MSE News: Massive changes for your pocket: coalition plans revealed

Paulgonnabedebtfree

BERFFRO wrote: »

I really hope they give the benefit system a really good shake up. I'm really angry that people who have never worked have everything, I see it more now been out of work, I have to travel by bus as i cant afford to keep a car but i see "fake" disability claimants passing in their brand new cars, make me so angry!

QUOTE]

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to assess someone being fake or not by external appearances. There are many kinds of disability.
I have been angrier about the hoops that genuinely disabled have been made to jump through. In years gone by, I have had two friends who were finally sent letters (after years of wrangling and appealing) accepting them for disability benefit - shortly after they died due the illnesses that were causing their disabilities. I also once knew an older man who was turned down flat for disability benefit - even though both legs had been amputated. Unfortunately he came from a generation that accepted authorities' decisions and never followed it up. He too later died from the illness that caused his disability (diabetes).
I don't doubt that there are fakers too but the current stance of automatically turning down initial applications and the first few appeals needs to be urgently reviewed IMO.
Also bear in mind that (IIRC) disabled people only qualify for a car if they are at the worst level of disability (I could be wrong on this). Also, the car is in lieu of the disability part of the payment. The payment is partly to allow mobility such as for paying fares for public transport or taxis. They are merely given the choice as to whether they wish to have use of a more convenient means of transport. They never actually own the vehicle.
I feel it would be a bad move to remove this facility just because the assessment board MAY HAVE assessed a small minority incorrectly. The car is returned to the car pool where it may be sold as a used car or whatever they wish to do with it so the disabled person never actually benefits from any residual value in the vehicle. Indeed, if they have been unable to look after it properly (or have chosen not to) there can sometimes be a payment due.

qball101

The thing about these tax rises and benefits is that they affect different regions differently. I think you'll find that a couple earning £25k each with 3 kids who living in London are a lot poorer than a similar couple in Cumbria for example. Not only are housing costs likely to be more expensive for the London couple, but so is childcare, entertainment and a whole host of other things. The limits for these benefits should be tied to the cost of living in that region.

Mac_Sami

National Insurance: To fund the tax break for some, the Tories have abandoned plans to reverse Labour's one percentage point rise in NI, which will come into effect next April. However, the Government will shelve Labour plans to raise the amount of NI employers pay.

Am I the only one who thinks this is strangely worded - "abandoned plans to reverse Labour's one percentage point rise in NI".

In other words, they're saying the Tories won't prevent a rise in NI in April 2011?

Labour planned to increase NI by 1% for employees and employers
Tories plan to increase NI by 1% for employees only

Or have I misunderstood something?

Siemo

BERFFRO wrote: »

A suggestion for them is to cap child benefits at 2 or 3 kids for the unemployed.

I think it should be capped for everyone, whether employed or not. It is not a 'right' to have children, if you can't afford to look after them you shouldn't have them in the first place.

Also, I'd like to see the 'Health in Pregnancy' grant removed (£190 for anyone who is pregnant - regardless of income) or at the very least changed to mothercare vouchers or something - at the moment you can spend it on drugs or cigarettes if you want to!!

mustin

qball101 wrote: »

The thing about these tax rises and benefits is that they affect different regions differently. I think you'll find that a couple earning £25k each with 3 kids who living in London are a lot poorer than a similar couple in Cumbria for example. Not only are housing costs likely to be more expensive for the London couple, but so is childcare, entertainment and a whole host of other things. The limits for these benefits should be tied to the cost of living in that region.

I have to disagree. London has sucked the life out of the rest of the country for years and the recent banking crisis is the nation’s legacy for believing some nonsense about the importance of the city. Why should the rest of the country pay more for people living in the capital ? We should collapse the banking sector and it's bonus culture which falsely props up London and its inhabitants into some disillusionment that it is more prominent and important than the regions. If we stopped diverting billions of taxpayers’ pounds regenerating vast swathes of the capital under the falsehood of the Olympics, if we taxed bank bonuses to 75% to regenerate the slums in other parts of the country then property would be cheaper in the capital and you would feel better off. If we fairly distributed lottery funds to the rest of the country and ceased top slicing other regions budgets to pump into London then other areas would be much more attractive for you and the kids (which if you can't afford you shouldn't have). Oh, and to all those blood sucking whingers who claim they would go abroad if we get tough on these slimy city kinds then good riddance and I bid you farewell from Britain. See how far you get abroad. We don't need you.

mjm3346

Mac_Sami wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks this is strangely worded - "abandoned plans to reverse Labour's one percentage point rise in NI".

In other words, they're saying the Tories won't prevent a rise in NI in April 2011?

Labour planned to increase NI by 1% for employees and employers
Tories plan to increase NI by 1% for employees only

Or have I misunderstood something?

The Tories made much of the "jobs tax" that increasing NI can be but by removing the increase for employers it is no longer a "jobs tax". If they are sticking to the Labour plans for employees the NI start point will rise to about £7,000 so employees earning just over £20,000 or under will pay less NI than they do now and someone on £25,000 would pay about £37 a year more.

mjm3346

mustin wrote: »

I have to disagree. London has sucked the life out of the rest of the country for years .... and ceased top slicing other regions budgets to pump into London ....We don't need you.

Actually it is the other way round, London and the SE do not need you. For decades money has been been sucked out of the area as the greater south east is the only region where people get back less in public spending than is paid through taxation (upto £19.4 Billion in the 2007/2008 tax year).
As for the Olympics you are more than welcome to have it as far away from London as you can get it.

competitionscafe

"With the need to find ways to tackle the £169bn budget deficit, what would you do if someone offered a way to save £6bn this year rising to £10bn per year next year and ever after – with no public sector cuts or increases in taxes? And, what if this also boosted the green economy, creating jobs? And met consumer demand? And helped improve health?"..... [continued at link]

Food for thought.

John_Pierpoint

Just cancel the subsidies already paid to landowners via the common agricultural policy and you would be two thirds of the way to saving the 6 billion.
But how fair would that be to the big land owners like Tate & Lyle sugar and the Royal family?.

http://farmsubsidy.org/GB

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/latest-news/civil-servants-criticised-for-withholding-uk-cap-data/31773.article

qball101

mustin wrote: »

I have to disagree. London has sucked the life out of the rest of the country for years and the recent banking crisis is the nation’s legacy for believing some nonsense about the importance of the city. Why should the rest of the country pay more for people living in the capital ? We should collapse the banking sector and it's bonus culture which falsely props up London and its inhabitants into some disillusionment that it is more prominent and important than the regions. If we stopped diverting billions of taxpayers’ pounds regenerating vast swathes of the capital under the falsehood of the Olympics, if we taxed bank bonuses to 75% to regenerate the slums in other parts of the country then property would be cheaper in the capital and you would feel better off. If we fairly distributed lottery funds to the rest of the country and ceased top slicing other regions budgets to pump into London then other areas would be much more attractive for you and the kids (which if you can't afford you shouldn't have). Oh, and to all those blood sucking whingers who claim they would go abroad if we get tough on these slimy city kinds then good riddance and I bid you farewell from Britain. See how far you get abroad. We don't need you.

I have to point out that London pays the vast majority of tax in this country and contrary to popular belief, most people who live and work there are not bankers. As for me, I live on the Isle of Wight so the unfair tax burden for London just suits me fine.