What happens to state benefit in a recession

PasturesNew

Cleaver wrote: »

We could sterilise all poor people's babies at birth to stop them having any more poor people in the next generation.

Oi laaaarrrrfed.

clobber_2

SingleSue wrote: »

some stuff argiung with a troll

Don't bother Sue. That was a deeply unpleasant remark and the sort of person who would say such a horrible thing about a stranger isn't going to listen to reason. Those of us that will, already respect you.

ad9898_3

huntersc wrote: »

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.

I think that's a weak argument hunter, the more you have the more you will generally spend, I think that goes for most people. Take a look around your nearest new build estate for instance, plenty of new cars and nice gardens. All that is money that has been spent in the economy.

To take an extreme example, look at footballers, they blow huge amounts of money. I don't buy Brown's argument, I think it depends on your nature whether you spend or save, I don't think it has a lot to do with whether you're rich or poor.

treliac

ad9898 wrote: »

I think it depends on your nature whether you spend or save, I don't think it has a lot to do with whether your rich or poor.

And the values and attitudes you've absorbed - but maybe they all contribute to what would be described as being 'your nature'

treliac

SingleSue wrote: »

I can assure you that I am neither lazy or the horrible word you have accused me of being......

Everyone who reads your detailed posts, Sue, knows how hard you work and how much more of a contribution you are trying to make.

Pay no attention - nobody else will.

Pobby

treliac wrote: »

Everyone who reads your detailed posts, Sue, knows how hard you work and how much more of a contribution you are trying to make.

Pay no attention - nobody else will.

Seconded! Obviously someone that doesn`t know you, is insulting and jumps to incorrect conclusions.

SingleSue

Thanks guys

I think Islandannie realised that she had gone too far and has since apologised via a private message.

dmg24

islandannie,

I trust that you are mature enough to take back your comment and apologise publicly also? You are quick enough to make such comments for everyone to read, so I would assume you are also willing to correct such statements in the public arena?

Spendless

amcluesent wrote: »

Some fairness needs applied to restore balance between tax payers and benefits claimants (I mean non-contributory benefits, not pensions).

1) Declining child-benefits, 100%, 66%, 33% then nothing for 4th or greater child. Doing a 'Karen Mathews' isn't an acceptable option.
2) Non-contributory benefits paid in DSS vouchers than can only be used for food/clothes. Jetting off to Tenerife on benefits isn't acceptable.
3) A wee bit more radical, long term benefits claimants taken off electoral roll.

Point 1 does happen for the first 2 children, where CB is now £20 a week and around £13 for subsequent children. Not strong enough maths to work it out but think it would be about 66% for second as you suggest, though it declines no further for additional children.

nickmason

It has already determined how much money will be needed for benefits payments in the forthcoming year. This money will be paid to local councils to distribute.

Typically this prediction is a little short of the real need.

The resulting shortfall therefore comes out of local authority money. So council tax will go up.

Next year, the recession will be over :rotfl:;) so the prediction will not represent the increased burden.