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.

So when I was on wtc that was fine but when it all got moved over to uc its no longer fine

Not sure what you mean. WTC were a benefit as is UC. The term tax credits just made people think they were more acceptable to claim by dressing it up as something else.

I am not talking specifically about epilepsy but many people with health conditions don't delare it at job interview to avoid discrimination. It doesn't mean there is no discrimination and it is not always possible to not declare it. There is nothing really to stop employers from sacking people once they find out either.

I am on benefits, and I do not see it as a handout considering the hoops I had to jump through to get it.
Calling it a handout makes it sounds like someone comes up and offers it to you like a flyer.

Is it hoops or just showing you meet the criteria? People who work have to evidence they work to claim their wages? Should we just be able to say to employers “well am on payroll just give me the money “?

People can and do get turned down for benefits.
I just think using language such as 'handouts' and often seen on here 'free money' is a way to make people feel ashamed for money they are legitimately claiming.
There is no need for it.

Yep.

I refuse to be ashamed to be on benefits and some people who use that kind of language always seem to be almost furious that I'm not ashamed.

Or we could do both.

So judgmental and sanctimonious

i didn’t make the figure up:

save the children state that 31% of children in this country live in poverty.

”Poverty is defined as the lack of money and resources to fulfil basic needs. In the UK, child poverty is defined as living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK median, after housing costs are taken into account. This is known as relative poverty. Put more simply, child poverty in the UK means a child growing up in a household without enough money to meet their basic needs.”

i don’t think we need to race to the bottom
and compare our children to those in sudan.

i’m glad that these figure seem
absurd to you, that they are in line with your experience in your community, but living in east london shows that very wealthy are living right beside those who are at the other end of the spectrum.

when the teachers do home visits for kids coming into reception the have to check that kids have beds. have furntiure.
half live in £1.5m houses and half live in over crowded social housing, temporary housing or rentals that aren’t secure enough.

they couldn’t put classes on line during covid because so few kids had access to laptops/tablets.

www.savethechildren.org.uk/what-we-do/child-poverty/uk-child-poverty

The 31% refers to "relative poverty" which is very different to "absolute poverty" in under-developed countries which is what most people think of when the term poverty is used. The type of $2 a day breadline poverty.
I think that's what the PP was referring to.
We don't have entire families living on rubbish dumps, scratching out the barest of existences for example.

Thanks for replying. Firstly, I do think it's a highly politicised and artificially created definition of poverty developed in a way that is statistically very dubious. Households with children are always going to be poorer than those without.

BUT, and it's a big but, I do not disagree with you or disbelieve you for a second about your own experiences nor the individual cases of deprivation you come across. It is scandalous.

While I don't find the sweeping use of dodgy stats very persuasive and I dislike the insistence of some that vast tides of other people's money are the only answer. I don't doubt the problem.

However as you know there are parents out there with equal (lack of) resources in the same streets and the same schools. Some bring up their children decently and successfully. Some not so much.

Money is part of the issue but parenting is a bigger one. It is not fashionable to call out bad parental decision making (absentee fathers, no child support, money spent on the wrong things) but, if you are honest, such things underpin a very large number of the homes you talk about.

People don't have the moral courage to call these things out enough. I want to launch a moral crusade for to the benefit of children against bad parents. Will you join me?

well that’s something to aim for: no kids in the uk live on our municipal waste sites. no kids are scampering over piles of rotting garbage looking for things to sell or eat.

that’s ok then.

@XenoBitch I have to jump through hoops daily at work & it’s exhausting to be continually scrutinised. At least you only have to do a meeting occasionally 🤷🏻‍♀️

Why are you pitching benefit claimants against people who work? Many actually overlap.

Holding MoD to account for their poor spending decisions is necessary. Their ability to squander money is amazing. It's nothing new.

But it is far easier to punch down and blame people on benefits it seems.

I propose transparency in looking at the spending around the Royal Family. We are not allowed to know how much it costs to provide security for them. We do know it cost £22 million for the taxpayer for the security for the Coronation.

When the Queen died, Charles did not have to pay any inheritance tax at all.

Before anyone mentions tourism - the Royal households are not very popular on the list of tourist attractions in this country but cost a lot for staffing and upkeep.

According to figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and the royal household’s own figures for their residences, Buckingham Palace is at best the 69th most popular attraction in the UK.

Windsor Castle does better but is still only at number 18, behind Chester Zoo, Somerset House, Edinburgh Castle and the Botanic Gardens in Kew.

@XenoBitch well I am just wondering how intense the meetings are & how often someone would need to have them. I would happily do a quarterly bit of paperwork for a regular chunk of money. At the end of the day you only have yourself to worry about. I don’t particularly want to go on benefits (before anyone comes up with that as a suggestion). I think anyone who is able bodied should be working.

I don't any because of the group I am in. But to be awarded the amount I am took lots of hoops and intrusive meetings. Again, why are you trying to compare? What is the point?

According to gov stats only 30% of benefits recipients are in any form of employment. Any form includes even a few hours/week

How would you do that?

Same old shit, bad faith everywhere.

I think we could kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Why dont we just fire benefit claimants out of cannons straight at Russia?

People on LCWRA barely get re-assessed for years anyway. They are so far behind with doing re-assessments. Literally years behind. That's why they are now talking about getting the backlog down but in the meantime have just been prioritizing new claims.