To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

I've always argued that the best way to reduce the cost of disability benefits would be to substantially increase other benefits; people are being made ill through the hard grind of poverty. But it seems we live in a stick rather than a carrot era.

This simply isn't true. I am surprised that other posters have agreed with such a factually inaccurate post.

Firstly, you seem to reference a single, universal definition of poverty that simply doesn't exist. If we use the government's own threshold regarding benefits then it is a statement of fact that many people that rely on benefits are living quite significantly above the official UK poverty threshold which is living in a household with an income below 60% of the median average. Income equivalisation is factored in for number of children but not for disability as each disability has a unique cost profile. Factually the family I know with lots of children has an income way above the poverty threshold for a family their size. They certainly won't be alone.

Secondly, you ignore the fact that the definition of benefits is so wide that it includes lots of non means tested benefits like PIP and the State Pension. Obviously noone is sat there working out what level of benefits we need to live just above the poverty line and deducting those we don't need. Over 200,000 households with an income over £100k receive PIP. Not everyone that is disabled is on the brink of poverty like you suggest.

Just wanted to bring some actual facts on to this thread as it's become dominated by left wing propaganda.

How do you believe benefit rates are calculated then?

I’d say some of them are well below the poverty line - a single person of working age gets less than £100 a week.

What are you even asking? How do I think what benefit is calculated? Benefits are super complex and households can be eligible for a whole range of benefits or none at all. Pretending that someone is sat with a calculator trying to keep people above the poverty threshold is clearly nonsense.

Yes, this is true too. Some people are living below the poverty line despite claiming benefits. There is a wide range of scenarios going on depending on what benefits you are eligible for, what costs you have and the circumstances of other people within your household. The idea that benefits are somehow calculated to keep people just above the poverty line is nonsense and would be impossible to achieve.

So you're not sure. That's fine, nobody can know everything.

Actually I said to meet essential needs.

It appears I know a lot more than you. You have spent your time on this thread making grand, sweeping statements focused on ideology with very little substance to backup your assertions. There are rarely any facts or detail. I have called you out on one such post and your response says it all.

Were you seriously expecting me to detail how the level of each benefit is set? The fact that some aren't means tested proves in itself that benefits aren't always designed to simply meet essential need.

Generally the level of benefits reflects political decision making as opposed to genuine need. Look at the two child cap, the needs of large families didn't change when it was imposed or when it was removed again. It was political will that brought about the change.

There are good reasons for some benefits being means tested and others not. They make sense. Many people in households with a decent income don't actually have access to their fair share of the money and may find themselves with no personal income or having to beg or negotiate for money to meet their disability costs. PIP etc are designed to help these people and it's not unfair. And also level the playing field so that people with severe disabilities do not end up pursuing high earning careers because they'd lose more than they'd gain. It encourages disabled people to achieve their full potential and that's positive for all of society. But most benefits are means tested. If you have a high household income you qualify for very little compared to people who do not. They get substantially more.

Ultimately it's all political decision making. Why is PIP not means tested but Child Benefit is? Why is the State Pension not means tested but Universal Credit is? There are many more examples I can use.

I don't want to get into whether PIP or the State Pension should be means tested. That's for another thread. The idea though that @ClarkeandNewman was trying to float that benefits were precisely calculated to meet essential need is obviously wrong though and that's why means testing was referenced.

A middle class disabled people is still disabled and faces extra costs due to their disability

A middle class parent is still a parent and faces extra costs due to having a child. A disabled person can have extra costs and not being eligible for pip. It's a completely political decision to make CB means tested and PIP not. The threshold for PIP is arbitrary and politically informed.

Of course you can always make arguments about disability being different to having children, pensions being different to UC or there being a need for some kind of PIP threshold but ultimately it's all subjective and a political decision. Hence why different parties have different policies around all of this.

What you said was:

Benefits are carefully worked out to ensure a basic standard of living, no more

I’m another one who doesn’t think this is how benefits are set, but as you say, we can’t know everything.

Can you explain to me how this careful working out happens?

I’m finding it genuinely staggering that you keep saying “what about x, y, z? .. but I don’t want to talk about that.”

If you don’t want to talk about whether benefits should all be means tested, what’s the point in making reference to all benefits being means tested.

It’s like you’re dipping your toe in sharing some wild controversial opinion, and then backing off; because somehow it’s not relevant to discuss your views on benefits in a thread you started about benefits.

Having children is a choice, disability isn’t. It’s quite incredible that needs to be pointed out.

Yes, PIP could be the only benefit a disabled person is eligible for in a household where there is a high-earnimg partner/assets. Which is why I would only be in favour of means-testing it if it's done on the individual's income/assets, so that their earning power (usually reduced, significantly so in some cases) is reflected, not the household income. Otherwise you are locking them out of yet more help.

Yep...

I can't ever blame a disabled person for being disabled.

You'll forgive me but there's no evidence on this thread that you know very much at all. You're unable to answer a very simple question via a vis the basis on which benefit levels are set, and you seem to be working yourself up into a fury about it. I suggest that you stop taking this thread quite so seriously. In the scheme of things it really is quite unimportant.

Are you really asking me to explain why and how government departments set budgets?

I find it scary how many people have incredibly strong opinions based on very little, mostly being served videos to reinforce a prejudice that they already have.

Are too many people reliant on benefits? I think we can confidently answer that in the affirmative.

But how different are we from our neighbours here? How many could easily find jobs? And what is the actual cost?

And I do think we need to consider how much wealth has effectively left the government to high paid people (especially in finance). I keep going on about it as no one wants to seem to consider it (probably the demographic here!).

The bank bailout, the COVID bailout, QE and sub inflation interest rates have shifted wealth both from government (through actual payments) and the asset poor (salaries decreasing in real terms, rentals increasing way above inflation due to property prices etc) to the wealthy and asset rich.

Sharon from Walthamstow who is living on benefits seems roundly condemned, but Toby from Chelsea, who was running a credit swap book in 2008, got bailed out, and is now running a hedge fund, which again nearly went under in Covid, but thanks to Covid subsidies and QE, has now doubled in value, seems to escape scrutiny.

I wonder why. I think there are a number of internalised biases being reinforced on this thread.

Yes. You made a quite specific claim about how benefits are set. I doubted it.

I’m asking you to explain your claim.

Not every firm was bailed out.
Lloyds fully repaid. RBS didn't fully repay and northern rock was nationalised. And people who worked for other institutions?

I'd rather work in finance than be on benefits