Cutting the Welfare Bill

Killmark

The thread below highlights what I am talking about, in receipt of £116 per week in benefits (£6064 per year) with a wage of £18,500, considering if the loss of benefits makes up for a pay rise to £25,000

Incidently on £18,500 he is paying £3,357 in tax but is being handed £6,064 so is up £2,707 at the end of the day.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/50459335#Comment_50459335

WhiteHorse

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Loved the interview on the BBC, they had to have picked her to get the nations backs up ...

Yes, the often do this. They interview exactly the person needed to prove the point. It's a form of manipulation.

For instance, if they want to cast an orgnisation in a good light, they will interview an articulate official with all the figures to hand. If they want to cast the same organisation in a bad light, the interviewee will be some oaf who can barely talk.

WhiteHorse

StixUK wrote: »

Exactly what my dad says to me "wish i never bought my own house or left more than a few grand in savings" because all I have amassed is £25,000 in savings and I own my own home.

Not quite true.

Ultimately, if you own your own home, you can stick two fingers up at the state. You can survive. It won't necessarily be very jolly, but it can be done.

That's why the state hates private ownership (for the ordinary people, that is. The state is the elite).

tartanterra

Killmark wrote: »

There is another element to this though that would cause uproar is this..........

If you had never worked or had insufficient NI credits to qualify for the state pension and therefore also had limited savings/capital then they would still be able to get an amount equal to the basic state pension through pension credit.

How is that fair?

In fact it encourages people who spend most of their lives in welfare and re-enter the workplace in their 40's and 50's to not make any provision for retirement because if they did they'd "lose" out as a result

Of course the spend spend spend mantra might boost the economy so maybe its a good idea.

None of it is fair.

In our bizarre society, those who work hard, pay their taxes, "save for a rainy day" and are sensible with their money will immediately be disqualified from any type of means tested benefit when they find themselves unemployed or unable to work.

Yet an entire spectrum of benefits are on offer to anyone who contributes nothing to society, doesn't save and won't work.

Go figure?

CLAPTON

a sense of proportion is still required

we do need to make provision for the less fortunate
and we do need to make provision for a adequate level of pension for all the people

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater

Wookster

And the Church & Lib-Dem peers have blocked it.

Last time the Lib-Dems ever get my vote.

StevieJ

Killmark wrote: »

The thread below highlights what I am talking about, in receipt of £116 per week in benefits (£6064 per year) with a wage of £18,500, considering if the loss of benefits makes up for a pay rise to £25,000

Incidently on £18,500 he is paying £3,357 in tax but is being handed £6,064 so is up £2,707 at the end of the day.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/50459335#Comment_50459335

That Bargain Bunny is a shrewd operator, one paragraph and they had the benefoit claimant eating out of their hand, a natural negotiator

A._Badger

Wookster wrote: »

And the Church & Lib-Dem peers have blocked it.

Last time the Lib-Dems ever get my vote.

You voted for these idiots!?

I was so incensed I nearly applied to the vicar for refund of my marriage fees (sorry Mrs Badger).

Next harvest festival they are getting brass washers in the plate.

Church of England (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party)

Generali

I think a lot of posters are missing the point.

It's a bit like the whole 'we are the 99%' movement. Taxing the richest 1% more is unlikely to help solve the current financial problems for 2 reasons. Firstly, by definition there aren't that many in the 1% and secondly they already pay a huge amount of tax.

If you want to reduce spending on welfare there's no point in messing about with single mothers or Jeremy Kyle watchers or whatever group of scroungers you happen to find offensive. Spending on old people is the biggest item by far and to ignore it is to ignore the biggest part of the problem.

There is an investing truism that every now and again you should look at your assets and ask yourself, if I had the money instead of the asset would I still buy? If not perhaps you should sell.

Perhaps we need to grow up politically. If there are policies that we wouldn't choose if starting from scratch, why should we peruse them?

tibawo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I assume if you lost the benefits, you'd do the extra day?

yes .. i am actually looking for a full time job - one which it makes financial sense! appled for two this week and studying in spare time to try to 'better' my position. Don't want to become labelled a single mum jeremy fan!