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.

The conservatives here (along with circa 70% of the general population) support the benefits cuts in principle - which is, in itself, a change from the status quo. Doh!

My mind isn't closed to ideas from either side of the political spectrum - give mine an idea which is both feasible in practical and political terms, and economically viable, and I'll listen.

What about you?

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

I think you may be confusing DLA with Employment Support Allowance

DLA is NOT an out of work benefit!

I know people on DLA who work, that DLA money helps them to work with things like transport to and from work and better wheelchairs etc, I also know people on DLA who cant/dont work, their DLA can help pay for cleaners/homehelp or whatever disability aids that make their lives liveable

re assessments; my mother has a lifetime award of DLA, she is crippled with arthritis, are they expecting her knarled joints to heal?

Lucky for my mum she is techincally an OAP [dont let her hear me saying that!] so DLA reforms wont affect her

What makes the reforms wrong is at the stroke of a pen 20% of DLA claimants [read people with disabilities] will no longer be officially classed as disabled and as such will not be entitled to other help-not just the DLA that they will lose

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

based on what ive said above, the principle is also very 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

I dont think any person with disabilities expects to be written off, if they can work they will, taking away the financial support to enable that work is very wrong and will mean they cant work-how is that helpful?

20% of genuinely disabled people are going to lose the support that DLA gives them, if they dont work and need to claim ESA what happens then?, they are at the mercy of ATOS whos assessors are not even medically trained! they could be deemed capable of working when really they arent at all

walnuts and sledgehammers spring to mind

And more to the point - there are LOTS of people with disabilities that are told that they aren't disabled enough (any more) to qualify for DLA and ESA, but are ALSO told that as they aren't fit enough for FULL-TIME WORK, they can't claim jobseekers allowance either. And they don't fit the criteria for claiming Income Support either so there are thousands of people, usually with fluctuating health problems such as epilepsy, MS and other disabilities, that are being left with NO income at all. And you think that this is indicative of a responsible reform ?

Whilst I see your point about the fact that a living wage for a student is going to be less than a living wage for a family - how do you deal with the fact that poor people want to have children? They work very hard, often in manual jobs, why SHOULDN'T they be able to cover the BASIC LIVING COSTS that you have when you have children? How would YOU solve that?

Government top-up for their wages? Oh, yes - that's been done. It's called Tax Credits and Housing Benefit. And it is costing the country 'too much money'.

A reasonable LIVING wage? Oh, you're saying that the poor exploitative businesses can't afford it.

Saying that anyone who earns less than XX amount can't have dc, and carrying out forcible terminations and sterilisations when that doesn't happen? That looks so good to the rest of the civilised world when China does it, doesn't it? And treads ever closer to Eugenicism.

Ignoring the fact that people on NMW will have a family regardless, and ignoring the effects of poverty on their CHILDREN? That takes us back to the Victorian age, and the era of the workhouse and forcible separation of families. That looks so good to the rest of the civilised world, doesn't it?

They, honestly, are the only four options. What's YOUR solution?

On the DLA fraud point, agree 0.5% is the official figure (2004 data, no more recent available). However, the same research showed that 9% of the money is going to people who no longer need it. This is not classed as fraud as there is no requirement to reassess, however it is money not going to those who need it.
My question, and I do not know the answer, is why the number of claimants has increased by c.100,000 each year since it was introduced and do 5% of the population (c.3 million people) need it.
Also agree it is not an out of work benefit, and DWP research shows only 29% of claimants claim not to be able to work, only 19% say they would like a job or might like one in the future. here.
This report also suggests that in areas of high unemployment, there are significantly more claimants than in areas of low unemployment - draw your own conclusions as I have no idea why.
Agree with above posters that rent controls do not work and are shown to damage the poor.

Because, youngermother1 - those dc that were kept alive as premature babies in the last 30 years are now reaching adult age, or have already, and are therefore now included in the figures for disability benefits. And also, over the last 30 years, childhood diagnosis of MANY disabilities has improved. When you bear in mind that people who turn 18yo this year were born in 1994 (doesn't seem possible, does it?), they will also be added to the figures of those claiming ADULT disability benefits.

The reason for the disparity between the figures for the amount of claimants that are incapable of work, and those that want to work is this: Most of those who say they don't WANT to work have had previous experience of trying to gain AND KEEP work whilst suffering from that disability. They have maybe been retired on medical grounds, and know that despite the DWP's assertation that they are fit for work, they actually aren't. They may be in the process of appealing against a decision stating that they are fit for work (70% of appeals against a fit-to-work decision are successful at the moment, making a mockery of the figure of just 29% of claimants NOT being fit to work - don't just look at the DWP statistics, they are massaged to show only those that are not in the process of an appeal that has a 70% chance of success). Also, the people that the DWP are classing as fit to work may only be able to work for 5 hours a week WITH support.

You also have to bear in mind that the DWP's idea of 'not sick enough for disability benefits' does NOT mean fit for FT work. To the extent that some people seemingly fall between the DWP's two different definitions of 'not sick enough for disability benefits' and 'fit for full-time work'.

Where are the jobs that will take these people on? And, tending to your last question, the reason for the higher number of disability claimants in areas with high unemployment? I would have thought that that was obvious? Two people apply for a job, 1/2 of the applicants will get it, with a disability or not. 600 people apply for a job - who the HELL is going to pick the 1 disabled person when there are 599 fit and healthy people to choose from? It just wouldn't make good business sense, would it?

I also think that you need to educate yourself on the predjudice that is still faced by a LOT of people with disabilities. Try getting a job when you have uncontrolled epilepsy and may need 1 or more days off sick EACH WEEK. And yet the DWP have classed you as 'not sick enough for disability benefits'. And you have been told that in the future, you will ALSO be classed as 'too sick for FT work', so will fall through the gaping holes that are appearing in the 'safety net' of the Welfare state. I personally am in that situation, was sacked for my last FT job due to my extensive time off sick, yet now I no longer qualify as 'sick enough for disability benefits'. Doesn't make me any less DISABLED though!

youngermother1 one reason is years ago babies like my dd would have been dead. simple.
the hospital would cock up baby would die ened of.
now the baby is saved thank god.
but it does mean that you end up with more disabled people.
it isn't hard to understand,

You might be right about premature babies, as far as I am aware our growth rate of DLA is not matched in other countries.
The 29% is people who claim they are not fit for work, ie the claimants position, not the govts.
The point about claim levels in areas of high unemployment is not answered Hunty because, as you have said, it is not an out of work benefit. Therefore claimant levels across the country should not vary by employment levels.

Well, I see your point there - but like I did, when I WAS in employment, I didn't BOTHER to claim DLA / Incapacity Benefit. However - when I lost my job DUE to the amount of time off I was having through seizures - I put in a claim straight away. And I know a LOT of people with disabilities that do this. They don't bother claiming (and taking out of the pot) when they can 'get by' on their wages. However, if they LOSE that job through ill-health, they then CAN'T manage.

Does that explain what I was trying to say a little more clearly?

That should read "if they LOSE that job through ill-health, and cannot get any other employer to hire them due to their work record and the fact that there are hundreds of other applicants who DON'T have that sort of employment record, they then CAN'T manage without claiming disability benefits.

FFS, I'll make sense in a minute!

And where did you get that figure from, as I would be interested to read that report, tbh!

You also have to bear in mind that gaining acceptance of the way your life changes when you are diagnosed with a disability is a LONG process. It took me 6 years to admit that I would probably be unable to work full-time ever again. I still haven't accepted the possibility that I may not be able to work AT ALL yet. Despite getting my diagnosis over 8 years ago. It takes a long time to get to the point where you are WILLING to admit to anyone that you are incapable of work. Especially if you have always worked pre-diagnosis. So that may well account for it being such a LOW figure of disability benefit claimants that are willing to STATE that they are incapable of ANY work. And that HAS been proven, in many different studies - that people with disabilities often UNDERPLAY the true level of their difficulties because they are in denial themselves. How many times have we heard about the older lady, losing her hearing, who refuses to get a hearing aid fitted, because there's nothing wrong with her ears...

Behind every one of these statistics lie REAL PEOPLE with real emotions and thoughts and feelings.

Behind every one of these statistics lie REAL PEOPLE with real emotions and thoughts and feelings

I think lots of people forget this, or just dont think of it like that.

Don't disagree Hunty and have a lot of sympathy.- figures are from a report linked in my last post but one. I am not necessarily agreeing with all the cuts, but genuinely believe that the entire benefit system needs reform. I also think we need to reduce govt spending as a % of GDP. It is now 46% (here), up from 38% in 1997 when the Labour party got into power. This has all been funded by borrowing and is unsustainable.
I accept that some view additional tax as the answer, but remember back to the late 70's, when top tax rates were 98% (over 100% on some unearned income). this was not a great time for the country and we had to borrow from the IMF in 1976 and inflation went up to 28%.
Unfortunately money has become more mobile since then and will move offshore if the govt make the tax adviser fees worthwhile.
Therefore I would like some reform ideas from people who disagree with the current govt, but I have not seen anything realistic, just stop what they are doing.
Also like to keep proper statistics used, rather than only quoting for my benefit, hence try to link sources.

Not always great at linking sources, I do admit. It's usually because I read a report, the figure sticks in my head, then weeks later come across a thread. I do TRY to go back and find the links when I have time, but I sometimes forget if the thread drops off my active convos!

How can it be unrealistic to expect that the cuts will be thought through fully, and the impact on the people affected fully discussed, and NOT leaving anyone in poverty? I truly believe that in 5 years time, we will have some parts of the UK that have Victorian levels of poverty in some families. That is just plain WRONG in a developed country in the 21st Century. Especially when some people earn millions / practice tax avoidance / own more homes than they NEED, while others in the country will not have even their BASIC NEEDS met.

IMO, it is just GREED on the part of the people at the 'top' of the pile that leaves others in poverty. While we may not YET have widespread levels of poverty like there was in the Victorian era, I'll bet that's changed in 5 years time. And that's OK? With ANYONE? There WILL be people who lose their homes and are unable to get another. There WILL be people unable to EAT if they want to keep a roof over their heads. There WILL be greater strain placed on the NHS by people suffering from diseases of malnutrition. There are already people that have had to rely on food banks to survive due to cuts in disability benefits - and have killed themselves due to the grinding, abject poverty they found themselves in. Is that REALLY what people think is OK? When we are wasting millions on the Olympics, and HS2, and the probable new London airport? It's NOT that there isn't enough money there - it's that it is being spent on the WRONG things. Things that only benefit the people at the TOP of the pile, NOT the people down the bottom.

OK, I am no economist, and I have never said that I am - but I just believe that if everybody had enough to survive, and anything that was earnt above that was taxed to provide for that, then no-one would go hungry, no-one would need to be homeless, and anyone that went out to work and earnt money would be better off than those that didn't, albeit not by as much as some are! And there wouldn't be the massive disparity between the CEO of a company's wages and the wages of his office cleaner. It works in Japan.

Not sure about Japan

"According to an article published back in 2006 by USA Today, the OECD reported that ?income inequality rose twice as fast in Japan as in other rich countries between the mid ?80s and 2000″; that ?the gap between rich and poor in Japan is wider than the OECD average? and ?found that the top 10% of Japanese male wage earners now earn 3.2 times what the bottom 10% make.? Egalitarian? Hardly.
The fact of the matter is, Japan is in the exact same boat the United States has been in since the Reagan administration: wealth has been siphoned up to the highest levels of society, which has in turn had a negative impact on the economies of both superpowers."

The millions spent on the Olympics etc (agree HS2 is wrong, but not for these reasons) will be spent on people - jobs for workers, builders, material and equipment suppliers - more jobs, more money for all.

Not sure how you intend to fund your Utopia - again, back to the 70's, you give everyone a pay rise (additional benefits etc) then things get more expensive, no one is better off - only way to do that is grow the whole economy. From here, less than 500,000 people earn more than £100k per year. Not enough there to help.

the top 10% of earners now earn 3.2 times what the bottom 10% make. Apply that to the UK. The bottom 10% of earners make 12 TIMES less than the top 10% in the UK. The figure of 3.2 times would be MUCH better!

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequality-growing-faster-uk

(I remembered where I had read THAT one!)

How would the TOP 10% of earners be happy with earning just 3.2 times what the lowest earners get? That would be just £15,040 before tax. There would be an OUTCRY. Yet it would STILL be 3.2 times what the lowest 10% of earners earnt.

If we even took a FULL-TIME NMW job (which is MORE than the bottom 10% earn, by quite some way), 3.2 times that would be £37.939.20. So, by that standard, the top 10% of earners should be paid roughly £38k.

I think Japan has it a lot MORE right than we do...

that point in that figure should have been a comma: £37,939.20.

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.

Actually Ttosca I think you'll find that most conservative/supports of benefit caps are arguing in favour of change and that the status quo is NOT a viable option. It's ultra left wingers such as yourself who are arguing for the plainly unaffordable status quo.

It doesn't surprise me though that as usual you've completely missed the point.

Oh and Hunty, I think you are getting a bit carried away with the whole eugenics thing. Noone's suggesting that at all.

All I'm arguing for is an affordable benefits system which is sorely needed. The NMW is there merely as a political tool. It serves no practical purpose as you clearly understand every family is different so it's impossible to set a single wage for everyone.

Instead it's really up to everyone who can to make their own way in life. If the job they are doing isn't enough to support their family then they should be doing something to improve matters. I'm on a good salary, despite that with the crunch, no payrises for four years and ever increasing tax/bills, we've found our standard of living dropping. So I'm studying at the moment to hopefully enable me to earn more. I do this as well as hold down a full time job and dad to three kids. It's up to me to improve my family's situation, not the state.

And just to be clear, I'm talking about abled bodied people such as myself. Clearly those with special needs need to be treated more sympathetically.

have to say it makes me angry when people say that the olympics will be good for us all.
yes some people will benefit from it, but it won't be the hardest hit.
they won't be getting a job, a ticket or any benefit. just paying through tax or cuts to other things.

Olympic good for us for who I wont be going in to London at all its going to eb chaos and note they not improving faclites for disabled people either around London , same with the 30 milion to save 30 mins ona train journey

Yes, they SHOULD be doing something to better themselves. If they have the capability to. NOT everyone is born with the same IQ. And there is NO funding available for help with course costs, and if you can't meet your BASIC NEEDS, then I'm quite sure that studying is much further down the list than keeping a roof over your head, or gas and electric on the meter, or EATING.

I think you'll find that the reason they DON'T better themselves is because they CAN'T!