If benefits stop as the government have no money

krisskross

bestpud wrote: »

The figures can't be argued with though. It was worth a lot more then that it is now, which means benefits are not a new phenomenon. Yes we have tax credits now but then when you look at the reduction in real costs of child benefit...

No, if you look back to my post on milk it is obvious that CB today buys more than child benefit did in 1979. then it took a whole weeks child benefit for 1 child to buy 24 pints of milk, today that same 24 pints of milk would cost £9. CB is minimally approx £12 isn't it so just on milk would be worth 25% more than the 1979 CB. Certainly childrens clothes are cheaper pro rata than they were then. I could not have bought a complete school outfit for each of my children for the equivalent of 1 weeks CB which you can now from Asda or Tesco.

I honestly feel that families with children are very well looked after benefitwise. Which is why so many people have a dreadful financial shock when their youngsters leave education.

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Oh well, everyone I know had their own place, but thinking about it they were all couples - so yes, you are correct.

Senior moment there!

As now, probably the main reason for being in a couple!

Chrysalis

cut backs are already happening and have been happening for years, for example the recent welfare reform has been worked on for a number of years, that will result in massive cutbacks on incapacity benefit payouts.

I think we will see some cutbacks in relation to single parents as well as the government is making noises about them having to work etc.

The only benefit I see as 100% safe is child benefit as no government will dare touch that.

Targets of any cuts will be the usual suspects, childless adults, especially young adults.

Chrysalis

arealbasketcase wrote: »

A requirement to severely cut or stop benefits would only happen if the UK economy was in such a disastrous position that, to be honest, none of us would be left unaffected.

Now, bearing my over simplification of the situation in mind, can all those people who think they would be unaffected because they are in the fortunate position of not, currently, being in receipt of benefits kindly put themselves in the position of those who do rely on them and rethink how they would cope in a situation of rampant inflation, raging unemployment and no state benefits. If you need any further help in imaging that situation think Zimbabwe today or Germany in the 1920's.

There was a newspaper report a year or so back saying about 2/3rds of the population rely on some sort of state benefit.

Chrysalis

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Good post krisskross.

I'm sure living on benefits is not easy but we must not forget that some people also work for pittances and quite often end up worse off than those on benefits.

My son works for minimum wage at Matalan and can not afford to buy or even rent a place on his own, (as he is single and has no children he is not entitled to any benefits) which most of us who worked in the 70s could do.

Personally I think the worst off group of adults are childless ones working for a low wage. The system is either ignorant or seems to consider that they will be living under someone else roof and so be subsidised.

Chrysalis

mitchaa wrote: »

Apart from £18.80pw CB, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to us. It is put directly into my sons saving account for when he is 18. I never needed it before he was born so certainly dont need it now.

£158bn raised through income tax, £161bn spent out in Social welfare.

Absoloute ludicrous, the benefits system is long due a drastic overhaul. Something i believe the tories will do when they come into power.

So i really do think the moral of this thread is highly possible. I can see (hopefully) big benefit cuts coming soon.

An instant saver would be limiting CTC and CB to a maximum of 2 children, that in itself would save the country billions.

The vast majority of that is on pensions. No government would dare limiting child related benefits not even the tories I expect, did a tory MP resign when he suggested capping child related benefits?

Chrysalis

bestpud wrote: »

The problem with stopping working tax credits is that the NMW is not high enough to keep a family.

I would argue people did not used to manage without benefits! Do we really want to go back 100 years?

If we are going to start cutting benefits, it may be better to start with those on full benefits, but able to work! Why do people think they are more worthy of full support than those working for a living but getting a top up?

Re disabilities - shoot me down in flames but I really do not believe those on disability benefits are poor under the current system. I am not saying they should be though - to make that clear!! It is absolutely right that people with disabilities can lead a reasonable existence on benefits and it would be wrong to leave them without an income and unable to work should there be any benefit cuts. But I do not believe they are poor as it stands at present. *Takes cover*

Interesting question OP.

We were turned down for a loan (Nationwide) a few years back on the basis that tax credits could be withdrawn at any given time and thus they only counted our wage!

People who are disabled I agree are entitled to a comfortable amount but of course they have higher living costs. However been entitled to something and getting it is very different things, IB isnt as easy to get as is made out to be and DLA is notoriosly hard to get when you havent got a reliable diagnosis.

Chrysalis

Conor wrote: »

Err, I think you'll find they do. You want to be very careful going down this path as a lot of disabled people living off benefits get far more income than a very large percentage of the working population and by bleating on about how badly off you are, all you do is put a lot of peoples backs up.

Take my sis-in-law who has a child with Duchens MD and two other kids. She gets a free roof over her head, a free car with everything paid for but the fuel and a higher income than both me and the missus get for grafting our backsides off - me doing 50+hrs a week and the wife 25hrs.

Badly off financially on disability? Yeah, right.

you still better off tho as you have your health.

PasturesNew

In the US most people don't get benefits.

My friend, late 40s, was let go from his job after 11 years. It completely floored him. He got 6 months' benefits and that was his lot. He tried applying for jobs and didn't get one. He then called me, he was down to his last $1000 and was about to default on his rent. Over there it's "no rent, out on the streets". He said something that made me think he was going to spend his last $1000 and then just kill himself.

Luckily I managed to persuade him to sign up for some temping agencies - and luckily he did actually get a job within 3 weeks. But that's luck. Just signing with one doesn't mean there's any work for you or that you'll get it.

So he didn't top himself.

But over there, if you've no money then that's your lot.

mitchaa

Chrysalis wrote: »

The vast majority of that is on pensions. No government would dare limiting child related benefits not even the tories I expect, did a tory MP resign when he suggested capping child related benefits?

IIRC around £30-£35bn of the £161bn was pension related.

That does not = vast majority:rolleyes:

I see no reason why a British government could not cap child related benefits to 2 children.

Something needs to be done about benefit spending and the tories have already stated that they are willing to sort it out.