£12 billion saving on welfare?

[user1471453601]

What do you think that actually means? Does it mean even fewer civil servants ( which translates to longer waiting to get a benefit you are entitled to?) Or a reduction of payments to those worse off who need to receive, and in some cases, are entitled to those benefits?

Sunak doesn't say. What do you say?

Not really as simple as that though is it. For a start increasing wages hugely, which they would have to be, would result in increased prices of that service so negating a higher income. Everything would just keep going up.
We're at the point when people on 30/40k need top up benefits to pay their rent, professionals. Top ups are no longer just needed by those in unskilled jobs.

Well if you started to shave the wages off the top of the business

Take 5 million from the boss and add 5k a year to 1000 members of staff would be a start

But if a business can't run without government handouts for its staff it's a failed business

Apparently this is quite impossible, because then one wouldn't have the "talented" people running businesses. The Prime Minister is a good example of how talented these people are, as is Paula Vennells....

Exactly!

Fantasy economics, really. HOW will the savings be made? No answer.

They do have a talent for showing unfathomable levels of greed and not caring about others.

What would the many Victorian Quaker businessmen make of them?
Where are the modern day Cadburys, Salts and so on?

PIP is an in work benefit. I hope to god they don’t get rid of it. That would render me, and hundreds of thousands more disabled people, completely housebound. It would mean that a lot would starve and freeze and some would die.

I appreciate this is a really tricky subject because I hope we all agree that every person should have the ability to have housing, utilities and food - a minimum standard of living.

But, for those disagreeing with in work benefits and blaming employers...
Under the labour government I was a single Mum, working full time. I had 2 children in nursery. When I was homeless and newly single I went to Citizens Advice who told me there was no point in me working, until I earned at least £21k I'd be better off on benefits. At the time I earned £16k.
I continued to work, I got working and child tax credits and I was financially worse off than many around me who were not working, I often didn't eat.
It took a few years but my wages slowly increased and hitting the 'magical' £21k I thought to myself I've now worked unbelievably hard for 4 years, been worse off and now I'm in the same position financially as someone who does not work....that was tough, it's paid off for me as I've been fortunate and able to keep raising my salary but that is not a situation that should be allowed to happen, we really do need to reward and support those who are able to work.

If that means some in work benefits to help bridge the gap as people start in their career or for those who will remain in unskilled work so there is an incentive we should absolutely do this and not penalise people disproportionately as their wages increase.

We need a much better and more caring approach for those who are unable to work
And a way to help people out of the trap of being able to work but not working

@Andthatwasthatshesaid

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GovernmentspendinggintheeUnited_Kingdom

ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/components-uk-government-spending-2022-23

I actually think you're being disingenuous but this was announced before the election was called. And whilst I usually avoid people who ask for "evidence" to support a comment made on the internet, the evidence you desperately seek is everywhere.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/19/sunak-disability-benefit-curbs-sicknote-culture-pip

Capping private rents so less £££ goes straight from the DWP to private landlords? ...lol, only joking! Probably just never increasing benefits in line with inflation be showing the 'saving' over 5 years?

Vast amounts of the benefits bill is the result of a growing proportion of people on very low incomes living in private sector rentals.

The majority of poor people used to live in council housing where very low rents meant fewer barriers to work, and rent payments going back to the council.

Now many of them are living in properties for which they pay market rents.

The housing allowance bill is now 24 billion a year.

"We need a much better and more caring approach for those who are unable to work
And a way to help people out of the trap of being able to work but not working"

Affordable housing & public transport is the key.

The only reason work doesn't pay for many people is because housing (and travel) costs are so disproportionately high in the UK.

All there, throughout the last 14 years.

Perhaps they're going to improve access to medical treatment so that the many people who are unable to work whilst waiting for appointments can have their operations/treatment and get back to work.

This is why the Conservatives want to trash the NHS.

Because they know that austerity cuts to welfare result in worsening public health, and increasing costs for the NHS.

If they can sever that relationship by hampering people's access to socialised healthcare they can save money on public spending in order to hand it back to middle class workers (who are increasingly able to access private health cover through work) in the form of tax cuts. And poor people die earlier, which saves money on the state pension bill.

We're already seeing a fall in life expectancy in the poorest communities in the UK, so it's working as expected, particularly among the poorest women who are seeing the most significant fall in life expectancy.

www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england#:~:text=Between%202011%E2%80%9313%20and%202020,the%20larger%20pre%2Dpandemic%20gains

And luckily, many 'feminists' are too busy fighting the culture wars around gender to take any notice of non-fringe issues, like women dying earlier.

Funny how close what @izimbra says is to ReformUK's Ian Gribbin's comment that women are "the sponging gender".

He said "Men pay 80% of tax. Women take out 80% of expenditures. Square that inequality first by depriving women of healthcare until their life expectancies are the same as men, Fair’s fair."

This.

Also contrary to popular belief most people claiming work and people can work full time and claim PIP! They get assistance with transport costs- there is really good support out there.

Some people don’t claim benefits for whatever reason.

Punishing the vulnerable? I very much doubt it.

Punishing the vulnerable? I very much doubt it.

Just the current process seems like punishing the vulnerable so your post was hard to read for me @RickyGervaislovesdogs

My brother gets PIP.

He is very vulnerable with multiple complex physical and mental needs. He is housebound, has limited sight and mobility and is in constant pain.

He cannot work and will never be able to work.

He has to apply for PIP regularly. It's a long drawn out process that almost breaks him and me. The worry, waiting, the almost certain fail at the first hurdle (on some kind of 'technicality' - a different 'technicality' every time so we can never get better at following their complex process) then three months wait for the appeal that reinstates his PIP.

"They get assistance with transport costs- there is really good support out there.

Some people don’t claim benefits for whatever reason.

Punishing the vulnerable? I very much doubt it"

As the parent of a 20 year old who claims PIP and is on UC I disagree.

And many healthcare and social services professionals agree with me.

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/mortality-rates-among-men-and-women-impact-of-austerity/

"The paper cites several previous studies in support of these arguments, including a literature review published by the European Journal of Public Health, entitled ‘Austerity and health: the impact in the UK and Europee_’ (October 2017). This study argued that austerity negatively impacted health by causing increased unemployment, poverty and homelessness. It also argued that austerity policies had a negative impact on healthcare services as a result of reduced funding. It concluded that the impact of these policies was greatest on people who were already vulnerable, such as those with precarious employment or housing or with existing health problems. It also said austerity was associated with worsening mental health, resulting in an increased risk of suicide."

‘22.7 billion unclaimed benefits last year. They don't need to do anything to reduce the benefits bill. People not claiming what they're entitled to do it for them.’

Links? What do you mean? Is this people who do not use state schools or NHS?

"Funny how close what @izimbra says is to ReformUK's Ian Gribbin's comment that women are "the sponging gender".

He said "Men pay 80% of tax. Women take out 80% of expenditures. Square that inequality first by depriving women of healthcare until their life expectancies are the same as men, Fair’s fair."

It's not close at all.

Unless you want to infer my comments pointing out that women experience poverty at a higher rate than men as meaning that women are free loaders, rather than acknowledging that women's paid and unpaid labour is under valued by society.

Having completed the PIP consultation because my son, who works, gets it, I can confidently say that anyone expecting savings there is going to be disappointed. What you'll get is hugely expensive voucher schemes, which will no doubt generate fat profits for some corporate Tory donor, and lots of nonexistent therapy appointments delivered no doubt by cheapo staff with very little training.

There will be no effort to make work pay or make housing affordable. The Tories aren't about supporting poor people. Not even the ones who work.

They want to pay it in vouchers and therapy and do away with cash.