Politics Home reporting that IDS is to announce the introduction of Electronic Benefit Transfer for select claimants in a speech later today.
Bearing in mind IDS has been presiding over the most appalling series of disasters in the history of government IT contracting (outside the NHS, and it's close) - an enormous waste of public money that has delivered absolutely nothing operable, that looks like the end for all benefits. Even if you're entitled, you'll starve to death before the money arrives.
How the bloody hell has he got away with for so long. Nobody else wants the job, I guess.
You will notice he has just announced that over 75s leaving huge pension pots when they die will have this exempt from inheritance tax.
What's the betting his own very wealthy elderly parents and in laws and Cameron's have very large pension pots. The average pot for those retiring at 65 by contrast is a mere £30k so well below the £650k inheritance tax threshold for couples - so this will benefit a tiny number of rich families but help few ordinary folks.
Tax cuts for millionaires like the Camerons and Osbornes - and benefits cuts for the poor and disabled.
We are all in it together aren't we!:D:D
It's beyond taking the p***. They have the face to spend a fortune on tax cuts for that, then in the next breath talk about the need for savings and take money from a poor bloke living on 50 quid a week.
There were plans in the pipeline to abolish NI as it is now just perceived to be another tax.
When Universal Credit is totally up and running I suspect NI will go.
All main parties want to abolish NI in the long run but it's an horrendously difficult and complex topic and it's another potential government IT disaster in the making.. There are always winners and losers from any small change in the tax system. Merging Income Tax and NI would affect everyone, especially pensioners.
The reason the benefits bill is rising is because of people IN WORK having to claim benefits to be able to afford to work
That is mainly because of the National Minimum Wage, many employers class the NMW as the rate to pay and never think of paying their employees any more than that rate ...... so they have to claim Working Tax Credit to meet the short fall.
Many employers also only offer part time work, it is cheaper for them, the earnings don't reach the NI threshold, but being part time and off JSA does mean that unemployment register reduces.
Current welfare spending is unsustainable. The aging population means we can no longer provide a universal approach to pensioner benefits. They need to be targeted at those in greater need.
But that isn't necessarily true, is it? It is more of a mantra. I see where you are coming from. I'm not ordinarily a Labour voter so am open to a range of arguments. But there are many questions that should be asked. The contingency fund for so-called emergencies, for example. It's huge. As it happens, I think we should be tackling IS now and it should have happened sooner. Many, though, don't agree including Diane Abbott and one N Farage.
We have no American post war loan to pay as we did between the late 1940s and 2004. We are not at the same level of debt as in 1945 when the country was on its knees. We had the money for Libya, presumably from the above mentioned contingency fund, which I opposed. We're involved in Ukraine which I oppose. I opposed intervention in Iraq in 2004. Unlike many on the left, I agree that the international aid budget could be slashed, not so much on UKIP grounds as I've listened to the experts who tell me that money is wasted without adequate targeting and monitoring. We can afford 11% pay rises for MPs apparently. We can bail out corrupt and useless banks along with a range of similar private companies. Government spends masses on repetitive radio ads.
We can help Sierra Leone with ebola treatments. We can support Ireland - and those are policies I do agree with in the main but not everyone would do. The list of pay outs is almost endless and they are all based on decisions by Governments about what they consider to be the priorities. It isn't that the welfare budget is unsustainable. It is that people prefer to prioritise in other areas and then declare that it is unsustainable when it isn't a matter of absolute fact. I sense you are a Tory but one thing that intrigues me about UKIP is that they would cut in most of these areas, leave the EU and its budget commitments, and still claim that welfare was unaffordable. What I would like to know is in whose pockets it will go instead. I suspect most of it will end up in the Caymans or the good ole US of A.
Most Brits seem much more interested in seeing someone else get less than in bettering themselves
As long as you promise to kick other people you'll stack up the votes
It's the final victory of divide and rule when the population beg to be hammered as long as some other b*stard gets hammered more.
There has been a policy of trying to convince us it's the poor who are responsible for the countries economic problems, but I wonder if this is going to far.
It is only intended for people with specific issues on spending, ie drugs and/or alcohol.
She was speaking before Iain Duncan Smith's announcement of a plan to give pre-paid cards to benefit claimants with drug and alcohol problems.
It is likely to be easy to get around by X buying groceries for X AND Y, with Y buying the drugs and/or booze for X.
The Work and Pensions Secretary will use his conference speech to announce a pilot programme for the cards, which he will claim will help protect the children of drug users from the "destructive habits" of their parents.
He is set to say: "I have long believed that where parents have fallen into a damaging spiral – drug or alcohol addiction, even problem debt, or more – we need to find ways to safeguard them – and more importantly, their families, their children, ensuring their basic needs are met."
This speech of Osborne's is one of the biggest political suicide notes in history.
Despite everything, I hadn't totally ruled out voting for them early this year.
It was never likely but all the main options are lousy.
They have now completely blown it.
(Where it is coming from is a total misreading of the nature of UKIP's appeal, of course)
No point voting anyway, Labour can't lose going by the polling in the marginal constituencies. Add the split in the right wing vote and Labours built in electoral advantage and the Conservatives can't really win.
But that isn't necessarily true, is it? It is more of a mantra. I see where you are coming from. I'm not ordinarily a Labour voter so am open to a range of arguments. But there are many questions that should be asked. The contingency fund for so-called emergencies, for example. It's huge. As it happens, I think we should be tackling IS now and it should have happened sooner. Many, though, don't agree including Diane Abbott and one N Farage.
We had the money for Libya, presumably from the same fund, which I opposed. We're involved in Ukraine which I oppose. I opposed intervention in Iraq in 2004. Unlike many on the left, I agree that the international aid budget could be slashed, not so much on UKIP grounds as I've listened to the experts who tell me that money is wasted without adequate targeting and monitoring. We can afford 11% pay rises for MPs apparently. We can bail out corrupt and useless banks along with a range of similar private companies. Government spends masses on radio ads.
We have no American post war loan to pay as we did between the late 1940s and 2004. We are not at the same level of debt as in 1945 when the country was on its knees. We can help Sierra Leone with ebola treatments. We can support Ireland - and those are policies I do agree with in the main but not everyone would do. The list of pay outs is almost endless and they are all based on decisions by Governments about what they consider to be the priorities. It isn't that the welfare budget is unsustainable. It is that people prefer to prioritise in other areas and then declare that it is unsustainable when it isn't a matter of absolute fact. I sense you are a Tory but one things that intrigues me about UKIP is that they would cut in most of these areas, leave the EU and its budget commitments, and still claim that welfare was unaffordable. What I would like to know is in whose pockets it will go instead.
Oh I am not a Tory. I'm not really any label, neither conservative nor liberal and yet somehow both at the same time. I believe in Ron Paulesque non interventionism (and agree with him fully on Iraq) and I strongly believe in free markets, small government and individual liberty (social and economic). If I had the option on my West Tyrone ballot, I would likely vote UK Libertarian Party.
Raising benefits below inflation and reducing spending like they did when they came into office just slowed down growth and will do again.
We are stuck with the Govt having to prop up the economy as big business will look for any and every way to get out of doing it - either by "avoiding" taxation or keeping wages suppressed.
Freezing benefits will just slow down the economy as people have smaller disposable incomes due to inflation in essential day-to-day spending.
Whether you agree with it or not benefit spending and public sector spending is important to the financial well-being of this country. I cannot see any party having the cajones to tackle the corporations to end this reliance.
Freezing benefits will just slow down the economy as people have smaller disposable incomes due to inflation in essential day-to-day spending.
Whether you agree with it or not benefit spending and public sector spending is important to the financial well-being of this country. I cannot see any party having the cajones to tackle the corporations to end this reliance.
Increasing benefits may pump more money into parts of the economy but it's not proper growth. For that you need people to get jobs, be productive and help companies make profits and pay taxes. If people want more money to live on than benefits offer then there's a simple solution.
Raising benefits below inflation and reducing spending like they did when they came into office just slowed down growth and will do again.
We are stuck with the Govt having to prop up the economy as big business will look for any and every way to get out of doing it - either by "avoiding" taxation or keeping wages suppressed.
Freezing benefits will just slow down the economy as people have smaller disposable incomes due to inflation in essential day-to-day spending.
Whether you agree with it or not benefit spending and public sector spending is important to the financial well-being of this country. I cannot see any party having the cajones to tackle the corporations to end this reliance.
It is and that is a ludicrous position to find ourselves in. Utterly unsustainable.
Oh I am not a Tory. I'm not really any label, neither conservative nor liberal and yet somehow both at the same time. I believe in Ron Paulesque non interventionism (and agree with him fully on Iraq) and I strongly believe in free markets, small government and individual liberty (social and economic). If I had the option on my West Tyrone ballot, I would likely vote UK Libertarian Party.
Well, there we are. I am socially a moderate, reasonably tolerant, conservative and I'm broadly social democrat in economics in the old sense with a big environmental strand. Try finding a party that fits into that equation. You won't - and yet that was the natural way before it was all twisted a about f after 1979. It seems to me that every party offers you a big chunk of what you want. Most just don't go far enough. I think all folk need a slice of the cake. I am strongly with Paul on most of his policy on international diplomacy and with him all the way re Eastern Europe. But then I can find a range of people on the fringes who agree and I do take a different view on the IS initiative.
Increasing benefits may pump more money into parts of the economy but it's not proper growth. For that you need people to get jobs, be productive and help companies make profits and pay taxes. If people want more money to live on than benefits offer then there's a simple solution.
It doesn't matter. Economics is based on one simple truth:
My spending equals your income. Your spending equals my income.
If the Govt reduces its spending then that means the private sector's income is reduced. If the private sector's income is reduced then their spending will be reduced, which means someone elses income is reduced and so on and so on.
Freezing benefits means that people will have less money to spend because of the inevitable inflation which means reduced spending and reduced incomes.
Unless we mask it with the Pillars of Sand approach involving credit that happened under the last Labour Govt.
Oh I am not a Tory. I'm not really any label, neither conservative nor liberal and yet somehow both at the same time. I believe in Ron Paulesque non interventionism (and agree with him fully on Iraq) and I strongly believe in free markets, small government and individual liberty (social and economic). If I had the option on my West Tyrone ballot, I would likely vote UK Libertarian Party.
Incidentally:
I don't think libertarianism works. In a strange sense, ISIL are libertarian. They do exactly what they want. It just requires heavy authoritarianism on others to achieve it. The way of life is a natural balance so any full freedom for one lot will be seen as full constraint by the other. The latter will fight unless they're forced to run for their lives.
ISIL believe that the ultimate liberty is a world without music. That music itself is a constraint. So you get the sort of situation where the ISIL form of libertarianism hears about some folk in a tent in the desert. They are minding their own business listening to desert blues. The next thing they are supposedly freed from their chains. The Tinariwen gig is stopped rapidly and replaced by a festival of decapitation. Everyone is free - but only in a most peculiar form.
Comments
How the bloody hell has he got away with for so long. Nobody else wants the job, I guess.
This speech of Osborne's is one of the biggest political suicide notes in history.
Despite everything, I hadn't totally ruled out voting for them early this year.
It was never likely but all the main options are lousy.
They have now completely blown it.
(Where it is coming from is a total misreading of the nature of UKIP's appeal, of course)
It's beyond taking the p***. They have the face to spend a fortune on tax cuts for that, then in the next breath talk about the need for savings and take money from a poor bloke living on 50 quid a week.
We are living longer.
Since 1951, there has been an 80% increase in the number of people over 65. Over the same time, the general population has increased by around 25%.
Read the Parliamentary report here
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn03228.pdf&ei=jXApVLG5GIaWar2mgvAJ&usg=AFQjCNHrKoP59-xSDNv3YLcM_JPULbGwfw
And its costs more to keep us alive. For instance, nearly half of Dorset County Council entire budget goes on looking after old people.
In about 25 years time, I'll be calling on future taxpayers to pay for someone to look after me, when I am too old to feed, clothe or clean myself.
In the link posted this was only going to happen with the cusomer's consent.
All main parties want to abolish NI in the long run but it's an horrendously difficult and complex topic and it's another potential government IT disaster in the making.. There are always winners and losers from any small change in the tax system. Merging Income Tax and NI would affect everyone, especially pensioners.
That is mainly because of the National Minimum Wage, many employers class the NMW as the rate to pay and never think of paying their employees any more than that rate ...... so they have to claim Working Tax Credit to meet the short fall.
Many employers also only offer part time work, it is cheaper for them, the earnings don't reach the NI threshold, but being part time and off JSA does mean that unemployment register reduces.
We are talking about private pension pots here - not defined benefit schemes. So you can bet they almost certainly will!
But that isn't necessarily true, is it? It is more of a mantra. I see where you are coming from. I'm not ordinarily a Labour voter so am open to a range of arguments. But there are many questions that should be asked. The contingency fund for so-called emergencies, for example. It's huge. As it happens, I think we should be tackling IS now and it should have happened sooner. Many, though, don't agree including Diane Abbott and one N Farage.
We have no American post war loan to pay as we did between the late 1940s and 2004. We are not at the same level of debt as in 1945 when the country was on its knees. We had the money for Libya, presumably from the above mentioned contingency fund, which I opposed. We're involved in Ukraine which I oppose. I opposed intervention in Iraq in 2004. Unlike many on the left, I agree that the international aid budget could be slashed, not so much on UKIP grounds as I've listened to the experts who tell me that money is wasted without adequate targeting and monitoring. We can afford 11% pay rises for MPs apparently. We can bail out corrupt and useless banks along with a range of similar private companies. Government spends masses on repetitive radio ads.
We can help Sierra Leone with ebola treatments. We can support Ireland - and those are policies I do agree with in the main but not everyone would do. The list of pay outs is almost endless and they are all based on decisions by Governments about what they consider to be the priorities. It isn't that the welfare budget is unsustainable. It is that people prefer to prioritise in other areas and then declare that it is unsustainable when it isn't a matter of absolute fact. I sense you are a Tory but one thing that intrigues me about UKIP is that they would cut in most of these areas, leave the EU and its budget commitments, and still claim that welfare was unaffordable. What I would like to know is in whose pockets it will go instead. I suspect most of it will end up in the Caymans or the good ole US of A.
Yep, and?
They will simply buy permitted items and trade them with friends and family for luxuries.
There has been a policy of trying to convince us it's the poor who are responsible for the countries economic problems, but I wonder if this is going to far.
What is wrong with that?
No point voting anyway, Labour can't lose going by the polling in the marginal constituencies. Add the split in the right wing vote and Labours built in electoral advantage and the Conservatives can't really win.
Oh I am not a Tory. I'm not really any label, neither conservative nor liberal and yet somehow both at the same time. I believe in Ron Paulesque non interventionism (and agree with him fully on Iraq) and I strongly believe in free markets, small government and individual liberty (social and economic). If I had the option on my West Tyrone ballot, I would likely vote UK Libertarian Party.
Raising benefits below inflation and reducing spending like they did when they came into office just slowed down growth and will do again.
We are stuck with the Govt having to prop up the economy as big business will look for any and every way to get out of doing it - either by "avoiding" taxation or keeping wages suppressed.
Freezing benefits will just slow down the economy as people have smaller disposable incomes due to inflation in essential day-to-day spending.
Whether you agree with it or not benefit spending and public sector spending is important to the financial well-being of this country. I cannot see any party having the cajones to tackle the corporations to end this reliance.
Increasing benefits may pump more money into parts of the economy but it's not proper growth. For that you need people to get jobs, be productive and help companies make profits and pay taxes. If people want more money to live on than benefits offer then there's a simple solution.
It is and that is a ludicrous position to find ourselves in. Utterly unsustainable.
Well, there we are. I am socially a moderate, reasonably tolerant, conservative and I'm broadly social democrat in economics in the old sense with a big environmental strand. Try finding a party that fits into that equation. You won't - and yet that was the natural way before it was all twisted a about f after 1979. It seems to me that every party offers you a big chunk of what you want. Most just don't go far enough. I think all folk need a slice of the cake. I am strongly with Paul on most of his policy on international diplomacy and with him all the way re Eastern Europe. But then I can find a range of people on the fringes who agree and I do take a different view on the IS initiative.
It doesn't matter. Economics is based on one simple truth:
My spending equals your income. Your spending equals my income.
If the Govt reduces its spending then that means the private sector's income is reduced. If the private sector's income is reduced then their spending will be reduced, which means someone elses income is reduced and so on and so on.
Freezing benefits means that people will have less money to spend because of the inevitable inflation which means reduced spending and reduced incomes.
Unless we mask it with the Pillars of Sand approach involving credit that happened under the last Labour Govt.
I don't think libertarianism works. In a strange sense, ISIL are libertarian. They do exactly what they want. It just requires heavy authoritarianism on others to achieve it. The way of life is a natural balance so any full freedom for one lot will be seen as full constraint by the other. The latter will fight unless they're forced to run for their lives.
ISIL believe that the ultimate liberty is a world without music. That music itself is a constraint. So you get the sort of situation where the ISIL form of libertarianism hears about some folk in a tent in the desert. They are minding their own business listening to desert blues. The next thing they are supposedly freed from their chains. The Tinariwen gig is stopped rapidly and replaced by a festival of decapitation. Everyone is free - but only in a most peculiar form.