I wonder what the real reason is behind welfare reform?

"flatpackhamster Mon 01-Apr-13 18:45:12
ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Its idealogical.

The Tories don't believe in a Welfare state, or indeed any state provided services. The Tories are into capitalism and market forces, anything else smacks of socialism.

infamouspoo

the Tories voted against the setting up of the welfare state back in the 40's. They have always been ideologically opposed.

caramelwaffle

Ideological opposition.

What's your stance if not ideological? "

Well, speaking very personally, I am the politicians nightmare; the female, floating voter - who always votes (severe illness excepted)....

...otherwise their job - of getting in - would be very, very easy.

1. NI is a tax
2. NI is not hypothecated (the UK does not "do" hypothecated taxation), although is typically used to fund some social security benefits, though not the NHS (the budget for which alone is far greater than the amount raised through NICs).
3. It is most definitely not in surplus - £2 billion or otherwise.

Given that the foundation of your argument is flat out wrong why should I take the rest of it seriously?

They can abolish the Welfare State all they like, but they can't abolish the poor. What are they going to do with them?

"It is a policy that has no logic."

It only has no logic if you believe the point of it is to save money (what the government tells us is the point of it).

If you understand what the real point is - to eventually abolish the welfare state (what they don't tell us because they know we wouldn't tolerate that) then it's perfectly logical.

So what exactly is government for, if it doesn't want to defend us, provide us with hospitals, pay for a decent police force, educate us, build us houses?

What does it want to spend our taxes on? Helping the banks? Paying its debts? So-called economic 'growth', ie more of the same? We've had the booms, and now we've got the bust. We don't want to go through it all again, do we?

The real reason behind welfare changes (reforms?? I don't think so!) is that the government doesn't like helping people. It believes we should help ourselves, be independent.

It believes in survival of the fittest - while at the same time massively tipping the scales in favour of those who already have lots. This is capitalism. Rich people get richer and on the way provide jobs for poorer people, so it all trickles down. Only it doesn't, does it?

Free schools - teach yourselves. DIY healthcare. Get a job or starve. Build your own houses. Localism. Stand on your own two feet. Only you can't because you've just been trodden on by a multinational giant's huge clodhoppers.

What I mean is that the welfare state helps to insulate against the worst effects of a recession, people in want of homes, heat, food and sanitation. When you are truly up against it and you make the call between food and fuel - as those on fixed and limited incomes are doing at the moment - you can't absorb any more costs ie council tax.

Hence my question, by imposing these changes on people who cannot afford them, in an economy where little will change in six months you are willing for people to either risk non payment and prison (council tax) or go cold/hungry.

At what level do you think that's acceptable?

At the nth degree people die from lack of these things and next winter we will be there, god help us if we have another bad winter or if basic food stuffs rocket due to the poor weather.

Pumpkin

Unfortunately, I can see you are right. There has been so much spin to get the middle and upper incomes to believe the rubbish they have spouted that these people will be happy to see the poor go without. I don't mean they are inhumane but from the posts on here the majority of middle/ higher income people don't see it. They believe the "feckless and skiver" spin and justify their comments by believing the poor are undeserving.

'nice'guy-

The politician's have no choice. It's not political will which is causing the cuts. Clearly it is in a politician's interests to spend money. It's mathematics which is forcing politician's to cut public services and the welfare state, not ideology

Don't you ever get tired of crouching your right-wing agenda in terms of economic pragmatism? You were wrong about cutting public spending in the middle of a recession, you didn't even know the difference between debt and deficit, and you are wrong again welfare being cut because it is 'unsustainable'.

Just like the public spending cuts, which are sinking the economy into a spiral of depression, cutting essential support for people in need - apart from being utterly immoral - will not safe money in the long run. Ultimately, the state, and the public, will pay the price - whether its with economy going down the drain, productivity declined from lives lost, an increase in crime for being trying to survive, or whatever else.

"Forbes compares the bedroom tax to a hurricane hitting Torfaen, with all the attendant disruption to families' health and welfare, and children's schooling. But it is the sheer perversity of the policy that bewilders him: financially it will cost the government more, both in housing benefit payments and dealing with the longer term impacts of family crisis; and it will do absolutely nothing to solve local housing pressures.

He concludes:

It is a policy that has no logic."

www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/jan/16/welfare-reform-bedroom-tax-policy-that-has-no-logic

---

Oh, and guess what? The 'Queen' just got a £5 Million pound 'payrise':

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/queen-gets-5m-payrise-taxpayer

Meanwhile, millionaires just received a £40,000 annual tax break.

No, I don't think the motive here is to save money.

Basically, would we be happy to see more homelessness, deprivation and small children going hungry. All of this will be the end result and any person that isn't inhumane doesn't want to see this.
I for one cant see how they can be allowed to give someone less than what's needed to live off as its against the very human rights they harp on about.
People will have a better life in prison when he's finished.

Time

Sorry I'm being a bit dim here, what do you mean? Can you spell it out for me please? . Do you mean need rather than want as in how many people go without things they need?

I think people are approaching this from the wrong angle, lets try this.

How many people is it publicly acceptable to die of want in this country.

Because that's what it boils down to.

Flatpack

Are you on the same planet. NO government does not have a say in how you treat your body, whether you smoke or drink or are overweight. They and society in general also have no say in how anybody lives, what they spend their remaining money on. Tax payers also have no say in where their tax goes because it isn't their money it belongs to the government. Unless I have missed an important questionnaire they have sent me

Of course its ideology when the cuts are so that they won't make any bloody difference

"Tax payers are sick of seeing blinds closed" So we will play up to them for their vote and declare we are cutting benefit to "make work pay". Now the gullible have bought into this so what we are really going to do is move a few goalposts, give benefit a new name, UC and then take the money from the really needy.

Oh give it a rest. Every major party agrees that the current welfare state is unsustainable. Only the ultra left wing deficit deniers believe that we can go on.

The only real political debate is over how much to cut and where the cuts should happen.

And that is exactly why Labour is so silent on the specifics. If they were in power they'd be making cuts which summed up would pretty much be identical.

The politician's have no choice. It's not political will which is causing the cuts. Clearly it is in a politician's interests to spend money. It's mathematics which is forcing politician's to cut public services and the welfare state, not ideology.

Long term tory vision.

They're not the most successful long-lived political party in the world for nothing.

They stay focused.

Every time they get into power they chip away another little bit of the welfare state.

That's why they don't actually care that all this welfare reform will cost tax payers more - the aim isn't to save money, they're prepared to invest in ensuring that they get rid of what they see as a socialistic-type safety net.

The deficit has just given them the excuse they need to accelerate the destruction of the welfare state and the privatisation of the NHS.

Peahentailfeathers

It's a seperate contribution though and is distinct from income tax.

It's a tax. Tax. Say it with me. Come on. National Insurance is a TAX.

The distinction is irrelevant to people who pay tax. It's just another 12% the government helps itself to. Stop pretending otherwise.

morethanpotatoprints

I think it will be interesting to see who keeps the economy of the high street going. The rich tend to hold on to their money, the workers are paying for childcare and don't have much left after this. I can see far more shops closing, especially those selling none essentials.

I'm afraid you're wrong, both about 'the rich' 'holding on' to their money and which shops are closing down. The upper end are starting to find it tighter but they're still spending. It's the middle area, the people who are just getting by, who are struggling now. Particularly private sector workers who didn't get the pay rises of the public sector during the Labour government. so don't have that cushion to protect them from high inflation.

Of course its their money they are spending, this idea of it being somebody elses is laughable. If you pay tax you are clearly fortunate enough to have a job, when it leaves your salary it is NO LONGER YOURS grin

Well let's work with that for a moment. If that theory is true, then does that apply to my body? Is it mine or the government's? If it's mine, do you think that the government should stop lecturing me on how much I should drink or smoke? Should they scrap Change4Life campaigns and all the other boring bullying that they do about weight, diet and so on? Do you think they should scrap 'sin taxes' on cigarettes and alcohol? Or do you accept that, because I'm consuming scarce public sector resources, that someone other than me has a say over how I treat my body?

Because if you do accept that, then you can't accept that they have no right to limit what people spend their welfare handouts on. The principle is identical.

Indeed niceguy.

Weren't people most vociferous about the war Tony started , " not in my name" and all that?

I absolutely couldn't care less what people spend their cash on.

What I DO care about is them smoking it and then moaning they have to pay a little bit of tax when the rest of us are skinned alive for tax.

If you pay tax you are clearly fortunate enough to have a job, when it leaves your salary it is NO LONGER YOURS

It's no longer 'my' money as such. But it doesn't mean I should not be concerned about how much of my money is taken and what it is being spent on. Surely we all want to know what our money is being spent on? I accept we may all have different priorities though.

I think it will be interesting to see who keeps the economy of the high street going. The rich tend to hold on to their money, the workers are paying for childcare and don't have much left after this. I can see far more shops closing, especially those selling none essentials.

Also, it is nobodies business what people spend their money on whether benefit or not.

Of course its their money they are spending, this idea of it being somebody elses is laughable. If you pay tax you are clearly fortunate enough to have a job, when it leaves your salary it is NO LONGER YOURS

Flatpack, you are funny .

Once upon a time you could have argued that NI was a separate contribution but given it now doesn't cover even the NHS bill, let alone the welfare bill. I can't see how you can argue it is really separate anymore.

It is separate only in name. In practice it is just another income tax. The sole purpose I can see is to confuse people into thinking that they pay a lower level of tax than they actually do. I honestly think if anyone had to guts to roll it up into a single tax then most people would go mad.

Peahentailfeathers

No, what poor people spend their money on is not relevant.

If it was their money that they were earning, I'd agree. It's not.

Plus benefits are not paid for by taxes.

NI is a tax. A tax. Tax. TAX.