Cutting the Welfare Bill

drwho2011

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I have had to come back to this, the numbers just did not register. Somebody correct my maths if I am wrong(and I probably am), but this works out that on average each household is having to pay £10,000 each, and when you consider there are a lot of households not contributing anything then some of us are being shafted good and proper.

Approximately £7,400 receieved per household.


A single person household on the national average wage pays £5,957.64 (in Income Tax and NI)
A couple household both on the national average wage pays £12,000 (in Income Tax and NI)

drc

Generali wrote: »

The welfare bill in the UK (and most other 'industrialized countries') is thought by many, including me, to be unaffordably high.

The obvious place to start cutting is with the biggest spend. Can anyone guess without the assistance of Google or his friends what that might be? To give you a clue it amounts to well over half of the non-NHS/education part of the cost of welfare in the UK.

The state pension then housing benefit.

drc

They need to cut tax credits the most imo. At the moment the rate is approx £50 or more per week per child. If you just have 2 kids, then that is already £100 per week. Child benefit on top of that gives you benefits of £133 per week just for having 2 children. Never understood why the government should pay more each time a new child is born. Those in work don't get a salary increase each time they have a new baby, so why should those that rely on benefits?

I_luv_cats

drc wrote: »

They need to cut tax credits the most imo. At the moment the rate is approx £50 or more per week per child. If you just have 2 kids, then that is already £100 per week. Child benefit on top of that gives you benefits of £133 per week just for having 2 children. Never understood why the government should pay more each time a new child is born. Those in work don't get a salary increase each time they have a new baby, so why should those that rely on benefits?

Well if the view is that lots of people watch "Jeremy Kyle" they are not taking his advice of sticking something on the end of it LOL

drwho2011

DavidMorganGuru wrote: »

Looking forward to universal credit. It will be a good leveler.

It is unlikely to decrease welfare dependence, merely relocate it to cheaper parts of the country if a claimant wishes to retain as much disposable income as possible.

homelessskilledworker

I know it would never happen, but if I had my way I would as good as end the welfare state tommorrow.
From day one those needing help would have to depend on the charity of their fellow countrymen, and lets not forget that at the end of the day welfare is charitable money given by us the taxpayers.

What I resent is the idle healthy holding their hand out and telling me "I MUST".
Then once the dust has settled remake the welfare state again, but this time for the truly needy.

Mrs_Bones

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I know it would never happen, but if I had my way I would as good as end the welfare state tommorrow.
From day one those needing help would have to depend on the charity of their fellow countrymen, and lets not forget that at the end of the day welfare is charitable money given by us the taxpayers.

What I resent is the idle healthy holding their hand out and telling me "I MUST".
Then once the dust has settled remake the welfare state again, but this time for the truly needy.

The only problem with that is that you would find that many of your fellow countrymen don't have a charitable bone in their body. Charity that was given out would often come with strings attatched, "You want money from the good people of this church, of course as long as your a good Christian and pray religiously to our one True God" and blahdy de blah. There is a reason the welfare state was set up, one of them is that utter poverty was not being eradicated by the charity of our fellow countrymen. Do you really want to go back to that Victorian time of utter deprivation for those in genuine need?

Those that scam the state today will still find a way to survive, there are some sections of pond life that are truly ruthless in terms of survival. The genuine needy on the other hand will just sink even further down. I've notice the old Victorian term of the 'undeserving and the deserving poor' is making a come back, problem is, that always depended on who was making the definition as to which category people fell into.

People may like to think we've progressed but really the class war is still alive and kicking, some people always seem to want to look down on other sections of society, it seems to be a form of human nature. It doesn't matter what scheme of welfare is set up, it will be misused by some, it always has been and this new idea of universal credit will not be any different.

It doesn't matter if you come from the bottom rungs, the middle or the richest tier of society, everyone screams blue murder if they think they are having what they have been given previously taken away. It's always the fault or problem of someone else, personal greed rules the day.

drwho2011

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I know it would never happen, but if I had my way I would as good as end the welfare state tommorrow.
From day one those needing help would have to depend on the charity of their fellow countrymen, and lets not forget that at the end of the day welfare is charitable money given by us the taxpayers.

What I resent is the idle healthy holding their hand out and telling me "I MUST".
Then once the dust has settled remake the welfare state again, but this time for the truly needy.

If you look at the % increase spending on welfare slowly increased between 1991 and 2001 as opposed to the increase between 2001 and 2011 its safe to say Labour spent most of their time in power remaking the welfare state.

Ironic really that in 1997 welfare spending had its only drop since 1988, before its massive explosion under Labour

Robisere

This is an interesting thread.

There are some (few) thoughtful, reasoned points made, but there are many who want a return to the 1920's. That era was when my dear old dad and his brother had recently married during the year when Britain almost had its own proletariat revolution. In 1926, they both had a first child on the way. The General Strike left them with no money. They both walked for miles around England and Wales, looking for work on farms, private homes, etc. Eventually they heard of pits opening in Nottinghamshire and they sent home the pitiful amount they had, first buying a pair of clogs to replace their worn out boots. Then they walked another 80 miles or so and began work in the pit village where I and my brothers were born. They were the 10th and 11th tenants of the pit estate, all the houses of which belonged to the mine owner. Who wants a return to the days before the Welfare State? Careful how you answer: accidents can happen.

Dad worked there all his life until he retired at 65. The NCB gave him £200 when he left in 1969. He had been badly injured and wore a steel corset to keep his spine in place. From 1964 on, he drew what was called "Hardship" - and continued to receive that until he died of cancer, caused by his exposure to coal dust and stone dust.

I have been a merchant seaman, a miner for a short time, a soldier for 12 years and a workshop foreman. I sustained an injury which in later years caused me to almost become a quadriplegic, before a pioneering operation saved the use of my limbs, although I still walk slowly with a stick at least Iwalk. I have a Colostomy, breathing problems and a skin condition. I am in receipt of DLA (Mobility) and and DLA (personal care). I have a small army pension, a VERY small private pension and State Pension. I could not provide myself with a larger pension, due to the fact that my disability and loss of work began 15 years ago when I was 51. My wife also has a serious disability and receives DLA (Both)

My question for all those who recommend that Benefits should be cut, is this: what part of all this will you have me lose? The stated total household limit for Benefits recipients is, they announce, going to be £26,000. I can assure all the "Benefits-Bashers" on this forum, that we are a very long way from that figure. However, providing our incomings are not reduced, we may even be able to have a week's holiday this year.

I am in complete agreement with the fact that there are people misusing the Benefits system. I definitely think that it should be capped. But I am dismayed by the attitudes of some people here. Please remember that someday you may be in the same position. I was a good amateur footballer, athlete and I loved to walk for miles. I worked as hard as I could for as long as I could. I do not need people who may be in good physical health, with perfectly reasonable incomes from good, steady jobs, telling me that I am scrounging. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

Kennyboy66

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100043679/50-billion-of-welfare-spending-a-third-goes-to-people-on-above-average-incomes-do-we-really-need-this/

I found this fairly astonishing.

£53bn in benefits (32%) goes to people on above average incomes.

Even excluding pensions 28% of all benefits go to those on above average incomes.

Deadweight loss anyone ?

I'm all for some cutting of benefits (and child benefit will cost me about £1700 a year from next year) - however this government has pledged to actually increase the burden of pension benefits by introducing the triple lock guarantee.

It is insanity.