We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cutting the Welfare Bill
Comments
-
State Pension: 70bn + 8bn in Pension Credit
Tax Credits: 35bn
Housing Benefit: 22bn
DLA: 12bn
Child Benefit: 12bn
Incapacity Benefit & ESA: 8bn
Income Support: 8bn
Attendance Allowance: 5.5bn
Council Tax Benefit: 5bn
JSA: 4.8bn (approx 800m is paid as contributions based JSA)
Winter Fuel Payment: 2.2bn
There's another 10bn unaccounted for but its mostly small amounts.
Total: 202bn
*figures are rounded but should be relatively accurate.
The media often reports welfare spend to be at:
£151bn (DWP Budget)
£190bn (DWP + Tax Credits)
But they don't include the £12bn spent in child benefit in either estimate.0 -
Kennyboy66 wrote: »
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.
I am not sure that the triple lock is meant to increase the burden when compared to the previous incarnation i.e. guaranteed RPI increase.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Kennyboy66 wrote: »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.
I have taken the key figures and added notes in red
Of the major benefits:
43% of Child Benefit (£4.8 billion) goes to those on above average incomes, = This isn't cost effective to means test but this is likely to reduce.
Likewise:
25% of Incapacity Benefit (£1.5 billion) = With the change to ESA (time limited for contributions based in work related) this is likely to decrease
40% of Disability Living Allowance (£4.2 billion) = Estimates are with the change to PIP the number of claimants able to claim will reduce significantly
13% of Tax Credits (£3 billion) = Already cutting and within a few years this will rapidly decrease
A key point though is that many of the above receiving payments who are "wealthy" are a part of household as opposed to an individuals and so are likely making significant contributions into the pot as it is. Of the benefits listed above only Tax Credits is means tested. The article talks about wealth but not necessarily income so I wouldn't say its very balanced.
0 -
They need to cut tax credits the most imo. At the moment the rate is approx £50 or more per week per child.
I was stunned when I came across the HMRC website info on tax credits that said 9 out of 10 families qualified and I thought then, cripes, a benefit that nearly everyone gets, what utter madness!
Also, similarly stunned when I read articles about how the UK got to the point when it spent more on benefits than it received through employee taxation. I thought then, we are doomed!
When I also found out that my current city had 1 out of 5 working age adults on Incapacity Benefit just a few years ago (not including disability benefits, just sickness benefit), I wondered how on earth that happened. It's up to 1 in 7 now (Glasgow).
My sister's company struggles in periods of high staff sickness, peak customer times, because their part time staff won't work a minute over 16 hours per week to qualify for their slew of tax credits, housing benefit and council tax rebate. She'll be glad those arbitrary thresholds will go under UC.
One of my friends openly boasted about how there is no need for her to seek employment when her kids go to school because the state top-ups her household gets from her husband working on a low wage job means they've got the equivalent of two wages coming in. One person serves in a shop during the week, and they pull in what an experienced graduate manager would earn before tax.0 -
This is the best diagram I've seen about state spending 2009/10. I think it's brilliant how it has been made so visually clear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/government-spending-department-2009-10#zoomed-picture
The previous year is also available, 2008/09.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/17/uk-public-spending-departments-money-cuts0 -
I'll know when the welfare bill has been properly cut when the chavs who are not working start complaining that they can't afford to go abroad on holiday.0
-
Kennyboy66 wrote: »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.
So instead of spending loads of money administering benefits, cut taxes and the higher rate taxpayers can spend their money they want to.0 -
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.
good post
i think one of the problems is that when people hear the word 'benefits' the image that immediately springs to mind is some waynetta or vicky from little britain with 10 kids watching their 50" plasma tv and getting ready to go abroad on holiday
obviously this is not the case for you but unfortunately you still fall foul of the same prejudice
it is a very difficult area. i agree with the need to reduce the welfare bill but they would do well to have a proper consultation on where the money goes for the highest recipients rather than just introducing an arbitary cap which will mean people turning to other, probably criminal, avenues to make ends meet'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.'
GALATIANS 6: 7 (KJV)0 -
RUN_RABBIT_RUN wrote: »it is a very difficult area. i agree with the need to reduce the welfare bill but they would do well to have a proper consultation on where the money goes for the highest recipients rather than just introducing an arbitary cap which will mean people turning to other, probably criminal, avenues to make ends meet
The arbitary cap in most cases will only effect claimants in London and this is because of the way LHA varies from area to area and so shouldn't be an issue because people will move to maintain their life styles.
Having LHA set at a national level would actually have pretty much the same effect as capping all benefits anyway, but then the Government would be accused of social engineering.
Other than that only larger an average families will be affected, but surely that is right, otherwise we will continue with the policy of encouraging large work less families that keep breeding.0 -
As oodles of posters have worked out (or Googled - naughty!) the biggest single line item is pensions and associated costs. Add to that things like care costs and you have over half the welfare spend going on aged care of one sort or another.
The solution according to Labour was to increase pensions. The solution according to Tories and Lib Dems is increasing pensions. I know most MPs are arts grads but can they really not count???0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards