All-round Budget thread

So if benefit claimants had to do someone's gardening, pushing the current gardener on the dole too, should they still be given vouchers or would they be allowed to buy the occasional pint? FFS

Going back to when I last posted on this thread. Xenia there is money to keep lower income 16 yr olds in education, they are choosing not to, a big difference. Isn't it about time people realised this? Bit sick of this 'poor kids should strive to get an education attitude', it's taking away opportunities and as well you know it.

I would happily pay a good private health insurance if the NHS went, based on a european model, just give me some of the 1/3rd of my earnings they take off me at source so I can choose who provides my health care. Would like these for profit companies to have to provide care for charity though!

'community service' for unemployed? but the unemployed are not breaking any law by being unable to find work.

I won't fuck off actually secondcoming. Your faux concern and patronising lovely, lovely poor people shit makes me sick.

This budget really was a case of trying to look as if you were doing something, whilst doing nothing.

Tax threshold rise - this will be of some benefit this year, but as the thresholds change is now linked to CPI not RPI, everyone will be stung for MORE tax over the parliament, and that will then continue to sting for every following year.

Petrol duty cut - the duty will still be going up in the summer, and there is nothing to stop the oil companies loading the cost of the extra tax they will be charged onto the pump price, so that the consumer gets no benefit.

Pension age - anyone aged under 40 (or even in their 40s) could find themselves working till they're 80. Whilst life expectancy may increase, I suspect a massive number of people would spend the last few years before retirement signed off on incapacity benefit, as many 60-80 year olds are not fit enough to work.

I was disappointed he didn't rescind the child benefit cut - it is a bad bad policy that was not thought through. Any policy that creates horrendous anomalies like that one does needs a re-think.

I heart happiestblonde.

I wonder why so many people think we should just pat those on benefits in the head, trap them into relying on handouts and disempower them by making damn sure they can't leave and get a job without being worse off. Oh, and not reintroduce them to work by giving them routine, self respect and a sense of usefulness within the community by doing work.
Another brilliant Labour legacy.

I said vouchers so the money is going towards necessary things not 'necessities' like tvs, alcohol or cigarettes (obv not all but possible and not for the gov to pay for). Shouldn't people do some form of community service for JSA etc...? I don't think it's that insane a suggestion that people do something for the community that is supporting their existence.

The financial sector has created more than the bail out and I've heard the benefits claimant joke before - the difference is the banker would have earned his biscuits. And I dont read the bloody daily fail.

Community and volunteer work. Same as millions of people do now. You know, charity shops, community litter pick, repainting and repairing community facilities, support in schools ( parents do tons of this).

Slave labour? Hilarious. People have to work for a living. Most people EARN their crusts, yeah? You get that?

Ttosca. You have NO idea what situations I have or haven't been in .

I'm shocked that you are naive enough to think that 99% of people on benefits are all desperately looking for work and simply down on their luck. Do you not concede that maybe, just a few even, have no intention of working when they can live quite happily off the tax payer.

I heart ttosca.

Where the fuck have I taken a pop at your work ethic? I haven't a clue who you are/what you do.

Look, it's quite obvious surely that NO ONE begrudges the old, the vulnerable and the sick support.

Are you sure? It sounds to me that some people do - unwittingly or not.

But why should the taxpayer support those to choose not to work or choose to SAH with their children which they seem to think is their right. A right which thousands of working families don't have, BTW.

If people 'choose not to work' and claiming benefits, they are committing fraud. I've just tried to explain to you that benefit fraud amounts to £1 Billion annually - that's 1% of the welfare bill, and 1/700th of the budget.

I'd introduce a system where you work for your benefits too.

Brilliant! You do realise that looking for a job is already a full-time job, and that it's hard enough to survive, let alone pay for suits, transport, photocopying, etc. you need to get a job? No, I don't suppose you do, perhaps because you've never been in that situation.

So your cunning plan of making the 99% of people who claim benefits legally and morally also work for their benefits will actually decrease their chances of becoming employed, which will end up costing the tax payer more money.

It really sounds to me that you have a problem with the very idea of welfare. Your tax money isn't being 'wasted' on welfare. Go pick on a bigger, and more worthy target, like the many many billions lost annually in tax evasion and avoidance from big businesses and the rich. Leave the poor and vulnerable alone.

I know Second coming.
Insane isn't it? I mean, everyone else has to work but that's unacceptable for benefit claimants. They're clearly above having to work for their bread like the rest of us.

And £60? Oh, please!

I'm not so sure it's that clear cut though.

The coalition clearly do begrudge some of the vunerable and sick their support. They must do, otherwise why change the rules of ESA to force cancer patients having oral chemotherapy to undergo a medical exam?

Why threaten to take away the mobility allowance for some disabled people?

Why are those people any less deserving than the likes of Peter Stringfellow receiving a winter fuel payment?

Nigella, I think most of us would agree with the gist of what you say, but it's not simple to implement. If you for example introduce work for benefits, one outcome will be to lower wages for that work, which may shrink the overall economy; if you force all women/parents back to work, that too may be uneconomic in some areas - if I were a nurse in London, say, childcare might swallow up as much as I earned, and then how would I actually eat? If it were as easy as you make it sound, it would have been done.

Still waiting.

Look, it's quite obvious surely that NO ONE begrudges the old, the vulnerable and the sick support.

But why should the taxpayer support those to choose not to work or choose to SAH with their children which they seem to think is their right. A right which thousands of working families don't have, BTW.

I'd introduce a system where you work for your benefits too.

Nigella

What's unsustainable? If they're not committing fraud, then they're on benefits legally and rightfully. That is, they're on welfare so they can find work. Would you rather they had no income and starved to death or committed crimes?

If you want to reduce the cost of welfare, then make sure there are enough jobs out there for people to work, and make sure they're paid well enough so that people don't need to claim other benefits to help them survive.

Bailing out banks with £1 Trillion pounds of public money, after they caused a recession, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and on the welfare, and then complaining about the cost of welfare is, well... both incoherent and nasty as hell.

Nigella, around 50% of that bill is directly related to pensions and pensioners. What do you suggest we do about them?