The autumn budget should cut benefits before increasing tax

[Leett]

There is talk of Labour breaking their election pledge and increasing income tax by 2p. I doubt they'd do that because voters will revolt. However they need to do something with the state pension due to increase by 4.7% next year.
I really hope they cut benefits / pensions before the deciding to increase taxes.

I’m not sure how anyone can make this claim.

Are you really though? My question is can you support yourself and raise your child without this support or are you a hypocrite? Can you cover all of your needs and leave enough to cover the needs of future generations? If your DC was unable to work why should the state support a child you chose to have if you didn'tchose to provide enough for him? Why is it socially acceptable for a healthy person to rely on the government but feel they should have moral judgement over those less fortunate and vulnerable when they are discussing a pot that they are taking more from than contributing to?

Public goods are not a god given right, they are a decision to support everyone for the greater good just like any other benefit. You've said you want to move a system where we stand on our own two feet and remove state reliance. Relying on public goods is state reliance. Removing public goods could save the country a fortune. People need to decide if this is what they want before campaigning for the removal of state support that enables their existence.

The emphasis in Scotland is Early Learning, rather than child care. The reasoning being that not all children have parents who do all these things with them, so the children who are being let down will have people who will do the things the parents don't. That includes working parents btw. Being a bad parent isn't anything to do with the income the parents have. There are many miserable children who live in middle class homes.

I read tax increases to be for people who are high earners and not people on things like min wage.

@IAmNotASheep agree no need to take a nursery place from someone working. I know some areas people really struggle to find funded places.

How about expecting people to take actual responsibility for their own circumstances and decisions? I’m not advocating for a zero welfare state and there should be a safety net for eg the severely disabled and short term unemployed but the current system is ridiculous and unsustainable. Deciding to have multiple kids with unsuitable partners, opting out of work because of your mental health and anxiety etc and expecting other tax payers to fund that is not something I support, harsh as that sounds. There should be a safety net for children but not in the form of cash benefits for their parents, eg I would support free nursery, food and basic provisions for the poorest children but with no option for the parents to opt out of work instead of using nursery or to receive additional child benefit payments/UC. This along with wholesale structural changes such as part privatisation of healthcare/mandatory private health insurance for those that can afford it and so on.

I don't think some people on this thread realise how entrenched benefit culture is. There are many recipients who view benefits as 'their' money and believe they should have a freedom to spend it like any other earned income. They are entitled to it and they are furious if you suggest that they should be grateful to the tax payer for subsidising them. Alternatively they will suggest the higher tax payer is privileged to earn enough to pay their taxes to fund their benefits. You literally couldn't make it up!

You misunderstand. Link pensions to inflation, yes not wage rises. The rise in incomes and the rise in prices (inflation) are not the same thing

Or they are literally self-sufficient and they don’t need to spend money with you I have no idea what this means? Why will they be spending money with me? Or not? Do they grow their own veggies? Do they knit own their clothes out of their pound bills?

Also, different demographics spending in different ways? Family, two children. One is on UC, the other one slightly above the threshold, they will be spending on exactly the same things.

Or maybe the not spending you mentioned is a factor that leads to them not receiving UC, if they have savings above 16 grand. Should they be punished for that by paying more for people who spend more?

In over thirty years working in general and disability benefits I never came across anyone who could afford all that just on benefits - do you have actual evidence or are you just repeating what online sheeple are saying ? You realise that not everyone who claims UC is unemployed. Why shouldn’t people who are claiming top ups for working have these things if they can afford to save for them. In fact I’ll go further. Anyone who genuinely can’t work through illness or disability should be able to save from their benefits for a few luxuries. We all pay in, in the hope that we never need to take out, but looking after the sick and otherwise vulnerable is the mark of decent society. Not much evidence of it on here if comments like this are anything to go by.

With the opening of the 30 hours and more it is those who are only eligible for the 15 hours for low incomes at two and three who are struggling to find a place. I know of this.

You're right!

Tell me how to get home tonight?

(Just raising you an even more unanswerable question).

They were saying today pay rises are now higher than inflation. With a job at least you can look around for a different better paid one or hope to progress in your career. On a pension you are stuck with what you've got unless the government increases them and most people currently on pensions also didn't have the option of huge private pensions like the current generation do.

Edit: The wealthy (or even comfortable) pensioner is a fairly rare thing in my experience.

Scrapping free prescriptions would actually increase costs to the NHS. Despite the view of some on Mumsnet, many older people are not wealthy (I know this firsthand as an HCP in elderly care). Those on limited income would pick and choose which of their prescribed medications to pick-up at the pharmacy and/or may reduce the frequency with which they took them in order to save money. Thus, controllable/preventable conditions would not be controlled/prevented and they would end up in hospital, using more NHS resources.

You think this has existed for long or that everyone gets these things?

The father, my husband, works, but he doesn’t earn enough to make up for the loss of the household’s second income. This is life: shit happens; people get ill; a two-income household is forced by circumstances to become a single-income household, or a no-income household. Most of us are just a few unfortunate events away from needing help, however careful and sensible we are. A compassionate, civilised society provides a safety net for that reason. Fancy answering y questions now. In my circumstances, how much benefits would you like to take away to prevent a rise in income tax (which my husband pays, which I will pay in future, even if it’s only on my private pension, to which I will have access courtesy of my years of work prior to this? What shouldn’t I be able to afford, given my enforced economic inactivity? Healthy food? A warm house?

I mean you could argue. Yes they should be punished for that because hoarding money does not allow others to accumulate the 16 grand that they accumulated in the first place unless it’s temporary.
But then it’s allowed To be hoarded temporarily.

And my goodness to people get the hump when they have to spend the 16 grand that they’ve accumulated on, you know supporting themselves.

Funny you mentioned do they knitted their own clothes? Do they farm their own foods, actually yes.
Or they don’t buy Disposable consumer goods in the first place.
Handed down solid furniture for example as opposed to needing to replace an MDF one from IKEA every three years because it’s fallen apart
It’s the old A poor Person’s cheap boots will need replacing more often than a rich ones despite the rich person spending more in the first place but less overall. I thought everybody knew that.

for some reason people don’t want to cut benefits but prefer to precipitate a debt crisis which will destroy the welfare state instead. Odd really, but here we are…

Eh?

That's the same as saying the company you work for can slash your wages and you should just deal with it.

You chose to work there.

That was me and my husband - though we had two wage packets and then 1.5 when we had children. But we didn't want any of it. We got Family Allowance which was a universal benefit at that time and that was it. But we never felt envious of people who relied on benefits. We were just glad that we didn't have to.

Also, you have a very divisive point of view.

It's not just "you" and "us". It's the economy as a whole. Will raising tax help to keep the benefit system short term? Yes. Is it worth is though, knowing it will damage it long term?

I agree with you and often post this as a warning to people who seem to make long term plans based on their benefit entitlement.
if this country goes bankrupt benefits will be one of the first things to be cut/ changed or to be scrapped completely.

Or pay more tax.

Base benefits level is a quarter of minimum wage. Noone is rolling in it.