To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

First post nails it. And subsequent posts. Redistribute the flow of wealth that currently favours the rich getting richer, the state staying depleted and the poor getting poorer. Better wages, more robust corporation taxes, higher personal tax for billionaires etc. Although we have so little to offer as a country now I guess being able to tax Dodge and rip off the people is one of the few incentives there are to operate business here. But there is no cost of living crisis for the rich, statistically the rich are getting richer while the general standard of living in this country absolutely plummets. So what will we do you suggest OP?? Hit the poorest and most marginalised in the country with benefit cuts and start playing the ridiculous game of arms investing and just flow that cash again right back to the rich and powerful, here amerricca take our money please, you keep the rights, any Intel gathered and you control who actually can win wars but we'll give you billions for arms. Sounds excellent

Lots of people on benefits work full time.

Lots don’t work at all

No, the pp is articulate enough to argue with me, they're also able to type and communicate across the internet. Yes these are skills. I was making the point that some disabled people don't have any transferable skills at all, as there are people who truly cannot work at all through their disability and these people should be supported. Pp did give a list of their disabilities too.

DP was made redundant last September and has been looking for work ever since with no luck. It seems nobody want to employ a 55 year old epileptic. Luckily my salary can cover our bills (for now), but under your time limit proposal if he had been claiming UC that help should be taken away from him through no fault of his own? He can't just take any job as by law there are some jobs he's not allowed to do.

Well yes if she's disabled then thats completely different

But its not as simple as being able to do a job you also need to be able to be hired for a job and to be able to keep that job. Employers don't tend to like unreliable workers who are off sick half the time

There are many reasons that employers don't want to hire certain people, women of child bearing age or with a small child for example. The state cannot support every person and people do need to take some responsibility for their own lives and own circumstances.

I would not and have not suggested that those with severe disabilities have their pip/ dla removed. I have continually said that those with severe disabilities sgould always be supported. I also recognise that if lower rates were removed the people who currently get those benefits would not be happy about it. If there is reform of welfare, disability benefits should be included in that. You couldn't look at pensions, uc etc and not look at disability too. As a country we just can't afford to keep welfare as high as it is. I (personally, my opinion) would rather those who get the lower rates and need less help or support bear the brunt alongside reform and cuts to other benefits/ welfare.

You aren't seriously comparing the challenges of getting a job for a disabled person to a woman getting a job are you, you really have no idea do you

Please try and understand that it's not as simple as that. I've been disabled all my life and worked full time before my stroke, from home. Working from home is an advantage and disadvantage. I am in control of what hours I work and what work I take on, the flip side is obviously that the risk and responsibility is all mine. I can now no longer drive, and I have frequent trips to the GP and hospitals. I can't handle the volumes in the short times I used to, which impacts my capacity in an industry where fast turnaround times are often required by the end client so this affects what I can take on and probably now what I'm offered.

You have no idea of what i'm aware of and what i'm not as I haven't stated my personal circs.

People struggle in different ways in regards to getting work. Employers can bias for a multitude of reasons. Hence the equality act.

Dla/pip shouldn't be held as a benefit which shouldn't be looked at, at all if reforms take place. That's my view which I'm entitled to have.

Which is a really difficult situation and I'm not without empathy. My suggestion that I'm arguing with the other poster about is that the lower rates of dla/pip are removed with only those who get the higher rates left to continue their claim, among other suggestions.

The country cannot continue to pay out as much as it is doing in welfare and it's very likely that changes will be made (see the article I linked earlier) I don't think disability should be sheltered from those changes if other areas of welfare are looked at and I'd rather those who qualify for the higher rates keep them and are continued to be supported.

I'm allowed to hold this opinion.

The equality act that reform are getting rid of.

That's already been spent. On existing pensioners and the NHS. It's impossible to "get it back".

When i've said reform, i've used it as in the definition of the word not the political party.

Of course, but I and others are trying to explain that it could backfire and end up costing more by excluding people who are enabled to work with disability benefits from those benefits. Disability benefits really aren't handed out lightly or for no good reason in the large majority of cases.

Fruit picking, moving to cheaper area, whatever.
There are some jobs which a person with epilepsy can't do, but there are many which they can. And employers can't discriminate. I don't even think he's obliged to disclose it at hiring stage, assuming it's not the job he's not allowed to do.
It's ridiculous that people sincerely believe that state should support out of work adults ad infinitum.

ETA: so your DP is 55, after a year or two out of work he will become unemployable. Seriously, should taxpayer fund him for another 13 years?

I think Labour have taken it a step too far. For me it’s the FSM for any child whose parents are in receipt of UC. That was the sticking point for me where I thought fuck this, how is that even fair. Some people literally get £5 a week in UC and now their kids will also get FSM. It’s fucking ridiculous when you work your arses off and subsequently have to pay a shed load in taxes. Makes me bitter.

I don't need that explaining, I fully understand that. I don't believe that everyone who claims low rate (and in some cases high rate) spends that money on enabling work, for some it just goes in their pot of spending that they have.

I think with any cuts to any benefit there will be people who lose out, genuine people who need the money to spend on what it is intended but we can't as a country continue to have such a high welfare bill abd cuts need to be made.

absolutely. It's such an obvious solution, I can't understand why no party has guts to do this.

You are clueless. I have been a woman of childbearing age and a woman with a small child and getting a job was nowhere near as difficult as it is if you are in late 50s, disabled and with a serious health condition.

Yes, I'm in my early 50s and age is another factor.

Absolute nonsense.

Did you miss the part where I said I work? We live in a small SH bungalow, our rent is £550 a month, not sure we'll get any where cheaper within a 50 mile radius, so we move beyond that and what happens to my job? Oh I'll have to give it up and being 60 with a heart condition my chances of getting another is what?
Employers do discriminate....if DP is up against a younger person with no health issues, then who is more likely to be the one that gets the job?
As for your last comment well there are no words. Still with a bit of luck his next seizure might result in SUDEP therefore saving the taxpayer the cost of him not working so a win for you right?

The top one percent of earners in the UK pay almost 30% of the total income tax revenue.