobs? And what is the actual cost?

And I do think we need to consider how much wealth has effectively left the government to high paid people (especially in finance). I keep going on about it as no one wants to seem to consider it (probably the demographic here!).

The bank bailout, the COVID bailout, QE and sub inflation interest rates have shifted wealth both from government (through actual payments) and the asset poor (salaries decreasing in real terms, rentals increasing way above inflation due to property prices etc) to the wealthy and asset rich.

Sharon from Walthamstow who is living on benefits seems roundly condemned, but Toby from Chelsea, who was running a credit swap book in 2008, got bailed out, and is now running a hedge fund, which again nearly went under in Covid, but thanks to Covid subsidies and QE, has now doubled in value, seems to escape scrutiny.

I wonder why. I think there are a number of internalised biases being reinforced on this thread.

Are you really asking me to explain why and how government departments set budgets?

What you said was:

Benefits are carefully worked out to ensure a basic standard of living, no more

I’m another one who doesn’t think this is how benefits are set, but as you say, we can’t know everything.

Can you explain to me how this careful working out happens?

It appears I know a lot more than you. You have spent your time on this thread making grand, sweeping statements focused on ideology with very little substance to backup your assertions. There are rarely any facts or detail. I have called you out on one such post and your response says it all.

Were you seriously expecting me to detail how the level of each benefit is set? The fact that some aren't means tested proves in itself that benefits aren't always designed to simply meet essential need.

Generally the level of benefits reflects political decision making as opposed to genuine need. Look at the two child cap, the needs of large families didn't change when it was imposed or when it was removed again. It was political will that brought about the change.

Having children is a choice, disability isn’t. It’s quite incredible that needs to be pointed out.

There are good reasons for some benefits being means tested and others not. They make sense. Many people in households with a decent income don't actually have access to their fair share of the money and may find themselves with no personal income or having to beg or negotiate for money to meet their disability costs. PIP etc are designed to help these people and it's not unfair. And also level the playing field so that people with severe disabilities do not end up pursuing high earning careers because they'd lose more than they'd gain. It encourages disabled people to achieve their full potential and that's positive for all of society. But most benefits are means tested. If you have a high household income you qualify for very little compared to people who do not. They get substantially more.

A middle class parent is still a parent and faces extra costs due to having a child. A disabled person can have extra costs and not being eligible for pip. It's a completely political decision to make CB means tested and PIP not. The threshold for PIP is arbitrary and politically informed.

Of course you can always make arguments about disability being different to having children, pensions being different to UC or there being a need for some kind of PIP threshold but ultimately it's all subjective and a political decision. Hence why different parties have different policies around all of this.

Ultimately it's all political decision making. Why is PIP not means tested but Child Benefit is? Why is the State Pension not means tested but Universal Credit is? There are many more examples I can use.

I don't want to get into whether PIP or the State Pension should be means tested. That's for another thread. The idea though that @ClarkeandNewman was trying to float that benefits were precisely calculated to meet essential need is obviously wrong though and that's why means testing was referenced.

Actually I said to meet essential needs.

Ultimately it's all political decision making. Why is PIP not means tested but Child Benefit is? Why is the State Pension not means tested but Universal Credit is? There are many more examples I can use.

I don't want to get into whether PIP or the State Pension should be means tested. That's for another thread. The idea though that @ClarkeandNewman was trying to float that benefits were precisely calculated to meet essential need is obviously wrong though and that's why means testing was referenced.

Yes, this is true too. Some people are living below the poverty line despite claiming benefits. There is a wide range of scenarios going on depending on what benefits you are eligible for, what costs you have and the circumstances of other people within your household. The idea that benefits are somehow calculated to keep people just above the poverty line is nonsense and would be impossible to achieve.

What are you even asking? How do I think what benefit is calculated? Benefits are super complex and households can be eligible for a whole range of benefits or none at all. Pretending that someone is sat with a calculator trying to keep people above the poverty threshold is clearly nonsense.