Presuming you are a taxpayer if that £1 is saved how do you think it will benefit you ?
The HMRC is still going to take it away from you, you won't be paying any less tax, it will just go towards something else.
Exactly. Thats the mentality of some taxpayers, they think if welfare didn't exist they would pay less tax. it won't work out that way. They will spend it elsewhere. People will still pay the same tax, no matter where its spent.
How on earth is giving people with mental health issues money to stuff their faces or get high being compassionate? How on earth is that fair either to the taxpayer or the claimant? That is allowing people to fester away and opt out of life and society. It can't be much of life to be too overweight to work and reliant on benefits. There is if course an argument about how it should be handled and the treatment needs to much improved but the idea people should just be left to fester on benefits - that is just killing with kindness. I think the government is right to try to help.
BiB would be so funny if it wasnt such a serious matter. That of course is why the Tories won the election, to kill claimants ...............with kindness?
Too much. £1 wasted is too much. Its about time the interests of taxpayers were put first.
So where is your outrage at the billions wasted by IDS on failed benefits ideological reforms and IT systems that have had to be scrapped and started again?
BiB would be so funny if it wasnt such a serious matter. That of course is why the Tories won the election, to kill claimants ...............with kindness?
Oh so you don't think giving people money to enable their addictions would contribute their ill health and possibly death?
So where is your outrage at the billions wasted by IDS on failed benefits ideological reforms and IT systems that have had to be scrapped and started again?
ideological reforms? The idea is to make work pay more than idleness. You are not in favour of that?
Of course no one likes spending lots of money on IT systems but can you name a single one which has come in on time and under budget?
You might want to examine your own ideological bias. You might want to consider where we were with benefits and unemployment and where we are now. Only the SNP think going back is a good idea.
The title of this thread was cut & pasted from the headline on the front page of the telegraph online and the quote is the first two paragraphs of the actual article.
Yea but it is hate mongering. Go and pick on the bankers. Not you personally although you obviously think it was worthy of note or you wouldn't have posted it.
ideological reforms? The idea is to make work pay more than idleness. You are not in favour of that?
Of course no one likes spending lots of money on IT systems but can you name a single one which has come in on time and under budget?
You might want to examine your own ideological bias. You might want to consider where we were with benefits and unemployment and where we are now. Only the SNP think going back is a good idea.
Unemployment is still too high, more due to the fact there still aren't enough jobs being created. Even jobs that are being created don't pay enough or offer enough hours. Then you wonder why the welfare bill is still to high.
BiB would be so funny if it wasnt such a serious matter. That of course is why the Tories won the election, to kill claimants ...............with kindness?
ideological reforms? The idea is to make work pay more than idleness. You are not in favour of that?
Of course no one likes spending lots of money on IT systems but can you name a single one which has come in on time and under budget?
You might want to examine your own ideological bias. You might want to consider where we were with benefits and unemployment and where we are now. Only the SNP think going back is a good idea.
Work should pay more, but the way to do that is raise wages not lower what are already small amounts of benefits remember the basic rate of benefits is £72.10 per week which the law says is the minimum amount needed to live on, the rest is made up of add-ons for having children, rents, medical conditions and disabilities etc. Even that £72.10 pw week to pay for food, clothinjg, heating, water etc is too low when you consider MP's are allowed to claim £100 per week for food alone, and Lords £300 per day expenses to attend the HOL - where is the condemnation of them?
Examine my own ideoloical bias lol, I used to be a Tory voter, and have never voted for Labour and most of my views are right-wing, I just believe in fairness, compassion and empathy for everyone and I just don't consider this current bunch true Tories as they're more like National Socialists than how the Tory party used to be and don't demonstrate any of those qualites and only seem to care about money and those that can give it to them.
Consider where we are now with unemployment and benefits? You mean increased use of food banks, benefits sanctions for iffy reasons, zero hour contracts whether you want them or not, increased poorly paid employment and self-employment with out-of-work benefits replaced by in-work benefits, free labour through workfare so companies get to replace paid labour, pointless apprenticeship schemes that only offer employers a chance to get around minimum wage laws with cheap labour - everything this current lot do is to benefit business and the city to fill their own bank accounts and to hell with the rest of the country.
Look at the benefits cap for example - that was brought in to make being in work pay more than being on benefits, they then found it didn't affect enough people as the number on high benefits was the exception rather than the rule, so have lowered it rather than raise wages (yes I know they announced wage raises but I notice all the caps etc come in almost immediately and the pay rises are over a few years), they have also done nothing to address the main reason for needing a benefits cap which is high rents leading to high housing benefits claims and which take up the majority of benefits a claiment can receive even though they don't gain anything from it, only the landlords do.
Work should pay more, but the way to do that is raise wages not lower what are already small amounts of benefits remember the basic rate of benefits is £72.10 per week which the law says is the minimum amount needed to live on, the rest is made up of add-ons for having children, rents, medical conditions and disabilities etc. Even that £72.10 pw week to pay for food, clothinjg, heating, water etc is too low when you consider MP's are allowed to claim £100 per week for food alone, and Lords £300 per day expenses to attend the HOL - where is the condemnation of them?
Examine my own ideoloical bias lol, I used to be a Tory voter, and have never voted for Labour and most of my views are right-wing, I just believe in fairness, compassion and empathy for everyone and I just don't consider this current bunch true Tories as they're more like National Socialists than how the Tory party used to be and don't demonstrate any of those qualites and only seem to care about money and those that can give it to them.
Consider where we are now with unemployment and benefits? You mean increased use of food banks, benefits sanctions for iffy reasons, zero hour contracts whether you want them or not, increased poorly paid employment and self-employment with out-of-work benefits replaced by in-work benefits, free labour through workfare so companies get to replace paid labour, pointless apprenticeship schemes that only offer employers a chance to get around minimum wage laws with cheap labour - everything this current lot do is to benefit business and the city to fill their own bank accounts and to hell with the rest of the country.
Look at the benefits cap for example - that was brought in to make being in work pay more than being on benefits, they then found it didn't affect enough people as the number on high benefits was the exception rather than the rule, so have lowered it rather than raise wages (yes I know they announced wage raises but I notice all the caps etc come in almost immediately and the pay rises are over a few years), they have also done nothing to address the main reason for needing a benefits cap which is high rents leading to high housing benefits claims and which take up the majority of benefits a claiment can receive even though they don't gain anything from it, only the landlords do.
I think you must have your blinkers on if you don't think that there hasn't been any condemnation of MPs expenses. There has been a massive amount over the years!
Please provide one example where solely claiming benefits makes a person financially better off then working.
People will struggle to find such an example.
That, however, just proves that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice for some.
Welfare is supposed to be a safety net for people who cannot get an income any other way. Beveridge never intended it for people to say 'well working for a living doesn't make me much better off, so rather than have to get up, have to get to work and then work all week, I think I will just stay at home and laze around all day and be prepared to accept a bit of a lower income for the option of doing so.
That, however, just proves that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice for some.
Welfare is supposed to be a safety net for people who cannot get an income any other way. Beveridge never intended it for people to say 'well working for a living doesn't make me much better off, so rather than have to get up, have to get to work and then work all week, I think I will just stay at home and laze around all day and be prepared to accept a bit of a lower income for the option of doing so.
Maggie
You forget that a large percentage of welfare goes to people in work.
You forget that a large percentage of welfare goes to people in work.
Usual strawman arguement.
I don't forget, it is the states way of ensuring people are indeed better of working than lazing at home by choice.
Do you have a problem with that?
Employers should of course to be forced to pay a reasonable wage to reduce this state support. It is unlikely and probably not desirable, to force the minimum wage up to a level that would eliminate in work support entirely.
Work should pay more, but the way to do that is raise wages not lower what are already small amounts of benefits remember the basic rate of benefits is £72.10 per week which the law says is the minimum amount needed to live on, the rest is made up of add-ons for having children, rents, medical conditions and disabilities etc. Even that £72.10 pw week to pay for food, clothinjg, heating, water etc is too low when you consider MP's are allowed to claim £100 per week for food alone, and Lords £300 per day expenses to attend the HOL - where is the condemnation of them?
Examine my own ideoloical bias lol, I used to be a Tory voter, and have never voted for Labour and most of my views are right-wing, I just believe in fairness, compassion and empathy for everyone and I just don't consider this current bunch true Tories as they're more like National Socialists than how the Tory party used to be and don't demonstrate any of those qualites and only seem to care about money and those that can give it to them.
Consider where we are now with unemployment and benefits? You mean increased use of food banks, benefits sanctions for iffy reasons, zero hour contracts whether you want them or not, increased poorly paid employment and self-employment with out-of-work benefits replaced by in-work benefits, free labour through workfare so companies get to replace paid labour, pointless apprenticeship schemes that only offer employers a chance to get around minimum wage laws with cheap labour - everything this current lot do is to benefit business and the city to fill their own bank accounts and to hell with the rest of the country.
Look at the benefits cap for example - that was brought in to make being in work pay more than being on benefits, they then found it didn't affect enough people as the number on high benefits was the exception rather than the rule, so have lowered it rather than raise wages (yes I know they announced wage raises but I notice all the caps etc come in almost immediately and the pay rises are over a few years), they have also done nothing to address the main reason for needing a benefits cap which is high rents leading to high housing benefits claims and which take up the majority of benefits a claiment can receive even though they don't gain anything from it, only the landlords do.
Of course everything is geared to getting more business in the UK. Without the taxes those businesses generate there would be no money for the NHS, schools, the police, social services. Everything hinges on the economy.
P.S, They have brought in a Living Wage. It may not be as soon as you liked or as high as you liked but it is an improvement and can only come in if the UK's economy is very healthy otherwise we'd be like the land of unemployment and strikes (France).
I don't forget, it is the states way of ensuring people are indeed better of working than lazing at home by choice.
Do you have a problem with that?
Employers should of course to be forced to pay a reasonable wage to reduce this state support. It is unlikely and probably not desirable, to force the minimum wage up to a level that would eliminate in work support entirely.
Maggie
So you think it's fair that people will lose tax credits, without the minimum wage going up higher to compensate for loss of income? Like it or not, tax credits have helped people to actually make work worthwhile financially. Off course, if wages were higher, then tax credits wouldn't be needed. However, the minimum wage won't be going up to £9 till 2020, meaning people will be worse off next year when tax credits cuts come in.,
Why does that mean other people should be punished?
It doesn't.
It means that the state, on societies behalf, is quite right in confirming who is on benefits because they absolutely no other way of getting an income.
People who are on by choice or who are on due to behaviour that again is under their control should be removed.
Society agrees to provide these welfare services by choice and out of compassion for those individuals.
If society sees that the system is being abused by a fair percentage then it brings the system into disrepute and it less likely that society will agree to continue to provide at previous levels and it is the genuine claimant who is going to suffer.
The genuine ones can't provide for themselves on an ongoing basis unlike the lifestyle ones who can, if forced..
So you think it's fair that people will lose tax credits, without the minimum wage going up higher to compensate for loss of income? Like it or not, tax credits have helped people to actually make work worthwhile financially. Off course, if wages were higher, then tax credits wouldn't be needed. However, the minimum wage won't be going up to £9 till 2020, meaning people will be worse off next year when tax credits cuts come in.,
If tax credits cuts make people better off on benefits then it is a bad thing. However, that is not going to happen, people will always be better off working than not. Just as it should be.
The actual standard of living may be reduced but most workers have had that happen to them over the last few years and the level of welfare is subject to society deciding on what it is prepared to fund and that is less than in the past. A contributing factor to this is that the lifestyle claimants help to bring the system into disrepute and make it likely that society is less likely to be generous with its level of welfare.
It is the genuine claimant who suffers the most, not the scroungers, as they have very limited choices.
It means that the state, on societies behalf, is quite right in confirming who is on benefits because they absolutely no other way of getting an income.
People who are on by choice or who are on due to behaviour that again is under their control should be removed.
Society agrees to provide these welfare services by choice and out of compassion for those individuals.
If society sees that the system is being abused by a fair percentage then it brings the system into disrepute and it less likely that society will agree to continue to provide at previous levels and it is the genuine claimant who is going to suffer.
The genuine ones can't provide for themselves on an ongoing basis unlike the lifestyle ones who can, if forced..
We are seeing this effect already happening.
Stringent rules are a protector for the genuine.
Maggie
Try telling that to thousands of disabled people, who have been victims to ATOS horrendous mistakes in terms of assessments for ESA.
If tax credits cuts make people better off on benefits then it is a bad thing. However, that is not going to happen, people will always be better off working than not. Just as it should be.
The actual standard of living may be reduced but most workers have had that happen to them over the last few years and the level of welfare is subject to society deciding on what it is prepared to fund and that is less than in the past. A contributing factor to this is that the lifestyle claimants help to bring the system into disrepute and make it likely that society is less likely to be generous with its level of welfare.
It is the genuine claimant who suffers the most, not the scroungers, as they have very limited choices.
Maggie
Sorry but people on low wages claiming tax credits won't be better working once they are removed. The minimum wage is only going to be £7.20 next year. Not enough to make up for lost tax credits.
But that is the rhetoric used to justify benefit cuts, that non-working benefit claimants are better off than workers. A lot of posters claim that is the case on this forum, but never provide evidence when challenged, they have swallowed the rhetoric without checking facts.
That, however, just proves that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice for some.
Work providing more income than solely claiming benefits does not prove that claiming benefits is a lifestyle choice for some, that's just more empty rhetoric.
Comments
BiB would be so funny if it wasnt such a serious matter. That of course is why the Tories won the election, to kill claimants ...............with kindness?
So where is your outrage at the billions wasted by IDS on failed benefits ideological reforms and IT systems that have had to be scrapped and started again?
Oh so you don't think giving people money to enable their addictions would contribute their ill health and possibly death?
ideological reforms? The idea is to make work pay more than idleness. You are not in favour of that?
Of course no one likes spending lots of money on IT systems but can you name a single one which has come in on time and under budget?
You might want to examine your own ideological bias. You might want to consider where we were with benefits and unemployment and where we are now. Only the SNP think going back is a good idea.
Yea but it is hate mongering. Go and pick on the bankers. Not you personally although you obviously think it was worthy of note or you wouldn't have posted it.
Pass ......
Work should pay more, but the way to do that is raise wages not lower what are already small amounts of benefits remember the basic rate of benefits is £72.10 per week which the law says is the minimum amount needed to live on, the rest is made up of add-ons for having children, rents, medical conditions and disabilities etc. Even that £72.10 pw week to pay for food, clothinjg, heating, water etc is too low when you consider MP's are allowed to claim £100 per week for food alone, and Lords £300 per day expenses to attend the HOL - where is the condemnation of them?
Examine my own ideoloical bias lol, I used to be a Tory voter, and have never voted for Labour and most of my views are right-wing, I just believe in fairness, compassion and empathy for everyone and I just don't consider this current bunch true Tories as they're more like National Socialists than how the Tory party used to be and don't demonstrate any of those qualites and only seem to care about money and those that can give it to them.
Consider where we are now with unemployment and benefits? You mean increased use of food banks, benefits sanctions for iffy reasons, zero hour contracts whether you want them or not, increased poorly paid employment and self-employment with out-of-work benefits replaced by in-work benefits, free labour through workfare so companies get to replace paid labour, pointless apprenticeship schemes that only offer employers a chance to get around minimum wage laws with cheap labour - everything this current lot do is to benefit business and the city to fill their own bank accounts and to hell with the rest of the country.
Look at the benefits cap for example - that was brought in to make being in work pay more than being on benefits, they then found it didn't affect enough people as the number on high benefits was the exception rather than the rule, so have lowered it rather than raise wages (yes I know they announced wage raises but I notice all the caps etc come in almost immediately and the pay rises are over a few years), they have also done nothing to address the main reason for needing a benefits cap which is high rents leading to high housing benefits claims and which take up the majority of benefits a claiment can receive even though they don't gain anything from it, only the landlords do.
I think you must have your blinkers on if you don't think that there hasn't been any condemnation of MPs expenses. There has been a massive amount over the years!
Please provide one example where solely claiming benefits makes a person financially better off then working.
"Making work pay", because something is better than nothing.
People will struggle to find such an example.
That, however, just proves that being on benefits is a lifestyle choice for some.
Welfare is supposed to be a safety net for people who cannot get an income any other way. Beveridge never intended it for people to say 'well working for a living doesn't make me much better off, so rather than have to get up, have to get to work and then work all week, I think I will just stay at home and laze around all day and be prepared to accept a bit of a lower income for the option of doing so.
Maggie
Usual strawman arguement.
I don't forget, it is the states way of ensuring people are indeed better of working than lazing at home by choice.
Do you have a problem with that?
Employers should of course to be forced to pay a reasonable wage to reduce this state support. It is unlikely and probably not desirable, to force the minimum wage up to a level that would eliminate in work support entirely.
Maggie
Of course everything is geared to getting more business in the UK. Without the taxes those businesses generate there would be no money for the NHS, schools, the police, social services. Everything hinges on the economy.
P.S, They have brought in a Living Wage. It may not be as soon as you liked or as high as you liked but it is an improvement and can only come in if the UK's economy is very healthy otherwise we'd be like the land of unemployment and strikes (France).
It doesn't.
It means that the state, on societies behalf, is quite right in confirming who is on benefits because they absolutely no other way of getting an income.
People who are on by choice or who are on due to behaviour that again is under their control should be removed.
Society agrees to provide these welfare services by choice and out of compassion for those individuals.
If society sees that the system is being abused by a fair percentage then it brings the system into disrepute and it less likely that society will agree to continue to provide at previous levels and it is the genuine claimant who is going to suffer.
The genuine ones can't provide for themselves on an ongoing basis unlike the lifestyle ones who can, if forced..
We are seeing this effect already happening.
Stringent rules are a protector for the genuine.
Maggie
If tax credits cuts make people better off on benefits then it is a bad thing. However, that is not going to happen, people will always be better off working than not. Just as it should be.
The actual standard of living may be reduced but most workers have had that happen to them over the last few years and the level of welfare is subject to society deciding on what it is prepared to fund and that is less than in the past. A contributing factor to this is that the lifestyle claimants help to bring the system into disrepute and make it likely that society is less likely to be generous with its level of welfare.
It is the genuine claimant who suffers the most, not the scroungers, as they have very limited choices.
Maggie
But that is the rhetoric used to justify benefit cuts, that non-working benefit claimants are better off than workers. A lot of posters claim that is the case on this forum, but never provide evidence when challenged, they have swallowed the rhetoric without checking facts.
Work providing more income than solely claiming benefits does not prove that claiming benefits is a lifestyle choice for some, that's just more empty rhetoric.