to think that the Coalition goverment are using the excuse of the deficit to cut benefits and support for the poorest members of our society?

[Jazzicatz]

It just seems to me the Tory led Coalition Govt are doing what they always do but trying to hide behind the excuse of reducing the deficit. AIBU?

In a way I agree. Scroungers do need a good kick up the ass but I am on incapacity benefit for a long term illness which means I cannot work but I have to fight to prove that in a 20 minute assessment with a doctor that has never seen before and cannot grasp how much a stuggle life can be sometimes. Now I'm going to have to go through another assessment when it was only done last year.

There are so many other places they can make cuts but they don't. Benefits for people who don't even live in this country? No mention of cutting that. MPs expenses etc. When people come over here to work, they bring the whole family who have to use our resources and some of them don't work so get benefits too.

YANBU

jazzicatz- I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yanbu. Fuckers.

No not really, we are in a lot of debt and cant afford to borrow so something needs to be done. I totally understand that people who are genuinely not able to work as they are sick and disabled should be provided for by the state, and those who are on extremly low incomes should be supplemented with benefits to make sure that they are able to keep a roof over their heads, and food in their stomachs. I do agree that the whole benefits system needs an overhaul, its ludricous how people can be better off on benefits than working. And the workshy feckless are allowed to sponge off the state while others work without a care in the world.

Can you give a specific example of a benefit that has been cut and that that person was one of the poorest members of society (say compared to a richer person who has not had a benefit cut)?

Defective Potato, can you give an example of an immigrant who is able to come in with their family and claim a benefit that is not child benefit? And what this benefit is? I'm curious as the conditions usually state "no recourse to public funds" and they generally have to prove this with bank balances, etc.

YANBU.

Benefits for people living abroad need to go. NOW.

The amount that we pay in taxes is not enough, so we have to borrow where else is this extra money coming from. I think that people are totally out of touch on the financial state of the government and dont really understand, they seem to think that we have a bottomless pit of money that can pay everyone. No we have to borrow a hell of a lot of money, especially after how the last government left it, blame them not the colalition!

If the cash taken from the public purse by benefit fraud is a garden pond, the cash taken by large scale tax avoidance is Lake Windemere.

But it's far easier, cheaper (and more popular in The Daily Mail) to stop giving money to individuals than to try to close loopholes in the tax code used by FTSE 100 companies to avoid paying billions of tax.

Genuine claimants like Jazzicatz get caught up in the crackdown- again because it's cheaper to declare someone fit to work than to employ a surveillance team to prove someone is working cash in hand or living with someone who's earning whilst claiming.

I think that the social care system has deviated from the original idea that it was set up 60 years ago by Arun Bevan, which sought to help the poorest in society and I believe was based on absolute poverty not relative, which this benefit system seems to be. It allows the work shy (not genuine jobseekers) to sit on their bums all day watching Jeremy Vile on their flat screen TVs, that goes against the original principle of it tbh.

Defective Potato, I have to disagree with your statement. Everyone who is allowed into the country for work clearly has "No recourse to public benefits" stamped in their passport. The same applies to their family, whether they work, study, or stay at home. The only benefit they are eligible for is Child Benefit. Oh, and also statutory maternity pay, but I don't really class that as a benefit but as a right. But, they have to pay income tax and NI just as all the citizens (who ARE eligible for benefits) do. It's a system that's loaded against them, but it is fair for the country and they have to accept it or leave for pastures new iyswim. It always annoys me when people start bleating about immigrants living off benefits.....no, they don't, simply because they aren't allowed to.

Aneurin Bevan would probably not be too pissed off with the Health Service, although I bet he'd be angry about GPs still raking it in. He would be furious at the demonisation of the poor and sick and the racism.

We all know this was the Tory agenda and they have made choices that progress this rather than other choices which might protect the vulnerable.

'Everyone who is allowed into the country for work clearly has "No recourse to public benefits" stamped in their passport.'

No, they don't. EU/EAA nationals are allowed recourse to public funds, depending on which nation they are from, from the get go or after 12 months.

EU/EAA nationals can bring their entire family with them, if they are also EU/EAA nationals.

They can claim tax credits adn child benefit on children who do not live in this country.

The thing I am most annoyed by is the lack of regualtion applied to the banking and financial sector in light of the massive bale out they were given, which in part has led to the deficit being so huge. Those on benefits and low pay will be hardest hit as always. I also think the use of the word 'scroungers' and so forth is really unhelpful. The vast majority of people on benefit are not scroungers!

Interesting.
The coalition say of course that they have to do it, which imvho is right, they do have to cut.
Oneof the reasons why this time, for the evry first time, I didn't vote Labour, was GB's complete intransigence on this issue.

But idealogically would they cut anyway? I don't know. Cameron talks the talk about reducing the state but doesn't seem to put his weight behind it.

A problem in this country is that compared to places like Sweden, many people are deeply right wing. They don't want their money to be spent on other people. On another thread in AIBU about Jamie Oliver, a poster talks about the brilliant, healthy school meals available in Sweden, which are 100% paid for by the tax payer. In Scandinavia, the population is taxed far more than we in the UK are, and they have the sense to spend it on things which are seen to benefit society (such as healthy children), and which will have positive, knock on effects. The general level of wages is also much higher, so they can reap more in taxes. The phrase "you get what you pay for" springs to mind. On the other hand, their population is smaller than ours.

A major problem in this country is the fact that so many wages are so insultingly, pathetically low. Why on earth should there by the need for tax credits? The low esteem which some jobs are held, and by large sections of British society too, is quite disturbing. Also In the south west, where I live, they'll advertise responsible, well-qualified jobs, which need a degree in the paper, and the salary is £14-15,000. It's outrageous! And the average house price is over 11 times annual salary. The whole system is screwed and until there's a fundamental change in the way people and governments view the way we collect and spend our money it'll remain screwed.

expat I stand corrected. Apologies, I actually didn't think of EU nationals [dim emoticon]

"EU/EAA nationals are allowed recourse to public funds, depending on which nation they are from, from the get go or after 12 months.

EU/EAA nationals can bring their entire family with them, if they are also EU/EAA nationals.

They can claim tax credits adn child benefit on children who do not live in this country"

And that is the co-alition governments fault, because, why exactly?

Lutyens, also, non-EU/EEA immigration was capped quite severely by the government a couple of days ago, so there will likely be fewer of those and those that are allowed in will have skills that mean salaries that mean they wouldn't need benefits, anyhow, IYKWIM.

But yes, non-EU/EEA immigrants including students are not permitted recourse to public funds. Students here, though, are very lucky. In some countries, they are not allowed to bring their families with them AND they can all use the NHS here.

Well, Sloany, it's certainly within the government's power to stop people, EU or British, from claiming Child Benefit, tax credits, Winter Fuel Allowance, etc. on themselves or others who do not live in the UK.

The first part of that post was, well, a statement of fact. EU/EEA nationals can live in the UK and bring their families same as we can live in their countries.

So rather than it being the previous labour government's fault for implementing it in the first place, its actually the co-alition governments fault for not stopping it in the month and a bit they've been in power?

Now I've heard it all.

In short, YABU.

Well, um, yes, Sloany. They could easily have stopped it in teh first month, I mean,they raised VAT and put in other measures.

This would have been a relatively easy way to save money.

As for the past government, so? They're out now.

It's this one that is relevant at present.

EU/EAA national can only claim unemployment benefit for t3 months though when they first arrive. If they do not find a job in that time their benefit is withdrawn.

YABU - the need to reduce the deficit is not an excuse.

Yes, Ming. But they can, and do, claim CTC/WTC (based on having kids) and Child Benefit on kids who do not and never have lived in the UK.

Similarly, British nationals who do not live in the UK can claim public funds like Winter Fuel Allowance.

I reckon the government will look at this in the non-emergency budget, however.