Benefit Britain - the irony

[Mhoys]

Years ago there was no Housing Benefit as far as I remember - talking about growing up in the 1960s. Or even Child Tax Benefits, etc etc. Now it seems so many people get these, even people working in reasonably good jobs. The Government is meant to be anti-benefits but expenditure on all this must be significant. Some of this may be due to a small rise in living standards since then. But also have wages become so low relative to living costs, that the state is effectively subsidising private enterprise? There is nothing necessarily wrong with this I guess, but isn't the government "in denial" when few ordinary people could afford a family or rent or buy a home in the South at least , so the taxpayer/State has to stump up? I have some thoughts but am also genuinely puzzled ...

I don't see how or why the op could have been worded better. It just required someone to actually read the whole post

I'd love to know, why, when David cuntface cameron, brought in, and attempted to bring in, cuts, such as,
cuts for HB under 25s
bedroom tax
No tax credits for under 25s (what, like my rent/food/gas/electric are cheaper 24 vs a 26 year old?!)
and then general tax credit cuts, did these TV shows spring up? There were always programmes about those on benefits, some were honest reflections, some were about looking down on the feckless workshy, but over the last 5 years I've seen easily 10 different tv shows released, some that spanned on for 3-4 seasons maybe more.. It looks like it was engineered, because you're more likely to support the cuts if you buy into the idea that those on benefits get paid way too much/are feckless...

cocklodger, I think the first was 'Benefits Street' which was filmed in 2013 when the benefits system was largely still as under the Labour government and I think then there were genuine questions which needed to be asked about how the benefits system was working and the sort of society it was creating.

But I think post reforms it really does stretch the bounds of credulity for the programme makers to expect us to believe that benefits are providing a cushy lifestyle out of reach of a lot of working people.

BillSykesDog I completely agree with what you are saying (which is why I dislike the programme). I especially dislike the tone used by the narrator .

In any case even if there is some fraud, it would be a negligible figure compared to the amount of benefits that go unclaimed, so the whole exercise is a dog whistling attempt at titillating viewers (like my h IMO.

And let's not get started on the massive tax avoidance of the wealthy, where the efforts should really be concentrated . Why aren't there programmes about them?

Also, areas which have been left to fend for themselves and have been uninvested in for a long time are going to have less jobs available.

All this is ignored in favour of the titillation.

And let's not forget our fans at The Daily Mail. 'Mother of 63 collects £8m worth of benefits, lives in Kensington and spends £2000/week on cigarettes' and all their bullshit. At least they appear to have stopped fangirling the bloody Radfords.

Blimey, did no one on the first page actually read the OP? Not a goady post at all and the OP has a point.

Anyway, DH used to work for an employer who paid his workers the very minimum wage. He also had a portfolio of houses that he let out- to people who worked for him. So not only were they having to claim tax credits to top up their wages so they could afford to live, this was partly going back to the employer in rent.

These were the kind of houses that once upon a time, someone in a low paid job would have been able afford on their income but after 2003/2004 when they tripled or quadrupled in price, it was just out of their reach.

Something very wrong with the system but I'm not sure what the answer is.

Iceland had the answers, we've ignored them, as have America. We get the politicians we deserve unfortunately because look at the English's behaviour dating right back to Elizabethan times. We aren't very nice as a nation.

I understand what you mean OP.

It is dawned right fucking ridiculous that the government demonise benefits yet they and the companies they subsidise and the landlords who's houses benefits are essentially buying for them are the ones who benefit the most.

pissssssedofff, what are the answers that Iceland has?

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/17/the-miraculous-story-of-iceland/

Basically everyone had four years of hell, bankers went to prison, the economy reset based on real money, it was unattractive to borrow, savings rates are 4 times the uk's and Iceland is thriving

Interesting, thank you

We have no interest in fixing anything. Too many people have a vested interest in keeping the system exactly as it is.

The only way and I mean the only way to beat these fuckers at their own game is stay out of debt.
I am buying a god forsaken shit hole I will need to put barbed wire around my fence of, for cash and then will save and save and save to buy a better place for cash with the money I would have paid to the bank in interest in 4 years time.

Every month over pay your mortgage even if it's only by a quid and get out of the rat race

You know this is very similar to a line of thought I've had quite recently.
I'd done some budgeting, and figured out the ins and outs of our household expenditure.
I always thought that this would be enough to cmofrtably live on. To comfortably run two cars, buy a nice enough house. To have nice holidays and things, but it just doesn't translate that way.

I think those on benefits now, would have been those who 20 years ago didn't struggle so much. The cost of living has inflated so far beyond what people earn.

In real terms wages have fallen since the 2008 crash, whilst asset prices have risen due to Q.E and other government interventions. So basically wages haven't even kept up with RPI inflation, never mind the massive inflation in rent and house prices.

I genuinly don't know how people survive on the peanuts they get paid. It's shocking how people are so used to tax credits being a way of life now. We don't claim any benefits now but there was a time I needed top ups even though I was working full time and shitting myself about when dd1 left education as no way would I have been able to afford the rent with out the extra top ups.

Miraculously things turned out OK due to Dh starting up our own buisness - with huge amounts of good luck!

What really worries me is the folk that are on disability benifits (if that's what they are called) it's shameful what the goverment have done to those poor people. Genuinly poorly, ill people having to live off a few bob a week because some cretin with no medical back ground ignores the GP advice and deems them able to work.

Horrible horrible goverment we have in.

Haven't had time to RTFT but a suggestion none the less. Regulation Regulation and Regulation. It's needed within housing, employment and fuel services. If rents were restricted to a reasonably affordable amount then the housing benefit bill might be cut aswell as decreasing the amount of buy to let investors. Again force employers to pay a living wage without 0 hour contracts and employees might earn enough to pay their full amount of rent. Make sure that fuel companies don't charge extortionate amounts for gas/electricity to fund their massive profit margins and people may have enough to pay for properly nutritious food. That won't happen though I'm afraid!

I'm right-wing, but in favour of tax credits, as without them work often wouldn't pay. It's better to have people contributing part of their cost of living than to say if they can't get a job that pays for all of it, they should stay unemployed, and be 100% subsidised.

I disagree with the twin mumsnet memes that tax credits/benefits are a subsidy to employers/landlords. Both employers and landlords pay/take the same amount regardless of whether the individual in question is on benefits or not, so they are paying/getting roughly the right amount.

As long as we have socialism, then no matter what happens to pay and housing costs, about half the population will be subsidised. Half of households will by definition always have below-median income, and the point of socialism is to subsidise them at the expense of the other half. (Obviously the divide doesn't have to be at the half-way point, but it's a reasonable place to have it, and it's what politicians here seem to have settled on.)

But also have wages become so low relative to living costs, that the state is effectively subsidising private enterprise?

This is exactly what is happening with tax credits/ Universal credit and Housing benefit

And now they are cutting it yet people's wages aren't going up and rents aren't coming down

This country is an absolute joke. Well, the government is.

So again we will have massive defaults and people will end up homeless costing the government millions, whilst properties stand empty and landlords will loose them to - wait for it - the banks !!

Anyone would think that was the game plan all along

Up to five years ago there was no shame to claiming tax credits, it was a sign you were working.....when did that change?

A steady campaign of derision, scornt t and benefits bashing in the press have moved the Overton window. The steady repetition of the fact that it was high public spending that was responsible for the poor state of the economy and public finances has been accepted, and claiming benefots makes you a "scrounger."

Those who first posted on here with biscuits should be ashamed of themselves, bullying at its best because someone dared to mention the word benefits even though she wasn't being goady. I have wondered this for some time, why the taxpayer should pay benefits to allow large companies to pay their staff less and shareholders more. Unfortunately I cannot see a way back from this that any government would be willing to grasp

I think there has also been a huge switch in the way employers view their people. When I began work, many moons ago, the established wisdom was that a businesses biggest asset was its staff and companies respected and had a loyalty to them. Then Personnel became HR and staff became a resource to be used rather than an asset to be valued so, instead of paying well to retain valued and experienced people, the aim became to minimise outgoings and replace or outsource them wherever possible. Sadly the idea of paying well to get the right people now only applies to senior management and MPs apparently.

I'm in HR and it's a horrible moment when the employee in front of me works out I'm not there for them.
Truth the staff are still the companies biggest asset, if only there was a away of them banding together, some sort of union maybe. The junior doctors I saw being abused and get back to work yelled at them made me want to weep