Labour increase benefits bill. AIBU To think what’s the point in working?

[topicalaffair]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15520831/Labours-push-lift-two-child-benefits-cap-hand-25-000-windfalls-thousands-Britains-biggest-jobless-families.html#

‘Official estimates suggest the cost of scrapping the cap will total £13.6 billion over the next five years.

The Tories said families currently affected by the cap are in line to receive windfalls worth an average £25,000 each over that period.

But the biggest families will gain far more. Thousands of families with five children will receive around £10,900 a year while those with six children will get an extra £16,600 a year.
Almost half of the families involved have no one in work.‘

What we need is economic growth, which Labour seems incapable of delivering.

What other 'benefits'? Any examples?

As for social housing, can you back up that claim?

Precisely.

Been there, find that, got the t-shirt - can confirm its shit and that was before UC came along.

Are you the same person with two usernames. Same angry style of posting.

Ok, a disabled family member made it to the UK and claimed asylum. After a month they got a place in a £1000 a week care home - all meals and bills paid for.

They went to the top of the waiting list and had an operation which they'd waiting years to get in their own country. They received the drugs they needed having only been able to get a poor substitute in their own country.

They were given a free bus pass, hospital treatment, etc. Plus a little amount of benefits every week.

If you are talking specifically about how much benefit they got in their account, then it wasn't that much in the beginning. But, a £50,000 a year room in a care home isn't bad is it?

They've been here four years and never worked (and perhaps, never will if their health condition stays the same).

I make it that about 6 people's taxes go towards allowing this one person to stay here every year.

There are thousands more disabled asylum seekers in the UK that are probably receiving the same.

I don't blame them. If a person can get a better life and they're struggling in their own country, then go for it. I blame the UK government.

By the way, the individual in question were helped to get a council flat. They moved in last year. They have a free carer, full PIP and cheap rent, etc.

The Conservatives were suppose to reduce the benefits bill, but they increased it with Universal Credit, and they cut services elsewhere which means people are more reliant on benefits. We came into 2024 with a huge deficit and national debt. The current government are trying to sort all this out. It's difficult and expensive. If you cut benefits and public services people just end up ill and on the street, then the NHS, homeless charities and police keep picking up the bill instead. As they have been doing increasingly in the last ten years or more.

And thats why its assessed on need not diagnosis.

Makes no difference to some on Mumsnet. According to them I am a scrounger and only vote Labour in order to hang on to my benefits.

They’re not ‘sorting out’ increasing benefits by removing the cap. It’s going up due to Labour.

And child poverty will be going down, meaning we'll be spending less money picking up the pieces in school, police and NHS.

What do suggest instead 🤔

What are you blaming the government for?

For providing your family member safety and care instead of sending them back?

I assume asylum was granted?

Which country did they come from and what were the grounds for claiming asylum? Did they come here by small boat or some other way?

I think if I was a middle earner I’d wonder aswell . I’d have to remind myself that I’d still have my self respect and esteem to be able to look after myself .

You would be able to transfer new entrants into a DC scheme but the previous cohorts would have to be grandfathered in. You would still be contributing and paying for their DB pensions for decades.

Regarding means-testing PIP (sorry, struggled to reply and quote for some reason):

Firstly, I suspect the cohort of disabled people on high salaries is going to be fairly small, though disabilities do of course vary in kind and severity. Having long-term conditions and disabilities is exhausting amd time-consuming! So I doubt there are large numbers of people on PIP who can absorb their costs without a second thought.

I could maybe get behind means-testing PIP if, and only if, it is done on the basis of the individual's income and assets etc., and not on a household basis. Otherwise the P and I become pretty meaningless.

This will bells on.

People that support excessive welfare benefits have things backwards.

In order to sustainably increase benefits (redistribution) you need economic growth driven by productivity increases.

And in order to boost productivity, you need to invest in the productive capital infrastructure.

If you do not do this, you create a situation were excessive spending on benefits crowds out spending on public investment, leading to poor economic growth and inflation.

And at that point, you have stagflation (where the UK economy is at this point in time).

This is true.

My husband and I have a business and the number of people who have applied for roles and ask to be paid in cash so that it doesn’t affect their benefits is staggering.

All of our employees are salaried well above minimum wage.

Britain is about to enjoy an economic boom, according to the Telegraph.

@DeftGoldHedgehogI don’t believe that the money will mean schools, police etc will have less to pick up, besides there is no way to prove this. A better way in my view would be to spend the money on things that are measurable and make people accountable eg extra money for specific services in schools.

Just giving people money doesn’t work imo, no way of controlling how it’s used, if it’s improving outcomes etc.

We (Economists) had a good laugh over that article.

Lower amounts of private debt don't fix a failing infrastructure.

The problem in the UK has always been too much consumption, and very little productive investment.

The Telegraph does write a lot of dubious shite these days, doesn't it?

The Tories did a great job on growth….

Do you have a subscription, @PandoraSocks?

Its lost all sense of reality vs 5 years ago.

DT was always a centre-right newspaper, but now its trying to copy Fox news in the US which makes it publish some truly bizarre pieces. I mostly just visit the travel section as their writers are actually decent (and I like their hotel scoring database).

NHS care. Including free prescriptions, free dental care, free eye tests and some funding towards glasses.

Education. All DC of asylum seekers are expected to be in education from 5-17, funded by the taxpayer. This also applies to visa overstayers who subsequently claim asylum. This usually includes access to free school meals.

Adult education - an asylum seeker can go to University in the UK so long as their claim does not have a no study condition or it's been over 6 months since they submitted their asylum claim and have had no response.

Though they are expected to pay, there are numerous organisations that can be applied to for funding.

If a disabled asylum seeker has care and support needs arising from a physical disability, they can access social housing under the care act 2014.

If an asylum seeker has been sectioned under certain sections of the mental health act, under sec 117 provision, the local authority has to provide aftercare services including supported/social housing because these aftercare services are not classed as public funds.

Again, this applies to anyone with a claim for asylum, including visa-overstayers.

You can Google all of this and find i'm correct.

It's really not as simple as 'no recourse to public funds'

And is a rebuttal to all the 'why would anyone risk a boat crossing for the destitute asylum payment of £50 a week' claims.