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

[steiner8]

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

Shall we talk about what won't be cut? Tax breaks for the wealthiest and their pensions, inheritance tax thresholds will be increased ( and if anyone would like an economics lesson on why that is wrong I can deliver it), the tax relief of mortgages for BTL landlords etc etc.

Ok, lets cut the entire crap then. Lets have a free market economy with no government intervention and see what happens? Oh, what's that, the tories don't want that cause huge swathes of business rely on grants and subsidies in order to produce?

Keynes for the rich, Hayek for the poor.

Oh and if you voted tory and are anything other than in the top 10% of wealth in this country you are a turkey voting for Christmas, morons.

I think it will be tax credits as well so depressing and so predictable.

I agree with expat on the point that the work that is out there is not of the right type in terms of regular steady income. Paying for childcare if it eats up most or all of your income is one thing if you have a partner with a steady income, your income is supplemental AND you have the prospect of your wage rising to outstrip the costs.
Sending people on 'work experience' to retain their benefits takes low paid jobs out of the market.
Chipping away at the pennies from those who have little doesn't make any serious dent in the debt. Going after the bigger fish, stopping the race to the bottom and stopping spending money on tinkering with public bodies. Those are the places to start.

Well they could start with the better off pensioners heating allowance
My parents get it every year and still are stunned. They are not rich but certainly don't need it.

Keynes for the rich, Hayek for the poor.

Abso-fucking-lutely

Sandpiper- you can not just go to a foodbank- you have to be referred by carefully selected organisations that have a good understanding of what is going on. And of the referrals I make on an daily basis, the majority are due to the client being sanctioned, rather than spending their money on fags. But, if you had any clue what you were talking about you would know that.

Bingo! People are poor and cannot feed their children because they all smoke. You forgot drugs, Sky, iPhones, alcoholics, designer clothes and foreign holidays. Not a sky high rent, seasonal/temp jobs, travel costs to get to work and no way to move closer or prepayment meter in sight.

'Everyone , EVERYONE has choices.'

Heat or eat.
Rent or council tax.
Leccy or gas.

Choices, choices.

I think child benefit will go. After all, wasn't it a post-war temporary benefit?

I'd like to see tax avoidance being challenged and some sort of rent cap (I know, in a capitalist society, this will never happen) and I'd like to see absentee dads being forced to pay more for the children they abandon. And if not, jailed.

I remember my Mum talking about somebody getting Family Income Supplement probably in around the late 70's. They called it Fiz. She didn't sound very approving but I thought this person deserved it as she was a widow with young children who I think had a part-time job. The trouble is it's no longer just given to the needy. It's just given to people on what I'd consider quite good incomes.

Bathtime It's not OK to plan your family with a view to benefits being your sole source of income. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net, not the default. I planned 2 DCs because that's how many I think we could support if I lost my job/had to temp etc. I'm not a tory voter but I can see sandpiper's point here. You can't have children with a view to relying on the state to feed them, then get cross when the state give you less money.

agent - i agree i've been thinking about absent fathers and why they shouldn't pay....maybe taken at source - though i guess the cost may prohibit it. why shouldn't the fathers pay for their kids? I don't see why the taxpayer has to if the father has the cash

A poster up thread mentioned her cousin saying that they managed without tax credits. Housing costs were very different in the 90s. My friends paid about 80k for a house in south London Zoopla gives its value at 600k and a rental price in excess of 2k per month.

You can't have children with a view to relying on the state to feed them, then get cross when the state give you less money.

Not in The Real World, no, but on MN you can have as many as you like and anyone who doesn't agree is a cuntybollock who wants to see children starve, yes, starve I tell you!!!

if you look at the areas where spending is then housing benefit is one of the largest - so if you were to reduce this by say 10% it would be the same as getting rid of some of the other benefits altogether

Dh & joint gross income about 30k pa, so hardly in the top 10% of wealth. We both voted Tory. The benefit cuts will affect us not one bit because we don't get any. I suspect there are very many like us. So your cliche of a turkey voting for Christmas doesn't work.

I voted for them THIS TIME (have been Labour voter in the past) because they are the best ones to get a grip on the bloated Welfare State and address the difference between those that need and should get more help, and those who for years have been taking the piss and should start to look after themselves.

No you can't have children and automatically expect the state to step in, but what do you suggest happens to these people they starve go bare foot and live on the streets.!
They could have a bigger story than I don't want to work. You don't know what a person has been through that has lead them to where they are.

Bang on BMW, bang on

Those children already here will be looked after Live in but going forward tighter benefit controls shoudl discourage people from having children they can't afford. Just like everyone who works and receives no benefits does.

many fathers can pay but the government lets them get away with it,letting them produce figures that dont stack up and are unviable

Sadly the cuts don't go nearly far enough. We will still have an absurdly high benefits cap of £23,000. Still, a small step in the right direction is better than none I suppose.

BMW yes the welfare state may be 'bloated' but you can't resolve the problem by tackling on the recipients of benefits. The amount spent on housing people, even working people, is huge. Absolutely huge. If we had public housing at affordable prices then that would be reduced by a massive amount. People would be far less reliant on benefits in work. But that would require public investment.
Pensions are the biggest single benefit. We're going to be working longer at the time this generation have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. We need well educated children to pay those pensions. Letting the disadvantaged sink further into poverty isn't going to get those children into good jobs.

Exactly sandpiper. When did personal responsibility become something to be sneered at?

I am in the bottom 2% of earners according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't eat meat. I have health problems caused by my poor diet as I have vitamin deficiencies, I have depression, anxiety and PTSD. I live in a deprived part of the south west and earn just over minimum wage. I supplement my earnings by cleaning in a hotel during the tourist season but still don't earn enough to pay tax, I just pay NI.
My luxury is to have Sky TV and Broadband which is paid for by a relative as a treat.
Oh, and I work for one of those irresponsible employers who pay such a low income that we are forced to claim tax credits. I work for the government.