What do you think so far of the Condem proposals on welfare/public sector reform?

Really2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Benefits can be an awful lot more than a full time wage, with housing / children included.

I would say on average, it would work out less for most people that work, or work would truley be pointless for them (other than self respect). I know for a fact if I was unemployed it would be a massive hit.

Also in my wifes case I work so if she losses her job even though she only earns £16K there would be little support due to myself working etc.

ILW

Physio88 wrote: »

It doesn't make sense that the proposed public sector cuts are going to be taking more jobs away from people who could be working, and putting them on benefits which are also going to be cut. The end result is going to be fewer people paying tax and more people claiming benefits, how can this possibly work? I know the conservatives have ruined this country before...but their current proposals seem to be aiming to do it intentionally.

How come it is better to pay someone £20,000 for doing something of no value than paying them £10,000pa in benefits for doing something of no value?

leveller2911

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Benefits can be an awful lot more than a full time wage, with housing / children included.

I was chatting to our old neighbours last night, popped round for a coffee and a chat.The topic moved on to benefit entitlement and the proposed cuts and how it was likely to effect them so we all sat round the Laptop and went on the "Entitledto" website to get an idea of their entitlement . In the house there are married couple,1 child who is 11 and twin boys of 5.
Neither adult works the wife has never worked aged 30 ,husband 70 (yes 70 yr old man with twin boys aged 5) is a retired train driver. After filling out the website questionaire their entitlement including Child Tax credits,Rent,Council tax relief,carers allowance etc etc etc was £26,179-00 per year........

So yes NDG your spot on and I would go on to say in our Road which has 19 houses their are 3 families with 2 adults not working with 3 children.....

shortchanged_2

Running_On_Empty wrote: »

Much of the discussion from the socialist faction exposes their naked envy of anyone who has studied hard, works hard and spends their money as they choose.
Their views exemplify the politics of envy.
See them running around on the House Price Crash site too, rather like cockroaches.

Lovely elitist attitude there. If you don't realise we live in a 'society' where everyone should have the right to a decent standard of living.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no defender of people who choose not to work and wish to sponge off the state, however people who do work should be rewarded and there should be incentives to work, which is why in principle the tax credit system is a good idea.

Remember not everyone out there is an Einstein but that doesn't mean they should be excluded from society and not have a reasonable standard of living as long as they work.

This country would fall to it's knees if there were no refuse collectors, toilet cleaners or labourers for example. Everyone is part of a chain. All the big earning executives would be nothing (and jobless) without the people working, doing the jobs that many of us would not want to do.

Really2

leveller2911 wrote: »

I was chatting to our old neighbours last night, popped round for a coffee and a chat.The topic moved on to benefit entitlement and the proposed cuts and how it was likely to effect them so we all sat round the Laptop and went on the "Entitledto" website to get an idea of their entitlement . In the house there are married couple,1 child who is 11 and twin boys of 5.
Neither adult works the wife has never worked aged 30 ,husband 70 (yes 70 yr old man with twin boys aged 5) is a retired train driver. After filling out the website questionaire their entitlement including Child Tax credits,Rent,Council tax relief,carers allowance etc etc etc was £26,179-00 per year........

Ok but how is that example comparitive to someone losing there job and going on to benefits.
My wife is not 70, nor is there any one incapacitated in our family, so without the pension and incapacity and carers allowance it would be no where near as much.
Your example is hardly representative of the majority of the working public.
I am not one defending benfit pay outs, but if anyone thinks the vast majority would be paid more if they went on benefits instead of working I would say they need to stop buying the Daily Mail.

leveller2911 wrote: »

So yes NDG your spot on and I would go on to say in our Road which has 19 houses their are 3 families with 2 adults not working with 3 children.....

So this is a rant about benefit claimants not working, nothing to do with my point that the average working person would be worse off unemployed.
I really worry that people on here think people working in councils at the moment will be earning more on average than they would have when they were working.

Running_On_Empty

shortchanged wrote: »

Lovely elitist attitude there. If you don't realise we live in a 'society' where everyone should have the right to a decent standard of living.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no defender of people who choose not to work and wish to sponge off the state, however people who do work should be rewarded and there should be incentives to work, which is why in principle the tax credit system is a good idea.

Remember not everyone out there is an Einstein but that doesn't mean they should be excluded from society and not have a reasonable standard of living as long as they work.

This country would fall to it's knees if there were no refuse collectors, toilet cleaners or labourers for example. Everyone is part of a chain. All the big earning executives would be nothing (and jobless) without the people working, doing the jobs that many of us would not want to do.

Hardly elitist, it's the work ethic that seems to have been replaced by the entitlement ethic.

leveller2911

Really2 wrote: »

I really worry that people on here think people working in councils at the moment will be earning more on average than they would have when they were working.

Ive read this and re-read it and I haven't got the foggiest idea what it means......

Really2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Ive read this and re-read it and I haven't got the foggiest idea what it means......

Sorry, it means if and when they have to sign on due to the cuts.
You need to re read further back really.
I said that paying them benefits would be cheaper than paying them wages to the tax payer.
It's a long winded thread, with a tinge of daily mail benefit bashing in it.

Not sure why I got involved now.

leveller2911

Really2 wrote: »

Not sure why I got involved now.

Because you care thats why.......;)

Really2

leveller2911 wrote: »

Because you care thats why.......;)

Sort of do and don't, my wifes job is very much at risk. But also fully accept why it is, my wife is very much the same, she has 20 years service and not a union person.

I do feel sorry for those that will lose jobs, but the current and indeed past government spending was never sustainable.
People losing jobs are more a victim of that as in reality, if this was kept in check the public sector would not be so big and spending more than tax incomes before the recession.
Thus a lower deficit or no deficit before the recession would mean little or no cuts now.