Extra £4bn welfare cut

ceridwen

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

25% cuts to all benefits except old age pensions, NOTHING for third (or more children) giving 10 months notice of the change - as a start. One exception natural multiple births after the first child.
That should sort a few things out.

From which I presume that you are a pensioner?;)

Anyways....I look forward to hearing what arguments one could use with the service providers to a home (ie fuel/water/etc) as to why they should carry on supplying these utilities as a "charitable donation" free of charge to the householder if that householder got put on JSA then? - as the jobseeker sure as hell wouldnt be able to find the money to pay their bills (as well as live) out of only about £49 per week. Its all any jobseeker can do now to live and pay the bills out of about £65 per week.

Bob_the_Saver

smk77 wrote: »

Yes, the system sucks...but i'd rather have one that is abused by the minority (and it IS the minority!!!!) than one that punishes those that really need it...

499 fraud cases out of 1000 claims would also be a minority.

olly300

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

499 fraud cases out of 1000 claims would also be a minority.

Fraud in the benefits system isn't that high. Administrative errors are.

The fact is most benefits go unclaimed because the application forms are too complex for most people.

lynzpower

ceridwen wrote: »

From which I presume that you are a pensioner?;)

Anyways....I look forward to hearing what arguments one could use with the service providers to a home (ie fuel/water/etc) as to why they should carry on supplying these utilities as a "charitable donation" free of charge to the householder if that householder got put on JSA then? - as the jobseeker sure as hell wouldnt be able to find the money to pay their bills (as well as live) out of only about £49 per week. Its all any jobseeker can do now to live and pay the bills out of about £65 per week.

Especially with the increase in VAT that will push prices up across the board anyway.

Again- hitting the poorest in society.

365days

I'm glad the laptop has made a difference in your family Sue.

It would certainly make a difference in mine too. However as I work 25 hours a week, earning £10k a year I didn't qualify. I can't afford a new laptop as out of that money I pay my mortgage too.

So forgive me if I am a little bitter about families who have never worked, get their rent paid, get free meals for their kids, and free transport to school and any other freebie going who then go on to moan that heavens forbid they had to wait in for their laptop to be delivered, or wasn't quite the colour they would of liked.

There is a swathe of the population who take. The culture is so ingrained in them that they cannot see how other people have an issue with them.

The mother who complains that as she lives just under 2 miles from school has to pay for transport. When pointed out that she gets substantial benefits to pay for those children, to meet their needs it just doesn't seem to go in. In her eyes it is someone elses responsibility to get HER kids to school. These people are so removed from 'life' that they fail to see that life costs money. If you are on long term benefits the danger is that you just accept that someone will always pick up the pieces. This lady could work. But to be fair she is probably better off financially not to.

That is what is wrong at the moment. And all the people in my situation (Single Mum working part time to work around kids, paying own mortgage) look around and think to themselves 'Hey, what am I doing???' I've had the work ethic drilled in to me from a young age. But frankly I would be better off not working.

tomterm8

lynzpower wrote: »

Can I ask, as there seems to be a rather "slash and burn" view on here, which services do people think SHOULD NOT be cut at all.
From the largest service to the smallest- what are YOU personally dedicated to keeping?

Personally, this is an odd one, but the Library service, basic education, and adult literacy service are hugely good value as far as I am concened.

With literacy and a decent library service, and a bit of gumption, you can learn practically any skill any human has ever had.

As for computers... I think everyone in the country should have access to a loan, so anyone can buy a basic computer. I don't think they should be given away free, but I think people ought to be able to pay a small amount of money for one.

I don't think the computers should be given away free, because most people don't value things that cost them nothing.

SingleSue

365days wrote: »

I'm glad the laptop has made a difference in your family Sue.

It would certainly make a difference in mine too. However as I work 25 hours a week, earning £10k a year I didn't qualify. I can't afford a new laptop as out of that money I pay my mortgage too.

So forgive me if I am a little bitter about families who have never worked, get their rent paid, get free meals for their kids, and free transport to school and any other freebie going who then go on to moan that heavens forbid they had to wait in for their laptop to be delivered, or wasn't quite the colour they would of liked.

There is a swathe of the population who take. The culture is so ingrained in them that they cannot see how other people have an issue with them.
,
The mother who complains that as she lives just under 2 miles from school has to pay for transport. When pointed out that she gets substantial benefits to pay for those children, to meet their needs it just doesn't seem to go in. In her eyes it is someone elses responsibility to get HER kids to school. These people are so removed from 'life' that they fail to see that life costs money. If you are on long term benefits the danger is that you just accept that someone will always pick up the pieces. This lady could work. But to be fair she is probably better off financially not to.

That is what is wrong at the moment. And all the people in my situation (Single Mum working part time to work around kids, paying own mortgage) look around and think to themselves 'Hey, what am I doing???' I've had the work ethic drilled in to me from a young age. But frankly I would be better off not working.

I can understand your bitterness to be honest...I would be the same (and in fact, have been in the past when we were just above the cut offs for things).

Just a little by the by though, not everyone gets free transport - I don't and we live 4 miles away from the school.

I have worked for the majority of my life and haven't been a stick at home and see what benefits roll in person...I too have had the work ethic drummed into me, just the same as I have drummed in into my boys too.

And finally, I am grateful for every penny I receive..without it, we wouldn't survive.

N.B I'm not angry or making it about me....I know how people must feel about things like this, as I said, been there and got the t shirt in the past....and I would be very very peed off to say the least.

IveSeenTheLight

treliac wrote: »

While it sounds great in principle, where are all the jobs going to come from?

I've always thought that those able to work and claiming benefits should have to go out and earn those benefits i.e. sweeping the streets, collecting rubbish / recycling, weeding gardens, mowing publis parks, repairing pot holes etc etc etc etc

If you had to work to earn the benefits, you'd be more inclined to go out and get a better paid job.

P.S. in case people say that all the jobs I showed would result in those people being put out of work, why should the council be paying out twice just to let some sit at home

lynzpower

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've always thought that those able to work and claiming benefits should have to go out and earn those benefits i.e. sweeping the streets, collecting rubbish / recycling, weeding gardens, mowing publis parks, repairing pot holes etc etc etc etc

If you had to work to earn the benefits, you'd be more inclined to go out and get a better paid job.

P.S. in case people say that all the jobs I showed would result in those people being put out of work, why should the council be paying out twice just to let some sit at home

But the problem is that that £46 pw that jobseeker might get would be wrapped around a hell of a lot of admin, health and safety, insurance and a whole lot of other costs ( eg staffing to monitor)

which is why there is no particular drive to do it IMO

In my borough there must be thousands unemployed ( central london) trying to co-ordinate all of them to collect litter (when there are already contractors paid millions to do this effectively) would cost a fortune that I dont really think the taxpayer wants to spend.

IveSeenTheLight

lynzpower wrote: »

But the problem is that that £46 pw that jobseeker might get would be wrapped around a hell of a lot of admin, health and safety, insurance and a whole lot of other costs ( eg staffing to monitor)

which is why there is no particular drive to do it IMO

In my borough there must be thousands unemployed ( central london) trying to co-ordinate all of them to collect litter (when there are already contractors paid millions to do this effectively) would cost a fortune that I dont really think the taxpayer wants to spend.

Those jobs still have to have co-ordinated at present.

Let's take the example of rubbish collection.
This has over the years been reduced from weekly collection to fortnightly collection to try and save costs.

Whilst you may have 4 people currently collection rubbish on a route, you could have 12 people, getting the job done quicker and potentially cheaper as you are only paying the job seekers allowance.

It would also go a long way to incenticising people to go out and earn their income instead of sitting at home doing whatever and getting it for nothing