Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to wonder what benefits will get the chop from the £12 billion of cuts?

545 replies

steiner8 · 21/06/2015 18:22

Just that really. I'm wondering which benefits are going to go or be significantly cut. Anyone have any idea?

OP posts:
zen1 · 21/06/2015 20:18

Yes rocket, they are cutting school transport for disabled children around here as well. It is the LAs decision to make the cuts because they are getting less government money, but ultimately, any cuts that have to be made always seem to be to services which support people with disabilities, whether at national or local level.

lagirafe · 21/06/2015 20:20

Sandpiper I understand where you're coming from but people's circumstances change - life is awful sometimes and you can't just turn back the clock.

I'd also say that yes, some people do make poor decisions but is it right to make their children suffer for their parents' decisions?

These cuts will plunge a lot of children into poverty.

BathtimeFunkster · 21/06/2015 20:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

IfNotNowThenWhen · 21/06/2015 20:21

In the 90s I know there was Family Credit purplepoodle. Not sure about before.
But we must not forget that, in real terms, wages have decreased since the 70 s anyway, so tax credits merely plug the gap between the shockingly low wages most people get paid, and the amount they need to survive.
Who is going get hit?
All those who can't hit back.
The disabled, the ill, single parents (so single mothers realistically ) the young who have just nothing at all to look forward to in this country and are already about as beaten down as you can get.
I hope they at least will find some fight and help get rid of the scum destroying our country.By which I mean George Osborne and his Bullingdon buddys. I would cheerfully see his head on a stick outside the Palace of Westminster.

Northernlurker · 21/06/2015 20:26

So how many Tory voters have signed up for being foster parents in the last two months? Cos if you get the parent's benefits and they can't feed them then that means you'll have to deal with the children they can't keep. What do you mean - you didn't think of that? How irresponsible of you to go ahead and vote without thinking it through.......

Child poverty is a despicable thing. You cut the benefits of parents, you ARE impoverishing the children.

Sandpipernest · 21/06/2015 20:28

Only on MN would someone who suggested that. perhaps, having 4/5/6 children when you are on benefits or a very low wage is a bit daft, be called a cunt Grin

Luckily Britain is NOT Mn and voted a Tory Govt !! Grin

GiddyOnZackHunt · 21/06/2015 20:28

Actually whilst I fundamentally disagree with people who voted Conservative I do think that calling people cunts, when there's a glimmer of a discussion and possibly a chance to persuade them of their folly, is a mistake.

Sandpipernest · 21/06/2015 20:29

So many elephants in the room so let's grab this one .

Most smokers ( on £9.50 a packet ) are from the lowest socio economic group.

How does that work, then?

Minifingers9 · 21/06/2015 20:29

"That our public money is being given for children who don't live here is a scandal, and needs to end."

If people who live here are eligible for child benefit they're usually also eligible to bring their children here to live with them. Cut child benefit for non resident children - people will bring their children to live in the uk instead. Why wouldn't they, given that by doing so they'll get a free education, child benefit and free health care too? I'd say that sending child benefit abroad is the cheaper option...

rallytog1 · 21/06/2015 20:30

Yes Northern.

And you might reduce the benefits bill, but poverty makes the costs of running society even higher (increased demand on health services, mental health teams, social services, policing, education intervention etc etc). So it's a false economy anyway.

nagsandovalballs · 21/06/2015 20:31

I think they should be cracking down on a) slum landlords and b) tax avoidance schemes. I also think the tax threshold should be increased to £15k or £16k and that the minimum wage should be at least £7. However, upper tax thresholds should be increased to £80k, when a 50p in the £ higher tax rate should kick in. And that they should increase the taxes on luxury goods (e.g. Cars with certain engine sizes and values, which would encourage buying smaller, greener cars - even though the car tax on 4 by 4s is a bit higher, it's only about £500 per year; designer goods etc should have a special VAT price). Instead of endlessly protecting pensioners, there should be significant tax breaks for people under the age of 40 who pay into a personal pension (beyond what you get now).

Introducing the some Swiss elements to Job Seekers Allowance might be a good idea too. At the moment, in the UK, there is a fairly unlimited amount of time you can be on JSA for, but it is such a pittance as to mean that buying smart clothes for interviews, moving house to a better area for work, travelling long distances to interviews and ensuring that you have sufficient technology to create and access applications and adverts with ease are beyond the realm of possibility for most on JSA. the Swiss system pays substantially more than we do here, often tying it to previous income - unless just left school/uni. (E.g. 1st year 100% of previous salary, second year 80%, third year 60%), but with decreasing values and eventually, After 3-5 years, payment is cut completely. This only applies to healthy, working age individuals. It does not apply to those with mental health or disability issues, nor does it apply to single parents. The Swiss system is also more generous at sponsoring quality education of the individual's choosing (instead of those ridiculous box ticking courses people are forced to do here), particularly all types of degrees and STEM courses (e.g. Plumbing).

There are a few problems with this system: one, it is possible to work for 6 months, quit and live of the unemployment benefit for a couple of years then work for 6 months again; two, scaling up something that works in such a small population to work in the country the size of Britain is difficult. However, I do think a much higher rate of JSA but for a clearly defined but limited period would improve things massively in empowering people to look for work and probably save money in the long run.

Everything should help People into work and make work financially viable. We have a family living purely on benefits who keep their horses at our yard. They have three, whereas I work two jobs and can only afford one. I appreciate this is serious first world problem stuff (oh woe is me, I can only afford one horse!), but when they were taking me through how and what they claim, I was gobsmacked. I agree with previous posters who say that tax credits should be kept - increased, actually - but child benefit limited.

soundedbetterinmyhead · 21/06/2015 20:32

sandpiper that was a reasonable point that you made, IMO. No need for the abuse you got.

expatinscotland · 21/06/2015 20:35

Very disabled children used to be institutionalised is what used to happen. Do you realise how much this costs the state? It is far more than benefits to carers.

'Okay - they will cut in work benefits to stop people who work 16 hours a week getting the same as somene on 35/40 hours a week.

They will expect both parents to work rather than one SAH and receiev benefits in order to do so.'

But have not considered how few low-wage jobs are permanent contracts, 35+ hours a week, or how much childcare is or its availability in low-wage jobs which are a lot of shift/24-7 work.

It's putting the cart before the horse and flogging that horse for being a horse.

BMW6 · 21/06/2015 20:37

you'll have to deal with the children they can't keep.

Nope. YOU are responsible for YOUR children. HTH.

SmallMustard · 21/06/2015 20:39

It's going to be tax credits apparently. I already live in quite a deprived area in the south west and struggle to eat healthy food and so have bad health. It's not going to get any better.

scarlettsmummy2 · 21/06/2015 20:40

Sandpiper- honestly!! You really have no idea do you??? Cigarettes are a symptom of poverty. It is such a complex issue and smoking is only a small part of the problem. Yes, many of those in poverty smoke, but they also have the highest levels of mental health problems and anti depressant use.

Sandpipernest · 21/06/2015 20:41

*you'll have to deal with the children they can't keep.

Nope. YOU are responsible for YOUR children. HTH.*

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between Left and Right.

The idea and hope is also that knowing in advance that benefits are considerablt less generous will mean that fewer people go ahead and have 4/5/6 children they then expect the taxpayer to support.

Want2bSupermum · 21/06/2015 20:41

If I were in charge I would give MPs a dose of what voters and the royal family have had to deal with and cut back the number of MPs to 101 with PR instead of FPTP as I think it's cheaper in terms of one Mp standing down, that person is replaced with someone else from that party.

I would reduce the remaining MPs salaries to £24k as they have huge expenses covered by the taxpayer.

House of Lords would be reviewed and peerages due to political service would be carefully reviewed and if found that they don't offer much to the process I would revoke their peerage.

I would cut housing costs by bringing back housing authorities under the control of central government. No more stupidity high salaries or volunteer programs. I would then encourage landowners facing death duties to donate land for public housing to be built on.

Alas I'm not in charge so I think dumb and dumber will shaft those 40 and under. Good luck to the disabled. I also think there will be some additional costs associated with healthcare. Oh and pensions! Yeah my generation are screwed. None of my friends living in the UK are saving into a pension because they can't afford to.

expatinscotland · 21/06/2015 20:42

'Nope. YOU are responsible for YOUR children. HTH.'

And when those children's parents cannot find enough hours of work to feed them or pay for childcare, they will become wards of the state. And that will cost.

Not to mention those disabled children who will need to go into residential care so teh parents can work, the cost of which is around £200,000/pa per head.

HTH.

howtorebuild · 21/06/2015 20:42
enviousllama · 21/06/2015 20:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Sandpipernest · 21/06/2015 20:43

I kno wal this Scarlettsmummy.

But you cannot spend £70 a week on fags and then go to a foodbank because you cannot afford to feed your kids.

howtorebuild · 21/06/2015 20:44

Where is the evidence it's only chain smokers going to food banks?

Sandpipernest · 21/06/2015 20:45

I will never, ever agree that choosing to smoke rather than feed your kids is okay/forgiveable because people are ill/depressed/poor.

Everyone , EVERYONE has choices.

More leftwing patronisation of the poor.

BathtimeFunkster · 21/06/2015 20:45

Only on MN would someone who suggested that. perhaps, having 4/5/6 children when you are on benefits or a very low wage is a bit daft, be called a cunt

No, it's really not just on MN that people find that kind of hypocritical, smug, patronising sanctimony a bit cunty.

Like fucking really?

You want to chide and lecture people for having children?

And you think it's totally fine that they and their children will be in trouble, because they should have foreseen the abolition of the welfare state?

Hmm

There's nothing at all "daft" about choosing to have four children if you are on a low wage but but getting by.

It's just revolting to patronise people like that and blame them for what is being done to them.

But you are rather proving the point about Tory voters.

It's like they start to get a bit of a wide on when they see an opportunity to lecture people for making the wrong "lifestyle choices".

Ugh. Just ugh.

Swipe left for the next trending thread