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.

Richard Murphy is hardly an impartial source, given that he is partly funded by the TUC and Rowntree foundation.

HMRC estimate the taxation gap at £14 billion per year. Closing loopholes and ensuring wealthy people pay the full top rate of tax could generate an estimated £7bn a year by 2015. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11359306. Personally, I think I tend to believe the HMRC more than Richard Murphy.

Budget deficit this year forecast to be £163 billion. www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/the-public-finances/the-economic-recovery-and-the-deficit/ Even if all the missing tax revenue was somehow clawed back, that would still leave a shortfall of £142 billion per year.

When you talk about tax relief on savings for the rich, I assume your are talking about ISAs etc. Does it not cross your mind that we actually need savers, given our fractional reserve banking system? And with the current low interset rates and realtively high inflation, most savers are actually losing money by letting it stay in a bank account.

cuts to DLA is just wrong and including PIP incorparated at later date is jut wrong

Ironic thing is when that happens or as good chance i will lose PIP it will cost more as there going to need to put social care package into place and then im going to need hospitall transport for mine or ds 3 appoinments around £50-60 a pop so do that 4 or 5 times a month .

Add in will need help for personal care and house stuff average 2 hrs a day £12 a hour and then well social care be more a week than i get a month

Valar, where do you get the £70 billion from? Last time I looked at the HMRC report, it estimated the £25 billion figure was both tax avoidance (legal but grey) and evasion.

Often there's dispute between the person/company and HMRC over how much it should pay. Just because HMRC have decreed doesn't make them right.

Also, if you look at the £25 billion in the context of what they DO collect, it's VERY good and no large organisation will ever get 100% of revenues collected. Even the likes of Tesco's will have suppliers going bankrupt, people stealing etc.

So realistically tightening tax laws wont make a big enough difference at all. In fact all it would probably do is make more loopholes for people to jump through.

BarfandHeave why are you so scathing, OK just because your not making dubious claims doesn't mean that other people have your moral fortitude. I've been very honest saying I have family members playing the system, not outright false claims but certainly embellishing of existing complaints in order to get this extra money or are you so naive that you cannot accept that abuses of the system do indeed occur.

Hey Apocalypse WELL DONE

could you just clarify though? This DLA - it's an unemployment benefit that you just get put on? Yeah?

We all accept that abuses of the system occur. We just get really, really hacked off when so many people trot out the same bloody stuff. Don't you see, you coming out with that Daily Mail type comment, affects those of us that are genuine, it tars everybody with the same brush.

As for this: I am also not sure if people with mentaal health issues need the amount of money paid out to them by the DLA.
Perhaps you'd like a tour of some of the mental health units in my area. I've been to a few as dh has had to go in from time to time. Please come and spend some time talking about his constant physical pain, the way the nhs messed up his treatment and gave him the wrong drugs, the ones that ensured that he can't walk and that gave him peripheral neuropathy.

SWC scarily ( ) your take is not dissimilar to mine; I've far less trouble with the concept of a cap (i;d like to see it before HB with the 30% HB rule coming in anyway the whole kensington house crappola thing will be gone).

ATM it will impact on people who have never claimed, people who work but claim, people who don't want to work equally: that is not a sensible policy IMO. (People who have enver claimed due to huge stretches on resources in cheaper areas if we target mass population influxes to them).

I have FAR greater problems with PIP tbh, that's what gives me sleepless nights but a non regional cap seems bizarre.

There is a rumour that DLA will be limited to one child per family; I have no evidence and pray it's a rumour, if it happened I would be forced to send ds1 to live with his Grandma as I could not give him the care he needs without DLA to pay for the therapies we need etc. In turn, Grandma would thebn become eligible for CA and she would not be caring for Grandad who (admittedly probably not alive then as 91 now) would need to go live with my Aunt whose DH is employed by Lodak (and her son).... so probably likely to end up on benefits themselves and she would get the exemption from cap then and.....

argh.

Becuase DLA is for the child, not the family. or the adult obviously until PIP. you can't split it between 2 disabled people, by yer acktewal law.

Let's pray that if it was happening then they'd have included in WRB.

hats right im going to be cured and get right out my wheelchair and be the same as everyone else

yes with a stroke of a pen .Someone is going to cure what even science can not cure , dam lazy drs why did they not think of thatwink

Under the propsed PIP rules wheelchair users will no longer be entitled to help as apparentley now we have a wheelchair, we no longer have any moblity problems

This is despite the fact the nhs wheelchairs are not up to the job
I was informed by WCS that there concern is not how you cna mange outdoors they only need to make sure you can wheel around indoors

To catch a train we have to give 24 hrs notice and we can only catch the train at the time we have booked it for ( erm freedom of choice not ) .
So if we miss the train for what ever reasson then we could be stuck as they do not have to put us on it
oh and no arriving last minute we are expected to be there 30 mins before hand
Trains often have 1 maybe 2 wheelchair spaces on them .so if another one is in there or bikes or luggage or a pram chances are your be dumped inbetween 2 carriages

And dont forget all trains stations are not accessibile .ANd we shall advoid mentioning London underground

?Buses

Well that all depends are they accessible everywhere answer is no
Do they have a ramp becuase low floor not always good no
if they have a ramp will it always work or will the driver be willing to get out the seat to lower it no spot the theame herewink
will we try to board the bus and find out can not becuase a buggy in there YES

Cars

Now when your legs dont work this tend to cause problems with driving ,( check next time what people do with those pesky leg thinsg in a car )

So often moblity side goes for an adapted car with hand controls so we can advoid the above issues

Oh and we all know that the world or even the uk is exactly flat and smooth footpaths and proper dropped Kerbs no

Answer is the only flat smooth surfaces is inside shopping centres but you got to ge there first see above .

home manvouers

Now you want to try omething sit on a computer chair ask someone to tie your legs together and without moving them at all or putting them down get onto your couch .oh and dont bum shuffle or wiggle as thats cheating I can see you wink

then try repeating it back from the couch , This is the time when you pray your neighbour can not peep through your window and think you got into bondagegrin If they blush next time you see them consider they ahve seen you

if you mastered that one , now on the chair again grab hoover with both hands and hoover , well the 1 m reach in front of you becuase it is kinda tricky to move when you need both hands to do that , but you cant becuase your holding the hoover ( throwing it does not count )

phew after that you need a coffee or something pick kettle up in hand uhoh only one hand to get around mange it fill water balance carefully back to tap

yay empty cup well thats easy , fill cup with boiling water argh one hand thing again , try moving carefully

spill hotwater downself argh great not only does your neighbour think your indulging in bondage in the afternoon .Now you going look like you wet yourself

Bugger it grab bottle of wine stay stilll open aid bottle and have a drink and be greatful that you do not need to do every day

Now thats light hearted look and not even covered what it is really like but still think the new proposall to PIP are fare the cuts to DLA

I agree with overall benefit cap (£26k) and the housing benefit caps but think they are too high. I don't agree with the changes to time limiting people with cancer on disability benefits or punishing children with disabilities who will never be able to work by limiting their benefits. Overall I agree that the welfare state needs to be overhauled as it is not fit for purpose.

The way I see it is that the benefit system needs to be reformed - there appear to be too many cases were work does not pay. People on here are stating that DLA does not work well and are scared PIP will be worse (although there is no information about how it will work, so this may be unjustified.
Please could be people who disagree with the govt suggest how they would reform the system or state it is perfect.
If your ideas would cost extra money, then please say so - it is easy to criticise, harder to do it yourself.

I don't think that the BENEFIT system needs reforming - I think rent controls for private landlords need to be put into place. Which would MASSIVELY cut the benefit bill. Because those people that don't earn enough to buy might be able to afford to rent a home from their NMW WAGES rather than relying on a top-up from housing benefit. Or having to claim MASSIVE amounts of Housing Benefit while they are out of work due to the extortionate cost of renting a HOME.

And, I'm sorry for those who see the word 'HOME' as too emotive for these discussions, but IMO it's not just a house, it is that tenant's HOME. Which they have a right to - the right to shelter, heat and food.

If rent was an amount that was affordable on a low income, then the benefits bill wouldn't be anywhere near as high as it is right now. Therefore, putting rent controls in place would be the best thing for everyone (except the BTL LL's).

Another problem is the cost of UK childcare. It NEEDS to be subsidised by the state, making the cost more affordable. In some areas, like mine, you can earn £45.60 a day (before tax) in a NMW job, yet have to pay £52.00 a day for childcare in a Nursery. Something isn't right with the maths there...I accept that this would COST money, but maybe diverting some money from, say, the HS2 rail link costs, or the money being spent on the Olympics, could cover this?

And, last but not least, Wages. Low wages. Such low wages that the Government is subsidising private businesses by topping up those low wages with Tax Credits. Because £11,856pa BEFORE TAX is NOT enough to live off. And the Government know this. Hence that wage being topped up by Tax Credits and Housing Benefit. If the Government set NMW at a level that WAS an amount that would cover ALL the ESSENTIAL outgoings - rent, council tax, utilities (gas, electric, water), clothing, childcare, and food, then paying benefits to those in full-time employment would be unnecessary. Which would cut the benefits bill massively. Tax Credits are a business subsidy that allows businesses to pay their employees LESS than a living wage.

Also, if there wasn't so much demand for private renting, then rental costs would come down. The reason there IS such a demand for private rented homes? Because there just ISN'T enough social housing for all those people in NEED. So a large portion of those that would previously have been housed in social housing (Council or Housing Association homes), can't get one, so HAVE to privately rent. If there was a massive building programme put into place, building more social housing, it would provide jobs AND homes.

But if a rent cap hurts the BTL LL's (Like DC...), then it won't happen. So instead we are being peddled a ton of propoganda telling the general public that everyone on benefits gets £26K+ in their pockets. Which is just untrue. If you bear in mind that 80% of benefits claimants are IN WORK, they are only claiming housing benefit and Tax Credits because 1) Their employers are paying them a wage that is LESS than they need to cover the BASICS in life - a home, gas, electric, water, council tax, travel to work, childcare to enable them to work, clothing and food. 2) Because the cost of childcare in the UK is incredibly high compared to average wages, unlike most other developed countries, and 3) Because rents are out of reach (without help from state top-ups of housing benefit and/or Tax Credits) to anyone on an income of below £30,000.

How to cut the benefits bill drastically?

1. Get employers to pay ALL their staff a LIVING WAGE. Therefore stopping the state business subsidy that is Tax Credits.

2. Create enough AFFORDABLE childcare places for everyone that needs one in order to work. By subsidising Childcare. (Again, this is part of the reason that Tax Credits are paid - in order to subsidise childcare. Surely doing it directly, rather than through Tax Credits would benefit EVERYONE, not just those that are low-paid?)

3. Place rent controls on ALL Landlords. Rent must NOT be above xx amount, that is AFFORDABLE on NMW. And set it at a realistic level that ensures that a single person with 1/2 dc can afford to rent a 2 bed flat or house within a certain distance of their place of employment on NMW. (Which would stop the state from needing to spend anywhere near as much money on Housing Benefit).

4. Build more social housing with affordable rents. This could be funded by a rise in taxes for those earning OVER £100K pa - but it would ensure that rental prices dropped due to less demand, AND that many more people had an affordable home. Which would mean a vast reduction on those people claiming Housing Benefit.

Four ways in which to dramatically lower the benefits bill. Which, if taken all together, would cut the expenditure on working-age benefits by well over half. Never going to happen though, because those at the top of the pile would lose out.

who said DLA doesn't work? the only ones I have seen are the people who post about fictional scroungers.
in rl DLA is hard to get, but once got works very well as it is.

Not being funny, the combined fraud AND DWP error rate for DLA is 0.5%. So MORE THAN 99.5% of claims are GENUINE claims - because that figure INCLUDES DWP error (turning people down for it who should be getting it is just one form of DWP error...).

So if less than 0.5% of DLA claims are fraudulent, how does that stack up with, say, the percentage of expenses fraudulently claimed for by politicians...?

DLA works as it stands. It doesn't need reforming. There is NO system that will be 100% effective at stopping fraudulent claims (Though the 40+ page claim form that needs to have medical evidence sent with it, your own GP's and consultants contacted, and often a medical assessment TOO comes very close) - does that mean that the genuinely disabled should be made to suffer? Should the many be punished for the few?

And seeing as the government have decided to cut the 'pot' for DLA by 20%, and there is a fraud rate of less than 0.5% - That means that the Government have decided to take disability benefits away from at leats 19.5% of GENUINELY DISABLED CLAIMANTS. By re-classifying them as no longer disabled. Which is funny, because they are STILL DISABLED. They are no less disabled than they were before the changes to the Welfare system - yet they no longer get our help.

I wonder, again, if the Government is piping water from the fountain at Lourdes directly to ATOS test centres?

How do we decide who is 'worthy' of getting disability benefits? Is it the amputee? The person suffering from cancer? The person with epilepsy? The person with MS? The wheelchair user? The person with Autism? The person with MH problems? The blind person? The deaf person? The person who has had back surgery and is immobile? How exactly do you decide WHICH 19.5% of these GENUINE claims should be made to lose their disability benefits?

Hunty, your 4 'ideas' are great in theory but unworkable in practice.

How do you just get employers to pay a living wage? Remember most people are not working for the banks or supermarkets earning billions.

The vast majority of employed people are working for small/medium enterprises and public sector workers of some description. Just how do you with a stroke of a pen declare everyone must be paid a living wage?

For that small business employing say 10 people, struggling to keep afloat that would be a disaster.

For the government, where would they get the money from? Use tax credit money? The very thing you are claiming is a subsidy for business and wanting to cut?

Rent controls? Again with the mighty pen you think you can control rents? I doubt it. Many landlords would be forced to sell up. There's noone in the market to buy properties at the moment, result would be a massive housing crash triggering another recession. Great stuff. Whilst rents would probably go up to the maximum because all of a sudden you've much less houses on the market. Not good for the majority of tenants who were coping just fine before controls were implemented.

Build social housing by taxing those who earn over £100k.....again great idea in theory. First problem....where? I mean I assume you'd need a large scale building of homes? It would make most sense to build these in the south east since that's where the demand is highest. No point building them in say Scotland. Last time I looked, the SE was pretty densely populated already.

Second issue. taxing those who earn £100k+. How many people do you really think there are who earn that much? Not many. The 10% tax rise which Labour brought in was estimated to net £3billion per annum. Let's for arguments say you bring in the same again. That's not many houses, assuming you find somewhere for them to go. Plus then you have a frankly ridiculously punitive 60% tax rate for £150k+ earners. A 1-2% rise is barely worth it and wouldn't get you any homes really.

The fundamental problem Hunty is all your ideas are woolly socialist ideas the cost of which don't add up and paid for by someone else.

If the SME businesses can't afford a living wage, then they aren't profitable enough. Are you trying to say that it acceptable for ANY employer to pay a wage that DOESN'T cover BASIC LIVING COSTS and then for the state to pick up the tab?? Because THAT is what has brought the welfare system to it's knees. Having to subsidise wages that don't cover BASIC LIVING COSTS in order to ensure that people have a home, heat, light and food. BASIC NECESSITIES. The Welfare state wasn't designed to cope with that, it was designed to be asafety net for those who had fallen on hard times, which is the reason the money can't spread far enough now.

It's all well and good calling them wooly socialist ideas, NiceGuy2, but they were based on the premise that everyone should have enough money to cover their BASIC LIVING COSTS. Which the current NMW doesn't DO without state subsidy.

Would you rather the people working bloody hard on NMW to create profits for those further up the chain didn't have enough to cover their basic living costs? Which would surely result in homelessness, starvation, loss of productivity, causing loss of profits and loss of tax revenue on those profits?

Taking away the safety net before fixing the problems that necessitated the safety net in the first place is just mind-boggling stupidity.

1. "Get employers to pay ALL their staff a LIVING WAGE"

First, we live in a global economy. Why pay workers, say, £10/hour to manufacture goods in the UK when there are highly educated, motivated and industrious workforces in places like China, India, Thailand and The Phillipines who will work harder for less than a tenth of the UK wage?

Second, if wages go up, employment will go down. Say you run a cafe (so no scope for outsourcing to China) - if you have to pay staff higher wages, then the employer's costs will rise. The employer then has the choice of either accepting reduced profits (and at some point may decide the low profits stop the business being worthwhile) or raising the prices for customers, and possibly losing trade as a result, meaning the cafe is no lonegre seen as a worthwhile business venture. Or the cafe owner could simply decide to employ fewer workers/reduce their hours.

2. "Create enough AFFORDABLE childcare places for everyone that needs one in order to work. By subsidising childcare."

I'm in favour of creating more affordable childcare places. This would, of course, have an associated cost which might reduce the benefits bill, but would presumably just be moved elsewhere - to the education budget, perhaps.

3. "Place rent controls on ALL Landlords"

Basic economic theory tells us that at capped rates, quantity supplied is
reduced and so less rental housing will be available. If it is to have any effect, the rent level must be set at a rate below the current market rate. But if rents are established at less than their equilibrium levels, demand will necessarily exceed supply - so rent control will lead to a shortage of dwelling spaces. There is near unanimity amongst economists about this.

Gunner Myrdal, a left-winger who was given the Nobel prize economics and was one of the architects of Sweden?s welfare state wrote: ?Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.? According to his fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck, ?In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city?except for bombing.?

4. "Build more social housing with affordable rents".

I don't have many issues with this. However, the low rents increases demand for such properties (basic economics) and I think we need to ensure that it is those whose need is greatest who live in such properties. (Yes, Bob Crow - I'm looking at you!). The low price also discourages mobility, so that people tend to stay in such housing for longer than they might do otherwise and so I think shorter tenancies need to become the norm. And yes, maybe people will have to get used to the idea of down-sizing, once their children leave home.

"If the SME businesses can't afford a living wage, then they aren't profitable enough"

Great - let's just close them down then. A few more unempolyed people, a bit less tax revenue to the Exchequor - where's the problem?

I may be on the left of the political divide, but for what it's worth, as a current Housing Association tenant, I have NO problem with downsizing when my dc leave home if they ever do due to SN. Less cleaning! . Shorter tenancies - reviewed every 3 years would be about right IMO. Bob Crowe is a twat who should move out of his house, and I totally disagree with him 'blocking' a council house from a family in need. I don't see that as an issue - even my 82yo Granny didn't see it as an issue when she downsized from a 3-bed, to a 2-bed, to a 1-bed bungalow as her dc left home, and her and my grandad got more infirm. No argument there.

No rent controls - then how do you propose people earning NMW can house themselves in a home they can afford to get to work from without as much of a top-up from Housing benefit? They are taking away the safety net without fixing the issues that caused that safety net to be necessary.

I wonder what the long term results of that will be? No-one able to live near a NMW job OR afford to travel to that NMW job? Higher unemployment? No bin men / hospital porters / hospital cooks? What then? Who will do those jobs than? Workfare participants? Which is just indentured slavery for the 21st century - look up the dictionary definition of indentured slavery. And a way to get out of the NMW laws by the back door, as the Tories never agreed with NMW in the first place.

I just knwo that they are cutting too much, too quickly, and it's not going to stop us from having a double-dip recession anyway. All it is is ideology, it's NOT making things better for anyone, and for a vast swathe of the country's population (IN WORK TOO, not just unemployed), it is going to make life not just worse, but totally bleak. They don't care who they hurt as long as those at the top of the pile are OK.

We're all in this together my arse.

So are you saying that it OK for ANY employer to pay ANY of their employees LESS than a LIVING WAGE and let the state pick up the tab? Because it shouldn't be.

The vast majority of employed people are working for small/medium enterprises and public sector workers of some description. Just how do you with a stroke of a pen declare everyone must be paid a living wage?

For that small business employing say 10 people, struggling to keep afloat that would be a disaster

How with the stroke of a pen do you declare the disabled are no longer disabled? That is what is happening and that is disasterous.

The only way Capitalism can continue to be thought of as working is if we go back to slavery, and not allowing the poorest in society to have the BASICS in life. Is this what you are saying by the SME's can't afford to pay a living wage to their employees? Should it be OK to make a profit on a persons productivity and hard work while not treating them as if they deserve the same BASIC standards as any other human being? I happen to think not.

Well said, AmberLeaf!

Ok, let's discuss your numerous references to 'a living wage'. The flaw in your assumption is you are assuming that there is only one type of worker. As I've mentioned before, there are many.

Whilst the minimum wage would surely not be enough for many families, for lots of people such as my daughter, young people without kids and maybe the elderly looking for something to keep them busy/pocket money, the NMW is fine.

If you declare it must be a "living wage" based on being able to support a family, all of a sudden you are paying a student/pensioner working in Mcdonald's or a SAHM working at a cafe £20k+. How many businesses could sustain that?

@Amberleaf, you don't. The current plans on the cuts to the DLA are very controversial and in principle, each person having to be assessed for their fitness to work is fine with me. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my own father is registered blind yet can still run a restaurant. I've met many other people with disabilities who all work. So clearly it's not a one size fits all. That's why people should be assessed and help tailored to get them into work.

Now you can argue that ATOS are a bunch of idiots who couldn't find their own arse in the dark and from what I've read I'd probably agree. But the principle is fine, the execution is troubling.

What I don't accept is that if you have any sort of disability that you automatically get given money and written off for life.

As usual, the conservatives come up with a 1001 reasons why change is impossible and the status quo is the only viable option. How sad.