If you're really fed up of all "your" money going to benefits ....

[Yesimmoaningaboutbenefits]

We really need to be campaigning for more council homes. One of the biggest payouts is housing benefit because of the extortionate private rent costs.

That single mum topping up with UC to bring her to over 100k? (supposedly) Wouldn't happen if her rent wasn't >£2000pcm for a 1 bed flat.

Build a 3 bed house for £300,000 (presumably less with large contracts). Charge £500 rent, they'd make the money back in 50 years even without increases. And houses last more than 50 years!

I know I've read several comments over the years from people saying this. RTB was the worst etc. So why hasn't it happened? Upfront cost. It would cost the government a hell of a lot upfront, despite the astronomical gain further down the line. But if they're not in power when the gains start to show, they get none of the glory. And that's what it boils down to. Elected governments only want something they can boast about within their term. Who cares if it benefits the country in the long run? If it doesn't benefit them short term, it doesn't matter.

Same with education. Better funding will result in more people in work, out of poverty and out of crime in 20 years time. It's the best use of money possible! But no.

SEN funding. Early intervention can prevent children getting to crisis point and keep the gap from widening so they have a chance of staying in school, getting qualifications and contributing to society in the future. Not funding SEN effectively is pretty much cutting off a section of society and forcing them to spend their lives on benefits. Funding could give them a chance. But no.

How many health conditions could be improved by early treatment so people don't end up out of work and incapacitated on benefits?

You've got to spend money to make money...

I would prefer the state to run an awful lot less. It is not an effective way of delivering opportunities. Can't disagree with any of your points in terms of how important these things are, but imagine if the state delivered education, security, criminal justice, defence and basic emergency healthcare, with time limited welfare payments? And enabled private businesses to do everything else. Scrap planning. Build houses.

its Surely an incentive now to have more children.

If like the state to run a lot more! Trains and post mainly.
Contracting out ends up with us paying more.

Ok, so I have it. A salary of £35k today will increase year on year, in response to inflation of (say) 3.2%, to probs about 42k by 2031

The tax free threshold usually increases with inflation and means you pay less tax on those salary increases. If the tax threshold is frozen then you pay more tax.

The cost of this means that year on year you could be paying £200+ more in tax per year than you would have if there was no freeze, so approx 1000-1400 over 5 years per average worker. So you won’t feel as rich on those pay rises as you could have before yesterday’s budget because your tax free buffer is getting smaller.

Finally got it…

The £1,000 seems very precise without the PP giving precise interest rates and timeframes, but I think they mean what I wrote - that what is worth £35K today could hit the 40% tax bracket. My view is that tax thresholds should rise with inflation automatically. The 40% would hit at about £80K a year if governments had done this. This means families in that earning bracket having up to £6K more disposable income a year, which would flow through the economy, creating job opportunities and more tax revenue.

Before WW1 a huge amount of what the state now provides was provided by charities, cooperative and friendly societies. There was a huge culture of giving. A lot of it was linked directly to the Church, so it may not be replicable now, but I agree that state run institutions are extremely inefficient. One of the things I’ve noticed in recent years is the number of people who get paid vast sums for what I’ve would have been charitable jobs. My father was a trustee of various charities, including a private school. He gave his time and his legal advice freely without charging. By contrast, Multi Academy Trusts now have numerous people on six figure salaries who rarely step foot in a classroom, never mind a school. This siphons money away from the children, where it is needed.

If you have five children instead of two you'll get an extra fifty quid a week.

You're not going to be making a profit are you?

No one objects to spending tax money on those who genuinely need help. But they do resent their hard-earned money being given to ignorant, uncivilised, foul-mannered people who exploit the benefit system. Such people know that the more kids they have the more benefits they will receive. And don’t tell me they’re a tiny minority. Everyone on this forum can think of examples. To make it worse, they generally raise those kids to be just as ignorant, uncivilised and foul-mannered as them.

Well you know what to do then, live a life on benefits, go rake it in.

I think it’s more rage that people who work have to think about things that this budget stops unemployed people from having to think about.

I’ve got friends who are teachers, doctors, solicitors, engineers, accountants, retail managers, etc, who can’t afford more than one or two children. They have to plan their family around their financial constraints. So to see the 2 child cap lifted feels a bit like “what’s the point?” for many people.

Why bother having a good career and being a high rate tax payer, only to ultimately bring home maybe £200-300 more a month than someone with 4 kids who is claiming UC now will be?

Where is the “reward,” as such, for working hard? You get to have less children than you’d like because you can’t afford it, while some people who have never worked a day in their life can have 4?

And they would have had more children if it weren't for the cap introduced in 2017?

That's certainly not true for health services. The NHS ranks first for administrative efficiency among comparable countries. It ranks slightly lower for overall performance, but then it also ranks among the lowest for funding. (The poorest performing country overall is, surprise surprise, the US).

The claim that the private sector is superior, and specifically that it's more efficient, just isn't backed by the evidence. If we want decent services we don't need to privatise them - look at what happened with the water companies for goodness' sake - we just need to fund them properly.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

So who would do the minimum wage but essential jobs in those cities?

I didn't really consider it till it was pointed out. Still, I've travelled long distances for lower- skilled work

I’d say that’s besides the point. Reliance on the welfare state shouldn’t afford more opportunity and disposable income than a full time job. That’s why people get angry. Removal of the cap helps to allow people with no intention of working to procreate at will without a thought and the state picks up the tab. That’s a luxury working people paying mortgages and childcare bills don’t have.

Well the idiot Tories initiated the selling off of much of the housing stock, so here we are. That said, the population has grown.

Many people on benefits work a full time job.

Do you honestly believe people are now going to have big families and live on benefits?

The removal of the cap helps children who are already here.

And plenty don’t. Something which removing the cap makes easier, as claimants are not expected to undertake work or work related activity until their youngest child is three. Ultimately, we have made it easier to continue to have children on repeat and not work. I work in an area where we have many families who simply keep having children with no jobs in sight and this decision
will only make it worse.

I voted Labour as I thought for many years that they were more for the ordinary working person than the Tories and other parties, but I won’t be voting for them again after this budget. Sadly, I don’t know who else to vote for - they all seem equally awful these days. Work hard for no reward may as well be the motto of 21st century Britain 🤷🏻‍♀️.

So keep children in poverty then?

70% of the additional spending from removing the two-child limit will go to families who are in work. This is targeting support for low-income working households who are being priced out of a decent standard of living despite doing everything asked of them.

https://www.ippr.org/media-office/budget-for-benefit-street-claim-refuted-by-numbers-reveals-ippr

Holy hyperbolic response. I didn’t say nor did I even come close to what you are implying. Your overreaction was unnecessary.

My post was nothing to do with children but that the system is rotten.

Thanks for that.

I get what you mean, but from 35k the next tax bracket is at 50k, and that's 40%. And it's only salary above 50k that is taxed at 40%.

It's a very tenuous criticism of the budget, and where the 1k comes from, no idea.

I can see why it's called a stealth tax. To the individual, it will have a very small incremental effect, and only when the payer jumps to the next tax band. But Government makes quite a few bob from it.

There is overtime I suppose. Sometimes a 35k wage will be pushed into the 40% bracket some months with a lot of overtime.

I tried chewing on DDs old crayons.

No joy, I did not turn into an enraged reformer.

But I did find myself humming " Rule Britannia"

:-)

I'm not totally fed up of money helping the less fortunate however I do agree we need more council houses. I think it's a disgrace that we have so few and are allowing people to sit on benefits in ridiculously over priced accommodation, worrying about the rent going up and up and up.

People can't stay on benefits and not work unless they are ill in some way. Their benefit would be sanctioned. I think DWP require single parents to work when DC are age 2 or 3