AIBU to want spending cuts rather than more tax rises?

[PinkFruitbat]

The foundations are being laid for more tax rises in the October Budget.

https://www.ft.com/content/6d43b599-3d7c-471c-88c2-0f056475a840?syn-25a6b1a6=1

AIBU to ask for savings in spending to help balance the budget rather than more taxes.

With welfare spending at nearly £1bn each day, when is enough, enough?

So not a lack of money, but a lack of parenting? More money would not help those families.

What you're describing is child neglect, not child poverty.

Giving more money to neglectful parents doesn't reduce child neglect.

How is it not poverty if the parents are engaging with services and they simply just don’t have enough? The very definition of poverty is not having enough financial resources or materials to meet basic human needs.

I agree throwing money at it isn’t the solution and I don’t believe that poster said it was but it’s naive to believe that children aren’t living in poverty.

Are you a financial expert and economist OP? Assume not.

Because benefits in the UK are enough to meet basic human needs.

Tbf the idea that we need to cut and not spend / borrow more is being discussed by economists too.

They may not have a disposable income above 60% of the national median income.

But they absolutely have enough for basic human needs.

There is no absolute child poverty in the UK - only neglect.

@PinkFruitbat you haven't touched on our unlimited asylum seekers budget, or foreign prisoners. While there are jobs that different disabled people can do, employers don't want them.

There is such thing as in work poverty too.

You can’t think of any set of circumstances where a persons basic outgoings may suddenly be more than their incomings and they simply just don’t have enough money to pay their bills and for a food shop?

Agree with this. And as long as every attempt to change is met with cries of 'It will affect the children' or 'This will hit the poorest hardest' nothing will ever change.
Excuse after excuse and what ifs and yes buts are made all the time to excuse children going unfed and dirty and late into school. but the harsh fact is, there are no excuses. And money will not help.

My DD went to a large school and there were a large amount of children who were living in poverty or very close to it.
The school had a scheme where other parents could donate money or uniform for those children. The school had a washing machine/dryer and parents could pay for a years lunches for another pupil. I paid the school lunches of two pupils throughout DD school life.

DD knew a girl who participated in the scheme and the girl used to tell her that her parents got loads in benefits and had never worked and had no intention of either.
It wasn't so much a case of poverty in her household but more a case of the more they could get, the more they went for.

At what point do parents become responsible for their own children's lives?

I absolutely believe in looking after those in society that need it, the problem is there are a lot of piss-takers in society but on MN you're not allowed to say that because it's deemed benefit bashing. But the piss-takers are directly taking from the people that really need it.
Whenever there is talk of a benefits overhaul everyone loses their minds but we need one to make sure that the money is allocated to people who are genuinely in need of those benefits because there is a sector of society that knows how to play the system and they siphon it off.
There are also a lot of people who deserve the help and they aren't getting it.

Shutting off the conversation about the piss-takers is doing those who are in need a massive disservice.

Benefits are most definitely not enough @strawberrybubblegum

So pensioners are lazy work shy? Because you've really had a go at them haven't you?

The UK has a very supportive culture and if parents were able to work then their children shouldn't have to live in poverty. I believe that some parents have poor money management skills (as was my mum) but work is and always has been the route out of poverty.

I do think benefits need to be reviewed, should we really being paying PIP to people who live in £1m houses, earns 80k p.a and has a partner on a high income?

You may say it's rare but as PIP is not means tested it can be paid in any circumstances. I know a couple in this situation.

Also civil service, pensions do need to be tackled, remove the Final salary scheme. It may make the civil service less attractive but that's probably not a bad thing. It's become too large to be manageable and productivity is low.

You're right - there is another thread running currently where posters are up in righteous arms about trades doing work for cash to avoid (the customer) paying the VAT and how morally abhorrent that is but any suggestion of someone playing the benefits system and you're unanimously told to 'keep your beak out' and accused of benefit bashing

They might have made NI credits so they kinda deserve it. But people need to live off private savings in the future.

Oh pensioners, tradesmen and 'the rich' are all fair game on MN, but woe betide any suggestion that benefit claimants are anything other than virtuous victims.

This ‘what is poverty?’ debate is futile. Because addressing any definition of want will need ever more money that we don’t have.

We cannot tax our way out. We will kill the private sector and the tax base. And there are not a load of billionaires living in Bond villain lairs keeping warm by burning piles of £50 notes. The cries of ‘tax the rich’ are fantasy.

We have no option but to rebalance the books, promote growth and decrease borrowing.

How are they when LHA only covers 1.9% of eligible rents?

There are posters on MN who haven't worked in 20 years and love to make posts on how they and everyone else deserve their benefits

I agree with you, but getting votes for it decreases over time. Until the public realise they can’t just keep demanding more. It’s a hard sell.