£12bn Welfare Cuts - Speculation and Information

[olgaga]

I've been reading the recent threads about this on here with interest. I came across this article by Robert Joyce of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Do have a read. We won't know the full extent of what is planned until 8 July when we hear the new Budget, but we do know that Tax Credits and Housing Benefit are in the firing line, along with an expected reduction in the Universal Credit Cap of £26,000 to £23,000.

I haven't posted this to provoke an argument, more to try to provide some authoritative information for those seeking possible answers, and to express my sadness at what I fear will be the impact.

Here are some of the highlights of the article, in my words:

Yes there will be an extension of free childcare, to enable you to work longer hours in your min wage job to make up for SOME of the shortfall caused by the withdrawal or abolition of WTC, whuch currently costs £30bn.

That's if you can find a childcare provider, and succeed in obtaining additional working hours.

No doubt they will also raise the tax threshold - but that will benefit higher earners just as much as the lowest paid.

Child benefit may be cut more quickly by lowering the cash terms threshold, so the number of families who reach the threshold will increase more quickly.

Or they might cut the amount for the first child, or for the number of subsequent children.

Or it may be abolished altogether and be included as an element of means tested CTC.

Cuts to housing benefit seem inevitable, as this makes up £26bn of the welfare budget - and not just for 18-21yo. This may be achieved by cuts to the LHA, or introducing a percentage co-payment (say 10-20% of rent) for tenants in both social and private rented housing. Worth bearing in mind if that might necessitate a move to a cheaper area, and possible loss of employment.

Disability and incapacity benefits, carer's and attendance allowances, at £37bn, are also likely to be affected. Whether by taxing, means testing, or simple abolition.

I think the Tories' position on welfare in the run up to the 2010 election was misleading. Certainly here, on thread after thread in the run up to 2010, people were declaring that the problem of the welfare bill needed to be tackled, but believed the Tories would only tackle so-called "career claimants".

It seems to me that all that "hardworking families" "strivers v skivers" stuff was designed to divide and rule. I don't blame people for believing it, but the Tories have always been the Party of low taxation, small state and individual responsibility - and that's not about to change.

Anyway, that's just my view. I'm sure there are still plenty of people who think lower taxation and a smaller welfare state will be beneficial to the economy.

But it's clear that a lot of people, and many, many children, will suffer when these benefit lifelines are taken away.

I am well aware it varies from person to person but the sweeping statements on both sides help no one

What I don't understand is the means testing of carers allowance. It's already means tested, surely? You can't claim it unless you earn less than £110 per week

I think it's time fathers were made to pay for their children. The state cannot afford to keep single parents. Mothers should be forced to give the fathers details and the money should be taken from their wages or benefits at source. Excepting cases of rape or where the father has died

you are aware that there is no such thing as a 'single parent's benefit', aren't you?

you are also aware that single parents are means tested on their income the same way a couple is? in which case, a single parent earning £20k will receive the same in benefits as a couple earning £20k?

you are also aware that the welfare system is unable to keep up with maintenance changes and since 2010, single parents have no longer had to declare any maintenance received for means testing?

which means, by all means shout at fathers who don't pay for their children, but it won't make one scrap of differenced to the current welfare bill.

Mind you, in that article it suggests it may be abolished altogether, which just about reflects the attitude towards what unpaid carers actually do :( it's a full time JOB and most people struggle to work alongside their caring responsibilities. Carers also save the economy millions
David Cameron ought to be ashamed of himself

Maintenance should count as income. Why should a single parent be better off than a couple?

If the payments came from their wages or benefits they would be guaranteed.

I am disabled and only just managing to work part time due to a remarkably sympathetic employer. PIP is not easy to get, but it does help to meet some of the extra costs of my disability.
I know that the Government want people like me to rely on family to help us instead. Even though my small family are scattered all around Britain. Nobody will step in to help, what will happen is that I will live off cereal, bread and biscuits as I physically can't make anything more complex than that, and won't be able to afford to buy ready made meals or have ready meals delivered.

Morage I truly hope it won't come to that for you.

Maintenance should count as income. Why should a single parent be better off than a couple?

because maintenance is a contribution towards the upbringing of a child/children from their other parent who would otherwise be contributing to the household if their parents were together? kind of a way of reducing child poverty?

maintenance doesn't count as income. In the past, single parents were entirely screwed by the system and an ex partner who paid one week but didn't bother the next. This meant that benefits were stopped, recalculated and then re-issued every single time there was a change in maintenance. Meaning children were going without.

But fuck it, eh, single parents don't have enough shit to deal with without the constant concern of how to feed their children.

If the payments came from their wages or benefits they would be guaranteed

Lol. You haven't got a clue. Educate yourself.

I should also point out that single parents who earn well are worse off compared with two average earning parents when you consider tax thresholds and the withdrawal of Child Benefit.

Owl...the tories do not believe carers save the economy "billions" because they adhere to the rule of personal responsibility...it is your job to care for your loved ones first and foremost not the states.

I don't agree...im a socialist...but no point arguing a point a tory will fundamentally disagree with.

the cuts for disability are so shortsighted, take every thing away from my adult disabled child and they will have to go in to residential care ....

ah of course, shut them away.cos scameron and his ilk can hide them then,

The thing is, I don't actually have to care for my child who is severely disabled if I don't want to. I could make it the government's responsibility....it would cost them more than £63 a week
Honestly, David Cameron is a disgrace. He's a hypocrite and liar and he has absolutely NO idea about the cost of severe disability and care to those with lower/middle incomes.

Disability is an umbrella term btw, to the person who keeps going on about some people with disabilities being able to work. Of course they can!

But that's the point owl, this government, if allowed to over the next 5 (10,15) years will stop making it their responsibility. They don't want a welfare state.

My daughter is going to outlive me. What will happen to her? What will happen to people like her (and samcro' s son)

"Maybe with reductions to benefits people will be more inspired to work."

Sadly I think the opposite will be true for most people.

Many working people rely on benefits to work as the tax credits and benefits are providing help with childcare and top ups to low wages, without which it would not be possible for many to work.

I can see the logic in your statement but I am afraid it is flawed logic. It assumes that people are choosing to take benefits and be on low incomes whereas the reality is most oeople claiming benegits are in work. People are working all the hours god sends and still needing benefits to survive.

Take away the top ups and many more will be out of work.

Another scaremongering post! You are still,as with other threads, just guessing

Oh, MrsLH would love to work. Find me job - let alone employer - that a registered blind, wheelchair-bound person, with chronic fatigue, and mental impairment is suitable for, and she'd happily do it. Mysteriously they're only advertised in "Your Unicorn (incorporating Rocking Horse Coprologist).

I'm sick of taking on staff who only want to work a small amount of hours because full time work reduces their benefits.

Maintenance isn't counted because the benefits that the RP is receiving are benefits they would be entitled to if the NRP was deceased, or otherwise completely absent.

If a RP works and earns £20k a year, the NRP still has a responsibility to pay towards their childs upbringing.

If a RP claims out of work benefits, or gets tax credits to top up their wages, the benefits or top ups are in lieu of wages, or what they are entitled to under the current tax credit rules. That is their income. The NRPs income is totally irrelevant to their income, because the maintenance is towards the children.

It used to be counted, and single parents were royally fucked if their ex wasn't reliable with payments.

Since single parents were able to discount csa payments from income it's got silly. Where father's basically pay the equivalent of a salary to the mum she can still not work and claim full income support. Or at least it was that way when I claimed. Again. Ridiculous situation.

Is that situation the most common? Or is it more likely that the NRP pays the minimum they can get away with, or nothing at all?

I would like to include care of the elderly in the list of things that are likely to be cut further. In the next few years, I think we'll see a move towards forcing people to move out of their homes into more specialist accommodation, thus releasing private equity to pay for care. Many local authorities are already making plans along these lines - it is coming.

This may be a good thing in terms of freeing up housing stock and maybe in terms of the unfair side of inheritance too, but I worry about the people who don't own their own homes and have no savings. For it to work, the quality of the free accommodation that is provided has to be a push-factor, which surely means that it'll be of a very low standard indeed.

I would like to include care of the elderly in the list of things that are likely to be cut further

Only poor non voting elderly. The ones who fit the Tory demographic are being protected, remember ?

Housing benefit is a really interesting one. The housing shortage, combined with the sell-off of council homes, is pushing up rents, which is pushing up the benefit bill.

Meanwhile, land banking is rife. The problem isn't the planning system (there are SO many sites with the green light) but the way land is treated as an investment. I'd love to see a return to radical solutions to this, in particular a very, VERY heavy tax on the unearned increment that occurs when land is granted planning permission. The person who owns the land has done absolutely nothing to increase its value - so why shouldn't the benefit go to the state, and be put to use building social housing?

And to support my previous assertion notice how the biggest under-occupiers of housing (pensioners) are specifically exempt from the bedroom tax.

Proving it was never about saving money, or freeing up housing - just an(other) excuse to hammer the vulnerable.

Meanwhile, land banking is rife

So true. Last year we visited lots of nearby new builds, and they were all being built in tranches, to maintain the property prices. If they had built and released all 10,000 in one go rather than three, it would have been more affordable.

Unfortunately, what's best for property developers, is diametrically opposed to what is best for the country. Hence the ludicrous ratio of "city living (as many as we could cram in) apartments" compared to "family (what a waste of land) homes".