43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

Percy1983

Even if this does cost me (the taxpayer) money in the short term I support it as long term it needs to be done.

Much in the same way the benefits fraud investigations cost more than they recover, I still support it.

boatman

Why are people having a go at the people on benefit, i would suggest that it's chicken feed. If we are talking about the cost to each and everyone of us, how about blaming the many well educated people in charge making the rules who are more interested in lining their pockets, or the companies who fiddle the system to avoid paying billions of tax and yet whose Directors are sitting pretty. Or how about the companies getting tax payers money from over priced contracts. Maybe it suits the media and Politicians to blame the layabouts to deflect the real culprits...

Cleaver

boatman wrote: »

Why are people having a go at the people on benefit, i would suggest that it's chicken feed.

It's not chicken feed. We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence.

fc123

drc wrote: »

How many taxpayers would you need to take tax from in order to cover a theoretical benefits "income" of £26k per year?

I heard it was 4 average working families to support 1 non working but could have been an urban myth as I cannot recall where I heard it.
Shamefully, could have been posted here by someone once so could just be made up.:)

The_White_Horse

Cleaver wrote: »

It's not chicken feed. We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence.

this is a f**king disgrace

Shakethedisease

this is a f**king disgrace

Isn't the largest part of the social security bill Pensions though ? And a fair proportion of the bill also goes on non-means tested universal benefits such as Child Benefit and Winter Fuel etc?

It's too late for me to be digging out graphs etc. But it's misleading to say that the social security bill is all about the 'workshy' or those 'living it up in a Westminster mansion at the taxpayer's expense'... a fair majority of it goes to pensioners who've worked all their lives, or brought up children when it wasn't the 'norm' for any woman to work fulltime after starting a family.

They'll hopefully be exempt from this Housing Benefit cut.

freeoffers

Social Security is state pensions, housing benefit, disability benefit, income support, council tax benefits, jsa, winter fuel payments, invlaid care allowance in that order. In 2008-09 more (£65bn) was spent on state pensions than HB, DB, IS, CTB and JSA put together. So people really need to get their facts right before they jump to conclusions that all social security is spent on work-shy scroungers. In fact pensions came out at nearly half the bill. Thats not to say that HB and DB are not too high, they are, just giving some perspective here.

And with people living longer it's no wonder the govt has chosen to do something about the social security system.

Mrs_Arcanum

freeoffers wrote: »

Social Security is state pensions, housing benefit, disability benefit, income support, council tax benefits, jsa, winter fuel payments, invlaid care allowance in that order. In 2008-09 more (£65bn) was spent on state pensions than HB, DB, IS, CTB and JSA put together. So people really need to get their facts right before they jump to conclusions that all social security is spent on work-shy scroungers. In fact pensions came out at nearly half the bill. Thats not to say that HB and DB are not too high, they are, just giving some perspective here.

And with people living longer it's no wonder the govt has chosen to do something about the social security system.

And many of these pensioners will also be in receipt of HB.

ILW

At least most of the pensioners would have contributed something.

drc

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Here's a radical idea. We could have local councils manage a pool of property with reduced rents. This will have the desired effect of reducing private sector rents and thus housing benefit payments.

We could call them "council houses".

Great idea! I wonder why the last Labour government didn't think of building more of these magical "council houses"? They only had 13 years so I guess that wasn't long enough for them?