All-round Budget thread

[longfingernails]

.

I heart happiestblonde.

I wonder why so many people think we should just pat those on benefits in the head, trap them into relying on handouts and disempower them by making damn sure they can't leave and get a job without being worse off. Oh, and not reintroduce them to work by giving them routine, self respect and a sense of usefulness within the community by doing work.
Another brilliant Labour legacy.

This budget really was a case of trying to look as if you were doing something, whilst doing nothing.

Tax threshold rise - this will be of some benefit this year, but as the thresholds change is now linked to CPI not RPI, everyone will be stung for MORE tax over the parliament, and that will then continue to sting for every following year.

Petrol duty cut - the duty will still be going up in the summer, and there is nothing to stop the oil companies loading the cost of the extra tax they will be charged onto the pump price, so that the consumer gets no benefit.

Pension age - anyone aged under 40 (or even in their 40s) could find themselves working till they're 80. Whilst life expectancy may increase, I suspect a massive number of people would spend the last few years before retirement signed off on incapacity benefit, as many 60-80 year olds are not fit enough to work.

I was disappointed he didn't rescind the child benefit cut - it is a bad bad policy that was not thought through. Any policy that creates horrendous anomalies like that one does needs a re-think.

I won't fuck off actually secondcoming. Your faux concern and patronising lovely, lovely poor people shit makes me sick.

'community service' for unemployed? but the unemployed are not breaking any law by being unable to find work.

So if benefit claimants had to do someone's gardening, pushing the current gardener on the dole too, should they still be given vouchers or would they be allowed to buy the occasional pint? FFS

Going back to when I last posted on this thread. Xenia there is money to keep lower income 16 yr olds in education, they are choosing not to, a big difference. Isn't it about time people realised this? Bit sick of this 'poor kids should strive to get an education attitude', it's taking away opportunities and as well you know it.

I would happily pay a good private health insurance if the NHS went, based on a european model, just give me some of the 1/3rd of my earnings they take off me at source so I can choose who provides my health care. Would like these for profit companies to have to provide care for charity though!

For a very long time sixthformers were not paid to go to school so I've never really seens why they need that money today. It hasn't been in force that long anyway. I think a lot of them would be better off getting used to real work (as indeed plenty do of course).

As for workfare there's not much point in writing about it because no party is committed to it and Ian Duncan S' plans to make work pay etc and pathetic suggestions you have to attend more interviews or whatever are never going to effect much change. However plenty of people would be in favour of work for benefits.

They haven't a clue what they are doing, either that or I am missing the plot entirely and they are actually very clever.

Xenia, I repeat, I received help in the way of bus fares and meals, it was always there, then EMA came in and now it's gone!!!!

I think there is a problem with welfare dependency and long term unemployment and we do need to address it. However I think just taking harsh actions such as food vouchers isn't the way to solve the problem. Many people who have been unemployed for a prolonged period of time have become totally disenfranchised with most of the rest of society and taking strong sanctions against them won't help.
I think far more resources need to be put into helping people get back to work, having people turn up to the jobcentre every 2 weeks for a couple of minutes is a complete waste of time for all parties. We need people to look through their CVs and genuinely help people look for work. I think this is particulary important when it comes to young people, someone who is 18-19 yo will probably be looking for their first job and so aren't going to be aware of everything they need to do. Having go to the jobcentre every 2 weeks isn't helpful and arguably detrimental as it will sap any confidence they have. We have an enormous youth unemployment rate and I think this is one of the biggest reasons.
I do think there is a place for some voluntary work for those who have no experience or have been out of work for a prolonged period of time, although it shouldn't be the same sort of work that someone who has been sentenced to community service does for obvious reasons.
Of course there should be sanctions for those who refuse to cooperate but I don't think people who say all the government needs to do is to become more punitive and the problem will be solved are in the right ball park.

Why should JSA or any other claimants do any work for their benefits, pay them to do the "jobs" and pay at least the minimum wage then fair enough but not as dirt cheap labour that's just exploitation.

Just part of the Tory mantra, "get off benefits and back to work" oops the Tories screwed up the job market and we have rising unemployment.

As for the budget, mainly neutral but I am so pleased it will cost me 28p less to fill up.

Nigella

It is obvious that you're not listening to anything that's being said and that you have a massive chip on your shoulder.

First of all, where is your evidence that even a significant proportion of people on welfare are so called 'lifestyle claimants'? Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever, or is it just a feeling you have from reading the Daily Mail? Because the govt. itself said that just 1% of welfare costs is due to benefit fraud - i.e. people claiming unlawfully.

Yes, I think that 99% - or very close to that amount - of people on welfare are looking for work. You haven't provided any evidence to show that it is otherwise.

Even if, hypothetically, 10% of claimants were capable of work but not working, that would still amount to around £10 Billion pounds. That's still far less than it lost on either tax evasion or tax avoidance annually, and a fraction of both taken together. That would still be 10/700th, 1/70th, or 1.4% of the annual budget. This is not 'unsustainable' catastrophy waiting to happen which you hysterically hypothesise.

Your plan for putting welfare recipients to work is not only nasty, but counterproductive, as it will cause more people to be out of work for a longer time period. Looking for a job is a full time job.

Finally, if you were really so concerned about your tax money and the state of the budget, you would be - should be - at least as hysterical to the bank bailouts, which cost this country £1 Trillion pounds, that's 1,000 years of benefit fraud all rolled in to one.

Somehow I don't see that happening, because it strikes me that you're not really concerned about the budget, except insofar as you can use it as an excuse to spit your venom at the poorest and most vulnerable.

^I wonder why so many people think we should just pat those on benefits in the head, trap them into relying on handouts and disempower them by making damn sure they can't leave and get a job without being worse off. Oh, and not reintroduce them to work by giving them routine, self respect and a sense of usefulness within the community by doing work.
Another brilliant Labour legacy.^

No, this is the legacy of Capitalism. The poorest pay the largest portion of their income compared with the rich. Wages have stagnated since the 1980s in real terms. Perhaps we should enact a 'living wage', so that anybody who works for a living can be guaranteed to earn enough money to pay for their rent, clothes, bills, and food and support their family. They wouldn't need any help from the state if that were the case.

Such a difference between left and right on this thread, it's amazing.

However whateve rour different views the coffers are bare. Someone mentioned getting people particularly the young into first jobs. The budget did have measures for new apprenticeships. I think the idea is employers pay £2.50 an hour and the state makes up some of the balance - I didn't read it in detail.

Thankfully the left is not in power now and won't be in until at the very earliest when this 5 year Parliament is up. Whichever party were in power all had planned stringent cuts - even labour 20% cuts because there was no other way to proceed so it's a bit much for the left to complain about cuts which Labour would have made anyway.

Capitalism has worked very very well and people do a lot better in capitalist societies than countries without it. It's the only working model that has really ever worked on this planet.

The problem is Ttosca that everyone has a differing definition of who should be entitled to benefits.

I bet you if you interviewed 100 people who are in DLA, you'd get 100 people who would swear on their mother's grave that their condition is such that they are entitled to it.

But I know someone who used to get DLA for having OCD. Someone who was in a car crash which left him so "disabled" he couldn't work because he couldn't walk.....but could for some strange reason, walk to the pub, sit in his garden and fly to Ibiza on his holidays. As a taxpayer, I also resent paying for alcoholics & fat people to get DLA. Yet I bet each of those people would think it's fair.

Since you ask Nigella where her evidence is, where is yours for your £1 trillion pounds on banks? I suspect you are counting up potential liabilities rather than actual cash spent.

Living wage? How would that work then? How do you guarantee that?

And lastly capitalism isn't perfect. Far from it. But it's a damn site better than any other alternative. Practically every country who has tried another system is moving or has moved to capitalism. Even Cuba is now toying with the free market. Unless of course you want to point to North Korea as a shining beacon of hope?

As for the budget, not sure what people expected. We've a huge deficit which must be paid. Personally I think we've got off quite lightly.

Xenia, why should the state (taxpayers) subsidise employers paying poverty wages.

All that will happen is that they will keep those people on for the period they can exploit them then get rid and get some new taxpayer subsidised cheap labour.

Why is it wrong to ask benefit claimants to work for the money doing any form of community service that isn't currently being done? Whether it be gardening or litter picking, who cares, it will contribute.

I bloody love Gideon, Cameron's a bit wet but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Might change my name to RightisRight

On a totally different note... I'd abolish national minimum wage. Let the market fight out the true value of labour.

Had a few drinks? You're usually far more convincing.