benefit change could breach law

[borderslass]

here

greencaterpillar sorry don't get your post, what is a D child?

I know there's a very serious deficit problem that urgently needs addressing but taking money away from the disabled really doesn't sit comfortably.

Taxing the rich is preferable to penalising the disabled IMHO.

Deficit reduction involves both tax rises and spending cuts. To be honest I don't know enough about either the current system or the new proposed system to know which one is better.

Exactly huddspur. Taxes must go up, and spending must come down. So cuts must be made and every cut made, someone is affected. Be that the civil servant who is made redundant, the free laptops which are no longer available through to the poor & needy who have their benefit cut.

Do I like it? No, not one bit. Is it necessary? Yes, absobloodylutely.

We cannot continue to just spend spend spend then demanding the mythical "rich" to pay. Whatever happened to living within our means?

All the govt have done so far is publish a consultation paper. The proposal is to replace DLA with Personal Independance Payment (PIP) Nothing is set in stone but yes, one of the aims is to save money. The idea (or spin depending on your political beliefs) is to only give PIP to the long term sick and they will need to requalify much like the changes to ESA. Basically no endless pot of money and only if you are deemed "serious".

Of course what is serious to you may be different to me. The key question is where the line gets drawn.

Already the special interest groups are up in arms and the press are printing heartwrenching stories. It will easily be another disaster in the making for the coalition.

"Already the special interest groups are up in arms and the press are printing heartwrenching stories. It will easily be another disaster in the making for the coalition."

heartwrenching is a good choice of word.
it is heartwrenching to know your child is going to loose the only independence they have.
they can't protest cos they have no voice(which imo is why they are a soft target)

next time you jump into your car or on the bus, remember this isn't an option for a severely disabled person.
an don't get sucked into the shite spin the lovely government give you, these cuts will not be fair.
they are not designed to be fair as they are taking a life line from people who can not fight back.
it is easy to sit back and say "cuts have to be made" but surely to god they should not be
forced upon people who have so little already.

Please spare us the simplistic analogies with household budgeting, Niceguy. I don't think anyone on here needs basic maths lessons.
The finances of the UK are not explained by it either. The whole situation is so complex - do any of us really know what the answer is? The Irish government - whose economics were lauded by G. Osbourne - brought in draconian cuts but it didn't save them, (though of course we are not Ireland). The Government would have to be able to predict the future to get it completely right.

I suspect that if you were disabled or caring for a very disabled loved-one, you may have a different perspective on rushing through radical changes - such as planning withdrawal of the mobility component of DLA to those in residential care. It is very frightening if you are dependent on benefits because you can't get work.

2shoes and donkeyderby are right. Niceguy, I see your point but please have a think about what else could be cut before attacking the most vulnerable.

Niceguy2-are you actually Gideon? You have a missed vocation as a Tory speech writer.

Has anyone watched " common people" on you tube- David Cameron singing Pulp pre- election ..... sorry haven't worked out how to do links!

Glad there are people working on potential legal challenges. This government have already come unstuck in several areas because they are far too hasty and don't think things through - this is just the latest example of back of an envelope policies that don't actually work in practice.

(For instance, they'd had to drop the claims that cutting quangos will save money - it'll actually cost millions. Which they must have known in the first place. Unless they are even bigger dunderheads than they appear.)

Taxes must rise, and they have. Cuts must be made. However, the tax rises and cuts have hit the vulnerable (children, poor, disabled) hardest.

So while I agree with you Niceguy, I think that the rises and cuts should be better targetted. Of course no one likes it, but surely it is better to hit those who can afford to take a hit than those who can't.

I don't understand you when you say that the the Banking Crisis has nothing to do with the deficit. Can you explain that please?

please don't make this all about one poster and their poster it just becomes like the days of daft.
there will always be people happy to see disbled people take the brunt, because it won't affect them,
but all of us could become disabled at any time.

I think he/she means that none of the money spent recapitalising the banks isn't counted in the structural deficit. Which is true

I get that, but surely the interest/repayments on the loans taken out to recapitalise the banks is part of the deficit. No?

No none of the money spent recapitalising the banks is counted in the structural budget deficit. Take Northern Rock for example, the Government pumped large amounts of money into it it also took shares. Due to its much publicised problems its shares were virtually worthless, the Government has recapitalised it and is working towards making it a viable bank again by repairing its balancesheet by taking care of its toxic debts. This should mean its share price will be higher than when it was on the brink so the Government should recoup the money back and a bit more hopefully so it doesn't count towards the structural deficit that we currently have.

So the cost of servicing the debts (the govt. had to borrow to shore up the banks) is not part of the outgoings that make up the deficit? (Sorry if I'm sounding a bit thick here)

No none of the costs of borrowing to recapitalise the banks are part of the national debt not the structural budget deficit.

If the borrowing to re-finance the banks is not part of the National Debt, what is it then?

Excellent posts, 2shoes - I'm afraid my response to that particular comment 'Niceguy' made would not have been so measured but since you have put it all so well it's probably best I don't post anything in response.

The Tories pretend those less fortunate don't actually exist - which is evident on this thread. Let them eat cake, eh?

'all of us could become disabled at any time.'

Thanks 2shoes. And so could our children. A timely reminder.

It is part of the national debt but not part of the structural budget deficit.

So the Structural Budget Deficit is what happens when government expenditure exceeds tax revenue. Right? Are the costs of servicing the national debt not included in government expenditure?

Thanks for your patience Hudd, I know I'm probably sounding dim.

The costs of servicing the national debt do count in Government spending yes.
Its not a problem it is extremely complicated and I'm no economist either

So, servicing the national debt contributes to expenditure. We are in deficit because expenditure exceeds tax revenue. Part of the national debt is borrowing to bail out banks. Therefore, bailing out the banks is part of the structural deficit because of the costs of servicing the additional debt taken out to help the banks. No?

If not, then what is this cost called and where does it appear?