To Wonder Why Tory Voters Support a £13bn cut in benefits (inc tax credits) when hardly any tory voters even receive these benefits?

[Amylovesgalaxyeggs]

Tory voters statistically earn more and live in constituencies that have higher property values.

Tory voters statistically would be less likely to rely on tax credits or other benefits that will be cut by the party.

Aibu to wonder why a group of voters would vote for a party that wants to cut something that they don't claim. Sounds like a of reverse Robin Hood to me.

Why would people support higher benefits? Higher benefits basically means that big companies never have to pay a living wage and can reduce their wages, so more profits for them, because other (often poorer) taxpayers will make up the shortfall via tax credits. It also means landlords can put a floor on the rent they charge which increases the housing benefits bill, puts even more money into the pockets of the rich and means people who don't get housing benefit have to compete for properties with those that do. We should be reducing benefits whilst increasing the tax free allowance. No more taxpayers subsidising big business and rich landlords.

Problem with scenario one: there are lots of Tory voters who receive benefits and there are lots of Labour voters who earn over £31,866, or even £150,00, the next threshold.

I've googled and came across this graph that suggests that crossover point is in the region of £65K. People with lower incomes are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative, and people with higher incomes the other way around.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YeckuDCoD1zrhH502H1-a0ZPl78RZBAY1UW5JVnEow8/pubchart?oid=105567817&format=interactive

According to that, people on £150K are about three times as likely to vote Conservative as Labour. Who would've thunk it.

The Liberal Democrats and SNO have about the same support from all income levels.

The Greens and UKIP are like labour, support decreases as income rises.

SNO => SNP

We used to own a small business (pub) and the problem with constantly raising the minimum wage (the living wage) is that we, in common with many small employers, would have folded. People spend much less on alcohol / eating out / holidays in tough times. We already made NO money - DH paid himself £100 a week to keep paying NI and I worked full time elsewhere, plus 10-15 hours a week of admin for no pay. We paid above the minimum wage for permanent employees but minimum wage for seasonal (summer months) employees. But, we made NO money. We couldn't put up prices because no one will pay them. We had rising fuel costs, loans, etc. we had no money for ourselves and our pub was subsidised by my wages in tough times. (And I am a teacher, not on a big wage).

Many, many employers are just like we were - small cafe owners, little cleaning companies, bosses with 3 or 4 staff in an office. Shop owners with a couple of people to help. Many of these businesses are highly marginal.

We sold our business and the next owner got rid of all permanent staff within 3 months. He now only employs seasonally, closes a lot of the time, and has put prices up beyond the reach of most locals. So, 3 jobs lost. Community hub, lost.

But, he is, just, profitable. We never managed that and were close to going bust when we finally sold. DH was working 100+ hours a week.

So, putting up wages has a huge effect on small businesses and does not always have a positive effect on the economy because these businesses just struggle, and often close.

So the Conservatives are the only party whose support increases as income increases.

It's so lazy to keep saying 'the bankers got us into this mess'. Yes, they absolutely were reckless and irresponsible in their lending but at the end of the day it was many of us who spent beyond their means and were in debt as a result.

I include myself in that and honestly, the overwhelming majority of my friends (all full time workers in 'professions') did too.

I say the majority but thinking about it now, I can't name one close friend that doesn't have credit card or loan debt to pay off (let alone the ones who took out enormous mortgages).

My debt will be paid off in the end unless I die first! As will most of my friends but I've also had a few have to declare themselves bankrupt owing multiple thousands.

The bankers lent too much and encouraged people to get in debt but there has to be a time where we accept responsibility for spending that money which we knew wasn't ours to spend. I know I did.

If they want to boost the economy they need to reduce VAT. If people have more disposable cash in their pockets at the end of the week they will spend it, so manufacturing will increase as will jobs. If people don't have as much disposable cash they will save whatever they can rather than spend it. It doesn't go back into the economy. It's not that difficult.

I am loving the comments on here that are supporting benefits cuts when they've been in receipt of those benefits in the past.

For the record, my husband and myself both work full time, we're also in receipt of tax credits and child benefit because despite the number of hours we work, we don't earn enough to make ends meet. We don't live in a posh area or have a huge house but our rent is still half of our combined income each month.

People saying "oh well I used benefits to support myself and my children while I went off to uni and studied so I could make a better future for us, but nobody else should be afforded the same opportunity because otherwise they'll stay on benefits for-fucking-ever." really fucking wind me up. Stop listening to the Daily Fail's bullshit, use your own experiences as someone who was in receipt of the very same benefits you're bashing other people for receiving and get a fucking compassion transplant.

Christ alive, I get that we're all very middle class here, but taxing higher earners more does significantly less to the quality of life of higher earners than penalising the poorest in society does to that of low waged workers and people that have fallen on hard times.

I had an interesting conversation with my nine year old and seven year old today about the election.

Mummy what is the difference between conservative and labour?

Short explanation about the basics of socialism compared to the basics of capitalism.

"Well that's just ridiculous! Richer people can grow their businesses and then give jobs to people who need them. That helps everyone to do better. People will never want to work hard if they just get given money by the government"

This was said in the car as we were on our way to the garden centre as mentioned up thread

Why would people support higher benefits? Higher benefits basically means that big companies never have to pay a living wage and can reduce their wages

But the Tories don't want people to have benefits OR a living wage.

We used to own a small business (pub) and the problem with constantly raising the minimum wage (the living wage) is that we, in common with many small employers, would have folded

Then it isn't a feasible business. Why should you be able to exploit people by paying an unliveable wage and have the taxpayer pick up the rest of the bill?

I've lurked on these boards long enough and really some of the comments on here baffle me entirely, so bear with me while I have a bit of a rant.

The majority of the benefits expenditure is paid out in pensions (around £82 Billion when you add in pension credits), the next highest is paid out in housing benefits the majority of which go into landlord pockets. Job seekers allowance is about 9th on the list and personal tax credits aren't even included in the figure (its on the HMRC budget instead about £29 bn a year)

Tax credits acting as a disincentive to work? No what actually happens is subsidises corporate profit. Let me illuminate: One worker on tax credits means that they can be paid a lower rate as the government picks up the deficit in their living costs. The firm pays lower employers NI contributions, and lower wages. If that worker was to go full time they would need a higher rate of pay in order to meet those living costs ( mainly as wages haven't risen at the same rate as rent in decades) the employer would therefore have higher costs and lower profits. Hiring a number of workers on TC to do a job can mean lower costs than one full time worker, hence tax credits subsidise corporate profits (as the corporations are biggest users of tax credits).

Cutting already meagre benefits does not encourage most of the folk on them back to work, it means most end up in even more dire straits. Some people do game the system yes, but more benefits go unclaimed every year than are lost in fraudulent claims, fraud by the way costs about 1.2 billion per year a mere drop in the ocean in comparison to tax avoidance and benefit fraud is far more punitively punished.

A real discussion about benefits means we need to discuss our entire fiscal policy. Should we stop subsidising corporations who under pay staff? Should we stop paying big grants out to firms for infrastructure they will benefit and profit from?

The biggest question for me is should we make business and people who benefit from the society we have pay for what they benefit from. The education, health, legal and judiciary systems, infrastructure the list is nearly endless but yet we don't chase these organisations that benefit most.

The Conservative's are operating a divide and rule system. They want you to look at the benefits the poor get and demand them cut, yet not look at the benefits the wealthy or corporate elites get. They want to cut your services and sell them to big business who will make profits out of infrastructure that was paid for by us the tax payer, and also then have it paid for on a day to day basis by us. They will not improve schools, hospitals, care for the elderly, it will get worse.

If you are anything less than a multi-millonaire they are not acting in your interests. Its misdirection, look at what the poor get, while the elite make off with the loot.

Essentially, if you are anything less than a multi millionaire and you vote tory, you are a moron.

People would always rather see those who are treated as being unfair hit by cuts rather than themselves. Be that welfare 'scroungers' if you pay a lot of tax or a 'tax dodging' millionaire if you struggle for money. I think it's just more obvious this time because the poor are already feeling incredibly hard done by.

If parties want to bring down the welfare bill fairly then they should (imo) open state nurseries/childcare. Operate on a low profit basis so they could charge less, which in turn would both lessen the burden on tax credits and families thus lowering the welfare bill and giving people more money to spend and it would create jobs.

Many areas have a huge shortage of childcare places so it wouldn't completely hammer nursery providers.

Although it should be kept in mind that the 'honest, hard-working nursery owners' have used tax credits and excuse to hike their prices massively in recent years so my sympathy isn't over-flowing for many of them (for good nurseries who pay staff well yes - for the ones who benefit twice by high charges being helped by tax credits AND have low waged staff subsidised by tax credits not so much).

it's not going to fix the problem on it's own, but it'd be a little help I think.

prepperpig :

Please tell me you don't think that that simple analogy explains all the issues. Did you also say: " But dahling, businesses often just take into account their own benefits or those that are for own and run them. If you get sick or ill, or are unfortunate somehow they won't look after you. "

I think this thread needs a lot of people to check their privilege, the idea that hard work is the only thing that prevents people from doing well is rubbish. My grandfather was a miner, he worked harder than most everyday of his life, yet only lived in a house with running water after World War 2 and the welfare state's arrival. I seem to recall lots of the same arguments being used by tories before that as well ( mind you I shouldn't use anecdotes as its a flaw in the argument as can't be proved).

Basically, in this country everyone should have a house, heat, light, and the ability to engage in society no matter who they are. The problem with the poor is the poverty of their aspirations? Bollocks, the problem of the priviliged is that they want all of the benefits of society but none of the costs.

I am neither a multi millionaire nor moron. I'm sick of getting up at 5.20am, waking my 5 and 3 year old up at 6am and marching them out of the house at 6.30am to spend 11.5 hours with a childminder whilst I work a 10 hour day and dh does the same (only leaving the house at 5am). I'm sick of half our income going to tax coffers to pay for state education we don't use, an NHS we use only for private referrals and to pay for tax credits/child benefit/housing benefit/jobseekers/the new childcare tax relief we won't qualify for either.

And then I hear of 18 year olds going to the CAB where my mum volunteers asking for a run down of what benefits they can get 'for life' because they are pregnant and therefore can't work but are entitled to a house, the means to furnish it, a new pram etc etc.

When dh lost his job a couple of year ago and I was on mat leave, arguably we were 'down on our luck'. What help did we get? Absolutely FA because we had been sensible enough to put some savings aside and built up a nest egg.

Does that make me selfish? Maybe, but I'm OK with that.

edwin I hear you loud and clear.

Yawn yawn not another Tory bashing thread. Can't you all just join one big thread or something? The same old arguments hashed up repeatedly are getting boring now.

"labour is socialist again"

What?

You are kidding, right?

Labour are heading towards losing dozens of seats in Scotland because they have abandoned their socialist roots.

They are called the red Tories here!

Edwinbear:

You've missed the point entirely. How many people do you think are down the CAB office across the country asking about benefits for life?

By the way, you may not use state education, or health or anything, but how many of the people that facilitate your ability to earn do? Your employees/subordinates/employees? Your child minder? The man who collects the bins, the street sweeper, the policeman? How many of them benefit from the society we pay for? Could you do your job without the rule of law keeping society stable?

""I don't get out directly so therefore its not fair?" Check your bleeding privilege.

edwinbear Fair enough to be fed up of those with their hand out deliberately, but what about the (considerably more) people genuinely in need?

My friend worked from 16-24 full time then 24-26 part-time. Married with one child. Two average, but decent incomes. They rented privately whilst saving for a deposit (not that it's entirely relevant, but she was told she couldn't conceive so child was unplanned).

Then she got ill with Narcolepsy. She falls asleep without any warning countless times a day. Lost her job, took them down to one income plus Incapacity Benefit then ESA. Used to get DLA. Her husband had to cut his hours down to fit in with nursery because she can't care for their son solo because she doesn't know when she's going to be awake. It'll be ok when he's bigger and can be unsupervised, but atm they scrape by.

If these changes suggested go through she'll lose her ESA (which she had to appeal as despite 3 doctors and a medical file like a phone book she failed the assessment) through means testing. She's already 99% sure that she won't get PIP as it took her a year and an appeal to get DLA and the changes make PIP harder. If/when she loses her disability benefits they'll lose the little bit of help they get toward childcare from tax credits.

What gets completely forgotten in all of this 'oh these teenage girls' and 'oh the people on the fiddle' rants and complaints is that those people are in the minority. The majority people, like my friend, who rely on the welfare state for help, are good, decent people who are being absolutely crippled by these cuts and will be ruined by those.

The divide and conquer attitude has absolutely blinded some people to those actually in need by highlighting the few who are it.

Hey edwin my nest egg didn't last long when dh became disabled. Our insurance didn't pay out, either. We're reliant on state benefits so really, don't blame folks for situations that cannot be predicted, trust me, we'd both rather be working than having to deal with the constant pain and him being unable to walk and the huge loss of dignity that goes with that.

LaLyra Dd suffers from narcolepsy. Not funny. Hope your friend is coping. Narcolepsy in the UK on facebook is useful.

I agree whole heartedly that there are people who are ill/care for people who are ill/work long hard hours, in low paid jobs who should be helped and supported. Of course I use services such as road sweepers, bin men, police etc (which I pay a high council tax rate toward). And this is why it is fair that we have an income tax system which means higher earners do make a larger contribution (in terms of actual sum of money paid) to contribute to that, and why they are excluded from certain benefits others need.

But I think our sense of what is an acceptable standard of living is warped. Smart phones (I bought my first last year because I couldn't justify the £40 a month bill when I have a company Blackberry which serves me perfectly well), Sky TV, laptops, TV's in every room, convenience foods, holidays, meals out, huge piles of toys for kids birthdays and Christmases, maybe I've got this wrong but it seems to me these things are considered essentials, whereas when I was a kid these were luxuries which we certainly didn't have at home. My mum used to buy our clothes in jumble sales as my parents wanted to pay for a private education for my sister and I, and the fact was, there were decisions that had to be made in terms of where and how money was spent.

Of course people need a roof over their heads, access to education and healthcare, food and warmth - this is what living in a developed society entails. But I don't like this sense that 'rich' people need to be brought down to size by handing all their money over to fund a more than comfortable lifestyle for people who feel no need to contribute themselves.