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.

£12bn Welfare Cuts - Speculation and Information

129 replies

olgaga · 25/06/2015 11:08

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.

OP posts:
saintlyjimjams · 26/06/2015 09:37

People have bought into Cameron's lie. That goes: we need to save money, so by taking from the scroungers & the cheats & those who aren't really disabled we'll have more resources for the 'deserving' disabled. That hasn't happened at all - those who are most disabled are very expensive & often reliant on social care. With LA budgets slashed the choice often comes down to cutting a service that doesn't cost much per person but will affect many, or one that is hugely expensive but only benefits a few - the most severely disabled. Guess which gets cut? It is precisely the people Cameron pretends he wants to support who have been so badly affected by the cuts.

And people have no idea how hard it is to get a council to act. I had person after person saying to me 'I can't believe you are being left in this situation'. And 'you can't be expected to live like this'. And so on and so forth. People genuinely could not fathom why we were being left. The council knew the situation & did nothing until the number of people getting on to them meant they realised they would be held accountable for the entirely predictable injuries that were about to occur.

We had to take the council on right when our family situation had reached crisis (& I mean crisis). i.e. When we had limited resources to do that.

saintlyjimjams · 26/06/2015 09:45

And if complaining & quoting the law at councils worked & meant they suddenly said 'oh yes that's right silly me - here's all that support your son needs' we would never have reached crisis point. It took from June to March to get then to act, and that included stage 2 complaints (a deal done where it was recognised we were right in exchange for stalling the stage 2) , meeting with senior managers, pointing out where they were breaking the law blah blah blah. They still did nothing! Even us
'winning' the stage 2 led to nothing.

Ds1 has had involvement from SS for over ten years, they were well aware of his needs.

Owllady · 26/06/2015 09:45

You are right jimjams, it's absolutely disgusting.

Owllady · 26/06/2015 09:47

Well luckily for us they did take action at stage 2. I found it difficult that no one was accountable

New posts on this thread. Refresh page