Benefits and the deficit: what would you cut?

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

Soundbites extraordinaire

What's the difference, for example, between creating a pension system that has £2,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities and requires taxpayers to continually pump more money in while others draw money out, and a Ponzi scheme?

I don't see any difference except Bernard Madoff is in prison and Gordon Brown isn't.

He's enslaved generations of taxpayers if we keep that system.

michael1983l

What will inevitably happen is that inflation will skyrocket rendering pensions useless.

shegirl

I wouldn't touch DLA or Carers Allowance -for those who are genuine DLA is needed and makes a huge difference to the life of the person effected (if used properly -one huge bugbear of mine is the way some parents use it as just additional household income rather than to help their kids) and CA is a great help to those who stay at home to care.

I would completely scrap the Child Trust Fund and the Health in Pregnancy Grant.Both are completely unnecessary and the Health in Pregnancy crap is never used for it's purpose.

I would also like to see the Sure Start Grant reduced and limited to payment for one child only!£500 per baby?Ridiculous!!!

Wouldn't touch pension either as I've seen how hard it is for elderly to live on it.

The Winter Fuel Payment needs to be means tested.

Child Tax Credit should reduce per child and should only pay for a certain amount of children.

michael1983l

If we are talking about where to save then we should immidiatly look at the inherrent system of budgets in all government departments. At the moment the way it works is each department is given a budget for the year and that department will spend every penny in fear of losing it. If a department is under budget then in most cases the top brass will reduce their budget the next year based on the fact they didn't spend in full the previous year. This means at the end of each financial year all government departments blow their excess cash on stuff they don't really need.

How the system should work is guarantees that budgets will not be cut if departments underspend. Also to encourage efficiency amongst all employee's a bonus should be shared between each department of a share of any remaining budget left at the end of the year. For example say 5% of what is saved is passed on as an Xmas bonus.

What this would encourage would be efficiency and unnecessary spending. I think adopting this system would immidiatly save billions per year. It would also go some way into keeping the workforce extra happy with added cash.

If your reading Mr cameron, get it in your manifesto.

StevieJ

michael1983l wrote: »

Your mistaken, Nu Labour increased spending in the NHS funded by borrowing. They then continued to do this throughout their whole term. In reality yes waiting lists were shortened however in proportion with investment they did not. Instead the NHS has become top heavy and now has more managers than nurses.

No you are wrong when they were alected in 1997 Labour accepted all the Tory spending plans.

michael1983l

StevieJ wrote: »

No you are wrong when they were alected in 1997 Labour accepted all the Tory spending plans.

How long for exactly (not that I believe it to be true) and even if they did that does not relinquish them of the responsibility. They accepted the budget. Even so the damage was done mostly during 2000-2005

Rochdale_Pioneers

michael1983l wrote: »

How long for exactly (not that I believe it to be true) and even if they did that does not relinquish them of the responsibility. They accepted the budget. Even so the damage was done mostly during 2000-2005

Tell you what. Keep on ignoring reality and tell yourself whatever bedtime stories you like whilst the rest of us discuss things that actually happened.

In reality debt as a percentage of GDP had been falling after its early 90s spike and Labour kept that going post 1997. Remember the fuss about pensioners getting pennies? That was Brown keeping Tory spending plans going, keeping relative austerity going for the whole first term.

Its only post 2001 that Labour spent any money. And even then the net effect was a FALL, yes a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP in the 10 years between being elected and the Northern Rock crash.

cit_k

Kohoutek wrote: »

To solve the deficit, would you cut the benefits budget in addition to the inevitable cuts in front line public services?

From the FT:

Basic state pension: £61.7b
Tax credits: £23b
Housing benefit: £17.2b
Universal child benefit: £11.4b
Disability Living Allowance: £10b
Income Support: £8.7b
Pension credit: £7.8b
Incapacity benefit: £6.6b
Attendance Allowance: £4.8b
Council Tax benefit: £4.2b
Jobseeker's Allowance: £2.9b
Winter Fuel Payment: £2.7b
Carer's Allowance: £1.4b
Christmas Bonus (£10 every Xmas for retired and benefit claimants): £830m
Funeral Benefits: £626m
Community Care Grants: £626m
Free TV Licences: £533m
Education Maintenance Allowance: £532m
Asylum Seeker's Benefit: £509m
Maternity Allowance (for those not on statutory pay): £327m
Heating benefits (grants for insulation etc): £295m

I find it ironic we spend 5.5x more on primary benefits for people that are disabled or 'incapable' of work (DLA & Incapacity Benefit) than on JSA. There must either be a huge number of disabled people out there or a lot of abuse of the system.

I would have to question the JSA figure for a couple of reasons.

Im not sure what the years figures were for number of claimaints exactly for JSA, but I would have thought it at least around 1.6 million , going by this (it may well be more)



Even if we take the absolute lowest you can get on JSA 50.95 a week (which is only for the under 25's) I work out the following

50.95 * 52 = 2649.4 JSA per year minimum (in reality it will be more for many)

2.9 billion claimaints divided by that figure should give us how many claimaints were paid.

2900000000 / 2649.4 = 1[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]094[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]587.45


Just over 1 million....

That is supposed to be the number of claimaints for Jobseekers? I seriously doubt that is the case, it does not match the graph above, nor any thing else I have come across, according to the FT figures as far as I can tell , just over 1 million people are unemployed and claiming jobseekers.... and that would be if everyone was under 24.. There would have to be less people claiming if (as their will be) many are claiming the higher rate of JSA.

The second reason I doubt the JSA figure, is if you factor in the cost of the courses people are sent on after 6 months or so (like a4e courses) the amount per person goes up a lot, its 100 pound per week, per person for a typical a4e course, and its mandatory, so would have to be included in the cost of JSA figures.

I think those figures have been deliberately fugded to make out there is a problem with people on the sick, and less of a problem with healthy people claiming JSA.

cit_k

I notice they also dont show in the figures the hundreds of millions that are lost due to DWP errors....

MrsE_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Cut 30% from every public sector worker earning more than 20k

Is 20k such a high wage?