Does anyone elsee agree with the benefit cuts?

[mrsruffallo]

Because I do. They make sense to me. Reward the workers, esp. those in low paid employment, and make it harder to be better off unemployed than working. If ConDem also taxed the rich in an appropriate mnner, I would be very happy.

Yes
I think anything which works effectively towards creating and maintaining an underclass is a good idea. Then, no matter what goes wrong in trade/housing/the NHS/general health/literacy etc there will be a solid group of people to blame.

I've often thought that the barrier to economic development, as shown in the US up until recently, was that we don't have a huge group of desperate people to exploit, as they did with Mexicans amongst others. Well, we soon will have. I think the Tories have shown massively big balls in sorting it so quickly and really with minimum backlash.

Eyja the benefits systems perpetuates the idea of an underclass. Social mobility is about people being helped by the state to become self-sufficient citizens and using benefits when necessary as a temporary measure, not a lifestyle.

Agreeing with benefits cuts doesn't equate to having no social conscience.

Gosh, sorry for spelling mistakes, speed typing!

The underclass already exists under the present benefit system. The benefits are being capped to a figure that most working people can survive on. They are holiday going to be desperate.
There is no comparison to Mexicans border leaping for unofficial jobs in US. and it is quitye insulting to even grasp at one.

"a hell of a lot of money is wasted, taxes are being evaded and bankers who brought the country close to collapse are now enjoying massive bonus's"

I agree with most of this. There is lots of wastage. Tax evasion is already illegal (whereas avoidance is perfecty legal). I agree with trying to clamp down on tax avoidance but it isn't quite as simple as many people seem to imagine - taxation in the UK is particularly comlicated and it isn't simply a matter of some administator crossing out loopholes with a stroke of his pen....

As for bankers... I understand your sentiments entirely, but, again, it's a complicated issue. The new RBS boss may be getting what seems to us an obscenely large bonus - but he could also potentially save the country billions of pounds, if he manages to turn RBS around. And if you have to pay someone a few million to gain a few billion, it doesn't seem so bad in that context. And financial services contribute 12% of the total tax take in the UK - £63 billion last year, part of which is made up of the 50% tax on bankers bonuses. Basically, we need the banking industry to pay our bills although I would be the first to admit that we need to rebalance the economy so that we are not so highly reliant on one sector.

Agree MrsRufallo. My cousin get's £700 per month DLA and ESA for depression (as well as HB, CTB etc). He is single, 27 and was actually much happier when he had his job. He quit the job because he was better off on benefits and was paying 'too much tax', not because it was affecting his mental health.

I work p/t 3 days a week and also make £700 per month after £100 is taken in tax. Out of this I pay £400 rent and have £300 left over for bills etc. It's enough to make me depressed! Isn't this the grinding poverty benefits supporters are up in arms about?

Cousin is off to LA next month for a week! High times for some.

Up the income tax threshold to £10k, cap benefits at £26k and stop wasting money on high speed rail links that nobody wants.

Yes the benefits system was not perfect.
I wholeheartedly disagree that having a benefits system perpetuates the notion of an underclass, even as it was. An underclass is a group of people who are vilified for extended and intractable poverty and prevented from getting out of it by being unable to access things which those of other means take for granted. I think we are a few steps closer to enlarging and solidifying that group, which has been limited so far to a tiny, tiny proportion of the population (yes it is) and the odd made up tabloid article.

I think cuts are inevitable whether you agree with them or not, year on year the NHS costs us more, mass unemployment especially in the 16-24 catergory, an increasingly ageing population to find pensions for , obviously money is going to have to be trimmed from somewhere to keep the majority of our basic services going and increasing taxes is never a popular option.

I'm no evil Tory but we do have to consider whether the country can sustain the benefits system in it's present guise, capping certain benefits is a step in the right direction. Why is it that benefit cuts equate to almost instant poverty, when you take into consideration HB, council tax exemption, and all the other top up benefits for certain claimants it is more beneficial not to work, i'm not saying all claimants are milking the system but to suggest there is no abuse of the system is also wrong

Indeed baking that was my point. It's there as a safety net but is abused. This is not benefit bashing. It just is abused. That needs to be made harder.
The days when someone stays on benefits for years on end need to stop. If you don't think this happens you didn't grow up on the estate I did.

If people are vilified for being poor Eyja then that would include workers and those on benefits alike. That's why the cap was proposed, some people on benefits are earning more than workers. If you mean the underclass consisting of people who swear at their kids, have 'f**k off' tattooed on their knuckles and own pitbulls, yep, they exist and I personally vilify them. Sorry, but active citizenship is about having rights and responsibilities to your fellow citizens and doing the best for your families. Being anti-social and getting paid for the privilege is just out of order.

Working, even on a part time basis, would help a lot of those on the DLA but the benefits they receive cannot be matched by a low wage.

If you are in the "underclass" and are at the benefits cap threshold (£26k)... how are you ever going to get away from that? You would need a £35k salary just to break even and so it would be a perfectly rational decision not to work. How many people in the "underclass" are in positions to gain the type of jobs that pay in excess of £35k? Few, if any, I would imagine.

you can work while on DLA

thought i'd take a turn at saying that for a change

mrs ruffallo you wrote 'Working, even on a part time basis, would help a lot of those on the DLA but the benefits they receive cannot be matched by a low wage'. I'm sure you don't mean to make me bang my head against the wall, but have you not read ANYWHERE in the last week that DLA is NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT? It's been written about a hundred times here and there. DLA in fact helps many people TO work.

Screams. Self-combusts.

op so you want people like my severely disabled dd to end up in povety.
cheersfor that

As for the DLA I think that refoems are needed. There are certain long term disabilities that need long term financial support, but there are so many claiming this because they were pushed onto it instead of uincome support to mka ethe unemployment fugures look better and are still on it for minor ailments I am also not sure if people with mentaal health issues need the amount of money paid out to them by the DLA

Note to mrsruffalo

If you're going to start a thread about something please ensure you know what the fuck you are talking about-as you clearly dont.

Im tired of explaining it to idiots, so please go off and google exactly what DLA is and who is entitled to claim it.

I pushed dd onto dla. in her wheelchair,
omg the ignorance shown by the op on this thread is mind blowing

op please have a look at this thread

Here we go again.

Firstly, Brad, I didnt say anything about a magic money tree, read the posts properly and quote accordingly.

As for everyone else, Why does every single benefit thread turn into one that bashes the DLA? Why not long term JSA - where these claims are most likely to be the ones that are being falsly claimed and taken advantage of?

Op I take it you're a health professional given your ability to differentiate between mental health and other health problems? Do you have a list of mental health conditions that wouldn't qualify, or would it be all of them? And what about the learning disabled, where would they fit in?
Hope you never lose your job

molepom imo it is because picking on people who quite often don't have a voice, is the easy .

Hang on.
I can't c+p but have I got this right?

1. people get DLA for minor ailments? (no they don't)
2. people with Mental Health problems shouldn't receive DLA? (whoa there )
3. the breed of dog you own is indicative of being a member of the "underclass"?

Gosh.

enlightening.

mrsruffalo

DLA is not an out of work benefit.

I get it and I work full time and pay substantial amounts of tax each month.

I get it to cover all of the additional expenses I have with a child with special needs.

You can't "go onto DLA" as its easier. To get DLA you need to complete a 40 page form and send in reams of evidence including reports by medial specialists and a whole range of other information about your disability, your treatment and how it impacts your life.

Just to repeat DLA is NOT an out of work benefit

Ithankyou.

I know its been said before, but has anyone pointed out that DLA is not an out of work benefit and that its only paid to people who have a disbility and are able to evidence that disability in a detailed way

No?

Oh well let me try that one again. Ahem DLA is not an out of work benefit.