Benefits v Defence Lord Robertson

[Wednesdayschild87]

Lord Robertson’s Speech… seriously does anyone care?? He’s laid out the fact that as a nation we can’t carry on like this… he said we can’t afford to keep throwing money at benefits whilst leaving our country defences I’m actually shocked no one has come out and spoken on this matter before. I’m incredulous.

They are part of the UK Welfare budget.

Or how about we create an environment where they can be trained in the skills the country needs, i.e. manual skills/trades, etc. How about we create an environment where they can see a future that's worth working for? How about we do something about the lack of jobs after all there are a million unemployed youngsters and barely any jobs for them to do (reversing the stupidly damaging changes made by Labour over the past couple of years would be a start, i.e. the NIC changes, employment rights changes, etc that have led to employers reducing their worker pool rather than taking on new staff).

State pensions are literally the largest component of the state benefit bill - 42% of the overall welfare budget.

In comparison, unemployment benefits are only 1%.

(Illustration from the OBR)

That could possibly increase unemployment amongst those disabled people who work. Around 16% to 18% of people on PIP work.

The rest probably would still qualify if means testing was introduced as many won't have a high income. Some might have savings, but those would soon be run down if PIP was removed, so they'd need to claim again.

If the means test was on household not personal income, then I suppose more would lose out. So the households of hardworking spouses/partners who also provide care would be penalised.

Added to that, many unpaid carers would lose the paltry amount of Carer's Allowance and have to stop providing care. Which would cost the state more.

Its that too many people are classed as "disabled" and are receiving benefits packages that allow them to not work at all for years on end (pip is technically an in work benefit but a vanishingly small % of pip recipients work).

Are people really this obtuse? The “vanishingly small” number is actually approaching 20%.

1/3 of people on PIP (approximately 1 million people), are categorised as having no work requirements. These are people who are physically or mentally incapable of working. The families who care for these people are having to give up jobs and are paid a pittance by the state. The increased costs of being disabled are not in any way covered by PIP.

The unemployment rate for disabled people (defined as people who want to work but can’t find work) is double that of non disabled people. A disabled person is far less likely to be successful in securing work, not because they are incapable but because they are deemed problematic to employers.

The days of swinging the lead on disability benefits are long gone. It is difficult to get. Every three years I have to fill out a massive form for my daughter, who’s lifelong disability doesn’t get any better, collecting information from doctors, consultants and therapists to confirm that no, she hasn’t magically healed and still can’t walk. Last time round we had to provide so much additional information, it was clear they were considering denying her any benefit. Anyone saying PIP is simple to get has never been through trying to claim it.

How about this - keep, or even cut, taxes so that everyone has a good quality of life. When you die, your estate goes to the treasury.
This would incentivise work, stop people relying on inheritances, stop the hording of generational wealth, level the playing field, and make an absolute ton of money for the country.

So Russia "accidentally " drags an anchor across the gas pipeline or power cables from Norway to UK? Do you use a nuke in retaliation?
Or if a major internet cable is in North Sea is "mysteriously " cut down you use a nuke?
Or if Iran funds terrorist attacks in the UK killing civilians?

I agree. I don't know the numbers but rich people can, and do, move away from the UK when the tax burden on them becomes too much. The bottom has dropped out of the market in high 'value' property here in London which means that rich people are not investing here as they used to do.
This has repercussions on the economy as they don't hire staff or spend money in shops, restaurants gyms etc. Private schools are closing daily (I know, plenty of mums netters don't believe in a two tier education system!) but the fact that this option is not longer viable to parents puts even more pressure on the over burdened state system.
The job market especially hospitality, is also in flux thanks to Rachel Reeves. This country is in an appalling mess. And yes, OP, the benefits bill IS far too high.

Or indeed if we are called upon to honour our article 5 obligations and assist another NATO state in the event they are attacked, as looks increasingly likely we may have to in the Baltics.

Why should my hard earned cash go to the treasury upon my death? I own a two bedroom flat that may have to be sold to pay for care in the future (I'm 78 next month). I would much rather my 40 something daughter, her partner and child had my money so that they could put it towards a home of their own instead of renting a house you can't swing the cat in.

Incidentally the treasury already gets a 'shed load of money' through IHT. But do by all means, be the first to leave all your money to the state. We would be most grateful!

George Robertson made the speech because he was hired by this Labour government to do the Strategic Defence Review which was completed the end of last year. He was asked to do it because he had been a Labour MP, Mi inter for Defence and Secretary General of NATO. He is to be taken seriously on defence matters. He made the speech as he’s frustrated the government isn’t doing anything with the review recommendations and I assume he used the comparison with benefits exactly because he knew it would grab the headlines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robertson,_Baron_Robertson_of_Port_Ellen

If they want to cut benefits then they need to sort the housing crisis, because working people living in private rented accommodation would be quite literally homeless without Universal Credit.

Just to add, at any second, minute, hour of any day you could be the one to suddenly lose at the lottery of life. That is the whole point of a safety net.

The number of Universal Credit claimants increased by 63,000 in a single month, according to new data from the Department for Work and Pensions

Welfare benefits are a joke and should be scrapped completely unless you have a valid disability which is not acne, anxiety, work shy…. It’s the new ‘bad back’ excuse. I feel sorry for genuine claimants.

military spending needs to increase.

Also look into generous public sector and civil service pensions. It would cause uproar but they no longer seem fair or affordable.

But are not a benefit! You are confusing paid in pensions with money handed out to 'help' people on low incomes that ARE a benefit. I agree that the future of state pension payments is becoming non viable as people live longer but to counteract that we need to pay in more tax while we are working. Most other countries do eg France where the pension payment is based your earnings and in the majority of cases is an amount that people can live on during their old age (and is also taxed).

Haven't read the full thread, sorry. And am absolutely no finance or economics genius. But, it seems like the minimum wage is not a livable wage. That economic growth is on the decline, and job losses are on the increase. And that employers, big and small, are screeching if the minimum wage goes up, threatening more job losses. Meaning that Governmental top ups are necessary for families and individuals to be able to function.

And people who do have jobs are constantly being squeezed for more - more hours, more duties, more responsibilities, for the same money, no matter whether the role is a junior or senior one - and of course with it being an employers' market, it's so much harder to walk.

Pensions are on the up - we have an ageing population. Those who are unable to work, due to physical or mental issues are on the up - it is increasingly difficult to get access to timely health care and intervention - not to mention environmental issues that contribute to poor health are also on the increase.

Immigrants are easy to blame for 'taking' jobs, but are they? They are often doing jobs that the country has difficulty filling at the wages being offered, or jobs that the country has difficult filling at the skills level required and the conditions being offered.

Dunno what the answer is. But I do think it's not an easy mess to untangle and address. And it's not the 'fault' of any one sector - not beneficiaries, not immigrants, not employers. . .

I think the generous ones have all been closed down. The only reason for anyone to work in the civil service these days is WLB and flexibility because it’s never been salary and it sure as hell isn’t pensions any more.

It is ludicrous that if you work full time on the minimum wage that you are entitled to and need to claim benefits.

How have we become county where the tax payer is subsidising the wages bill of businesses.

So some (not all) business pay their staff the minimum makes ££££ in profit and yet their staff need to be paid benefits.

It is totally and utterly screwed.

As for pension I'm 47 so would very much like there to be a state pension when I get there but surely this needs to be means tested in some way??

So many boomers, my parents including my parents own property worth millions but get a full state pension
Utter madness.

In England. Housing is devolved in Scotland and Wales, both have withdrawn RTB.

And on the need to increase defence spending, and limit some welfare spending, those were proposed by Liz Truss in her very short term in office. She had no backing, the establishment, the Treasury, the big guns in the Civil Service prefer more left leaning government.

George Islay MacNeill Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen(born 12 April 1946) is a British politician who served as the 10th Secretary General of NATO from 1999 to 2003. A member of the Labour Party, he previously served as Secretary of State for Defencefrom 1997 to 1999 and Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland from 1993 to 1997. He was Member of Parliament (MP) for Hamilton South(formerly Hamilton) from 1978 to 1999 and was appointed to the House of Lords as a life peer in 2000.

Pretty experienced politician I’d say? Whether you like him or not, some lesser qualified Labour politicians might do well to consider his thoughts?

The public sectors pension will resolve itself. Most have been moved to money purchase schemes rather than the final salary ones.

The final salary ones will literally die out

He is clearly highly valued and was asked to lead the defence review, that doesn't mean his comments on the welfare bill should be accepted on the back of it.

The triple lock needs to go, but no one is brave enough to do so.

Pensions are legally a benefit. The French have a different system where you don’t have an occupational pension but instead it’s merged with your state pension.

It shouldn’t be overlooked but allowing people to salary sacrifice into occupational pensions costs the state a lot of money and this cost is reflective of the level of earnings of the earner, and so the higher paid make higher savings towards their pension in this way.