IDS was not pressed enough on where the 12b cuts will come from. One will obviously be carers allowance which is a disgrace in itself and they must be planning cuts to child benefit no matter how much they deny it.
Partly. But perhaps there are genuine reasons why they have never had a job. How long do they have to be a family for to be classed as a workless family.
1 in 5 according to IDS rolleyes
Excluding student households, there were 20.4 million households in the UK where someone was aged 16-64. Of these households, 11.3 million (55.6%) were classed as working, 5.9 million (28.8%) were classed as mixed and 3.2 million (15.5%) were classed as workless. The workless includes those not working due to ill health or disability, caring responsibilities, lone parents with very young children, retired households aged under 65, etc.
My point is that most people are dependent on either a job or benefits.
I'd rather be dependent on benefits than on a job.
So you would rather society pays for you (through the benefit system) than go out to work. Do you think that is a reasonable thing given that members of the rest of society may have to go without in order to contribute to your upkeep.
The trouble with benefits - was that for some people they got more on benefits than if they went out to work - hence they had no desire to go out to work. Even if they did go out to work marginal tax rates meant it is just not worth it or it can even cost you. This is what the Conservatives want to deal with - the disincentives inherent in the welfare system persuading people not to go out to work and expecting society to pick up the costs.
IDS stated that 60% of the 2 million "found " new jobs are on "Managerial Salaries". Is that another IDS goldenballs moment because that would mean that 1.2 million people in new jobs are not on zero hours contracts stacking shelves in Tesco and Poundland, but on £40-£60k per year jobs.
IDS stated that 60% of the 2 million "found " new jobs are on "Managerial Salaries". Is that another IDS goldenballs moment because that would mean that 1.2 million people in new jobs are not on zero hours contracts stacking shelves in Tesco and Poundland, but on £40-£60k per year jobs.
Somehow I really doubt IDS and his statements
Never Ever Trust a Tory
Lies just roll off his tongue. He must be good for his area as I couldn't sleep at night knowing I voted for him.
So you would rather society pays for you (through the benefit system) than go out to work. Do you think that is a reasonable thing given that members of the rest of society may have to go without in order to contribute to your upkeep.
The trouble with benefits - was that for some people they got more on benefits than if they went out to work - hence they had no desire to go out to work. Even if they did go out to work marginal tax rates meant it is just not worth it or it can even cost you. This is what the Conservatives want to deal with - the disincentives inherent in the welfare system persuading people not to go out to work and expecting society to pick up the costs.
How much tax do you think you would get back if there was no more benefits system? And I mean just the part that pays for those who don't want to work?
And it isn't high benefits that is at fault, it is low wages.
Benefits are not wages. And most people HAVE worked and paid in for their benefits.
Except for the 305,000 households of course that have never worked which are the people I began talking about. They haven't worked and paid in. Obviously I'm not talking about the disabled here but a proportion of those people living in those households will have chosen not to work.
How much tax do you think you would get back if there was no more benefits system? And I mean just the part that pays for those who don't want to work?
Who is suggesting no benefits?
And it isn't high benefits that is at fault, it is low wages.
Which is partly down to historical low productivity in this country and one of the breaks on that is high taxation and high regulation. Productivity actually went down in the private sector and public during Labour's reign.
Welfare budget grew by 60% under Labour according to IDS.
The DWP tables show that under Labour (1997-2010) the welfare budget grew by 57% in real terms. Under the last Conservative governments (1979-97) it grew by 82% in real terms.
The main driver for the increase in the welfare bill is the ageing population. Overall, the evidence shows that there has been little difference in their respective records. Under the Tories the main increases in the welfare bill (apart from pensioners) were in housing benefits and incapacity benefits whereas under Labour it was through tax credits.
Except for the 305,000 households of course that have never worked which are the people I began talking about. They haven't worked and paid in. Obviously I'm not talking about the disabled here but a proportion of those people living in those households will have chosen not to work.
Yes a VERY small proportion of 300,000.
So the Tories are attacking 1.5 million to get at less than 300,000 people.
IDS was not pressed enough on where the 12b cuts will come from. One will obviously be carers allowance which is a disgrace in itself and they must be planning cuts to child benefit no matter how much they deny it.
Should have added the winter fuel allowance will probably be another thing the Tories try to drop. A lot of things will need to go to create 12b.
Hope those who think IDS knows what he is doing are ready to see even more innocent people suffer.
The DWP tables show that under Labour (1997-2010) the welfare budget grew by 57% in real terms. Under the last Conservative governments (1979-97) it grew by 82% in real terms.
The main driver for the increase in the welfare bill is the ageing population. Overall, the evidence shows that there has been little difference in their respective records. Under the Tories the main increases in the welfare bill (apart from pensioners) were in housing benefits and incapacity benefits whereas under Labour it was through tax credits.
Yes I suspected that the welfare bill didn't increase because of all those people who don't want to work, not working.
The DWP tables show that under Labour (1997-2010) the welfare budget grew by 57% in real terms. Under the last Conservative governments (1979-97) it grew by 82% in real terms.
The main driver for the increase in the welfare bill is the ageing population. Overall, the evidence shows that there has been little difference in their respective records. Under the Tories the main increases in the welfare bill (apart from pensioners) were in housing benefits and incapacity benefits whereas under Labour it was through tax credits.
Tax credits are paid to people in work whilst HB and IB can be paid to the unemployed.
Except for the 305,000 households of course that have never worked which are the people I began talking about. They haven't worked and paid in. Obviously I'm not talking about the disabled here but a proportion of those people living in those households will have chosen not to work.
How many of those 305000 households are scrounging?
I don't claim benefits or any state benefits, but I do claim a vested interest as a contributor to the system.
You dont claim any benefits that is fair enough, but is that because you dont need too, dont want too, dont don't fit the criteria and qualify to claim benefits. As all 3 mean differant things to why.
Comments
I see UKIP are now focusing on the same strategy as the Lib dems positioning themselves as the moderate voice of reason balancing out extremes.
Not sure how effective it will be.
Benefits are not wages. And most people HAVE worked and paid in for their benefits.
She is better than Cooper who many pitch as a future leader for Labour! If Labour want a woman then Reeves is the one.
So you would rather society pays for you (through the benefit system) than go out to work. Do you think that is a reasonable thing given that members of the rest of society may have to go without in order to contribute to your upkeep.
The trouble with benefits - was that for some people they got more on benefits than if they went out to work - hence they had no desire to go out to work. Even if they did go out to work marginal tax rates meant it is just not worth it or it can even cost you. This is what the Conservatives want to deal with - the disincentives inherent in the welfare system persuading people not to go out to work and expecting society to pick up the costs.
And you. ;-)
Somehow I really doubt IDS and his statements
Never Ever Trust a Tory
Have to agree she is very good.
Lies just roll off his tongue. He must be good for his area as I couldn't sleep at night knowing I voted for him.
How much tax do you think you would get back if there was no more benefits system? And I mean just the part that pays for those who don't want to work?
And it isn't high benefits that is at fault, it is low wages.
Except for the 305,000 households of course that have never worked which are the people I began talking about. They haven't worked and paid in. Obviously I'm not talking about the disabled here but a proportion of those people living in those households will have chosen not to work.
Who is suggesting no benefits?
Which is partly down to historical low productivity in this country and one of the breaks on that is high taxation and high regulation. Productivity actually went down in the private sector and public during Labour's reign.
I see you do not answer the question asked.
The DWP tables show that under Labour (1997-2010) the welfare budget grew by 57% in real terms. Under the last Conservative governments (1979-97) it grew by 82% in real terms.
The main driver for the increase in the welfare bill is the ageing population. Overall, the evidence shows that there has been little difference in their respective records. Under the Tories the main increases in the welfare bill (apart from pensioners) were in housing benefits and incapacity benefits whereas under Labour it was through tax credits.
Yes a VERY small proportion of 300,000.
So the Tories are attacking 1.5 million to get at less than 300,000 people.
Talk about throwing dynamite to catch fish.
Should have added the winter fuel allowance will probably be another thing the Tories try to drop. A lot of things will need to go to create 12b.
Hope those who think IDS knows what he is doing are ready to see even more innocent people suffer.
I think he's either incredibly deluded or incredibly dishonest or even worse a toxic mix and spiders Web of the two.
I thought so too. Very nice looking. Potential leadership quality? He's got to be better than Brain Fade.
Tax credits are paid to people in work whilst HB and IB can be paid to the unemployed.
How many of those 305000 households are scrounging?
Yes but they are still classed as welfare, which is what we were talking about.
You dont claim any benefits that is fair enough, but is that because you dont need too, dont want too, dont don't fit the criteria and qualify to claim benefits. As all 3 mean differant things to why.