What happens to state benefit in a recession

islandannie

irish_eyes wrote: »

Just a thought. How many contributers to this thread receive child benefit or working tax credits?

Lots of them.

treliac

PasturesNew wrote: »

With the price of many rents + council tax -v- minimum wage takehome, there's often no contest.

If housing was much cheaper working would make sense.

If you are single and healthy, you can only look to your own earning power to keep you and you have to pay your own way.

However, if you are vulnerable or responsible for vulnerable dependants, your benefits are likely to increase in proportion to your family requirements.

I can imagine that, if I had only a low earning power, I would make the obvious choices to secure as comfortable a life as possible, by whatever means I could.

Broken_hearted

gemmalouanna wrote: »

If people need extra things for care etc then these should be provided in reality not as cash - wonder how quickly the undeserving DLA claimants receiving the care component would be happy with actually receiving the 'care' as a person coming round to help them rather than cash!

Exstatic the care needs far exceed the crappy little amount of DLA won't even cover the cost of someone to come in to cover morning care let alone 24/7, thats including the motability componant cash.

ad9898_3

huntersc wrote: »

No, it's not a weak argument, it's been tested and has examples throughout history. Anyone that has studied political economics will understand the correlation between wealth, class and spend.

Of course you're right, in general terms, that the more you have the more you spend but that's not the issue. It's the proportion of what you have that you spend that's critical.

Take a basic example. If I give you £500 in your next pay packet, you're most likely to spend some and keep a good proportion saved.

If I take the average person on benefits and give them £500 what do you think will happen? Do you think they will save the same proportion? One only needs to look at the distribution of savings accounts to those defined as E, D and C2. B and C1 are far more likely to save a higher proportion of disposable which is demonstrated by their use of the banking system for savings.

So if you want to stimulate the economy you rebate money to those that are most likely to spend it, the poor and lower classes. You reduce interest rates so that the rich feel less inclined to save.

This really is very basic stuff, I'm sure we have our wires crossed and that you agree with me?

I thanked you because you put your point across well, I'm just not sure about the concept. The very problem we have at this time is everyone has spent too much, the middle classes especially, you only have to look at the personal debt mountain we have here, not many of them have saved, they have spent what they have got and what they haven't.

Broken_hearted

SingleSue wrote: »

I would really really love that....it would mean I could go back to work in my normal sector on a decent salary as the problem of childcare for a disabled child would be removed.

Been saying that for years either that or pay me the wage of a full time carer.why when I work harder than most do people think they have the right to treat me badly because in their view I don't work.

PasturesNew

irish_eyes wrote: »

Just a thought. How many contributers to this thread receive child benefit or working tax credits?

I don't get a penny from anywhere.

Broken_hearted

PasturesNew wrote: »

I don't get a penny from anywhere.

Ever? No state education, healthcare, dentistry

seven-day-weekend

Cleaver wrote: »

I think that's how Pol Pot and Hitler started.

Although I believe Hitler was a veggie, so presumably didn't have a chicken jalfrezi.

Hitler was not only vegetarian, he was a non-smoker, a teetotaller and loved dogs and children.
Some people might say he was a model citizen.

Back on-topic - I think child benefit should be curtailed after two children and given in the form of vouchers for food and clothing.

However as I have said before many times, I would rather one 'benefits scrounger' got away with it than have a genuine claimant suffer.

Cleaver

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Hitler was not only vegetarian, he was a non-smoker, a teetotaller and loved dogs and children.
Some people might say he was a model citizen.

Aside from all the killings of course? And that awful hair and 'tache combo. So 1940's.

gemmalouanna

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Exstatic the care needs far exceed the crappy little amount of DLA won't even cover the cost of someone to come in to cover morning care let alone 24/7, thats including the motability componant cash.

Thats what I mean provide the actual 'care' so that the genuine benefit as I am fully aware that the amount won't cover what some of the people on DLA need but there are so many getting this money for no/minor things and they need to be sorted and let those who need it get what they deserve.