What happens to state benefit in a recession

Broken_hearted

leveller2911 wrote: »

Agreed, but to be honest most of the scum on our estates dont even bother to vote, trouble is that !!!!!! in Downing St is so distant from the populous he hasnt got a clue..poor fellow....ps when I say Scum I mean the lazy,the world owes me a living benefit scum.............NOT the benefit recipients who are genuine..just wanted to point that out....

Again not true if those on benefits didn't vote policy wouldn't be made to keep them happy as their votes wouldn't keep that party in.

beingjdc

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Again not true if those on benefits didn't vote policy wouldn't be made to keep them happy as their votes wouldn't keep that party in.

Mostly pensioners, they vote no matter what. 75% of the over-65s voted in the 2005 election. Overall turnout was 61%, and it was 53% among social classes D+E - unskilled workers and those on long-term benefits (which includes people on only the state pension).

So I imagine if you strip out the pensioners from that 53%, you get a number that, while non-zero, is well below half, and well below the 70% turnout registered by social classes A+B.

Quite apart from that, ask people on benefits if they're happy with government policy. You may be surprised by the answer.

Mori believe that among social class D+E, Labour got 48% of the vote at the 2005 election. Not bad, but about what you'd expect from a group comprising unskilled workers - still less than half, and really rubbish if you believe they're being used as a policy-led block vote. Taken together with the turnout of less than 50%, it means fewer than 1 in 4 of this so-called block vote actually delivered the goods.

tuggy12

beingjdc wrote: »

I had slightly misremembered.

Brilliant ! Is that the same as forgotten then?:T

beingjdc

tuggy12 wrote: »

Brilliant ! Is that the same as forgotten then?:T

:beer:
Well, I'd correctly remembered that there wasn't a blanket rule against children sharing bedrooms, that it was based on age, and that the age was younger for sharing with the opposite sex. I'd just misremembered the actual age.

I think, to be pedantic, if I think my keys are in my jacket pocket but they're in my trouser pocket, I've misremembered. If I have no idea where they are at all (a more frequent occurence), then I've forgotten.

Or to pick an example which actually happened to me today, if I put a dishwasher tablet in the powder tray, I've misremembered how my washing machine works. If I put nothing in there at all, I've forgotten...

silvercar

The technical answer to the original question is that the claimants get whatever their entitlement is and the budget is blown.

There are two main types of government expenditure called voted and non-voted. Voted means that parliament has voted to give £xx (million) for YY, non-voted is where parliament has voted that benefit claimants would get £75.63 a week each or whatever amount and the total amount is determined by the number eligible, so parliament doesn't "vote" on a limit. To balance the books (:rotfl: ) there is a pot of money that used to be called "The Reserve", don't know what it is called nowadays; anything larger than expected comes from the Reserve. If the Reserve isn't sufficient then it can be enlarged in a budget or similar.

ad9898_3

huntersc wrote: »

So rather than working on bringing back credit which is long term one suggestion would be to increase benefits by 30%. That would get the economy going again.

Instead of giving young teenage girls the idea of a career path in benefits by increasing them by 30%, why not cut out 'potential benefit opportunists' who may spend taxpayers money and give the taxes directly back to the people the government took them from in the first place, i.e us.

I would resent the government handing out more of my money for other people to spend, if I earn it, I would like the option of spending it myself.

swampduck

As part of a generation who paid for and brought up my own children without help from the state except in the form of child benefit. It annoys me intensely when people today bleat on about how expensive it is to bring up children.
Been there and done that - like countless generations of parents and families before me. Why do people think they are entitled to help to pay for their children? If you can't afford them then dont have them and if you do have them - be prepared to go without for the next eighteen years while you pay for them.
Before anyone says owt about the older generation - I'm still in my 40's with a child still at college - so I do know what it's like to do without - and even be the only or main wage earner but I still survived a marriage breakdown and all the other stuff that comes with that without living off the state.
Start taking responsibility for what you do in life and be prepared for some hard times. It's what happens when you have children!!

leveller2911

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Again not true if those on benefits didn't vote policy wouldn't be made to keep them happy as their votes wouldn't keep that party in.

You totally missed my point, I live on council estates,I said it was the lazy,"the world owes me a living",dole scum that dont vote and not the genuine benefit recipients who have. worked and paid in....

stand by what I said I know lots of lazy,"I cant earn enough to justify working" who get benefit and trust me they DONT vote....... .

DO you live on a council estate??? or just someone like MR broon at downing st who thinks they vote?

mewbie_2

Broken_hearted wrote: »

What happens to state benefit in a recession

They are resented more.

huntersc

ad9898 wrote: »

Instead of giving young teenage girls the idea of a career path in benefits by increasing them by 30%, why not cut out 'potential benefit opportunists' who may spend taxpayers money and give the taxes directly back to the people the government took them from in the first place, i.e us.

I would resent the government handing out more of my money for other people to spend, if I earn it, I would like the option of spending it myself.

The problem is that you wouldn't spend it. Increase the money to those on benefits and they'd spend the lot. We'd just save it which defeats the purpose.