Cutting the Welfare Bill

StixUK

drc wrote: »

The main problem is the cost of housing but it really is crazy how easily it all adds up. If you have a workless family with 2 kids in London they would be entitled to the following benefits per week;

Housing benefit - 2 bedroom rate (or 3 if different sexes/ages)= maximum of £290 - £340.
Income support/Jobseekers allowance= £105.95
Child tax credits= £108
Child benefit=£33.70
Council tax benefit= approx £33
Free school meals= approx £2 per day so £20 per week.

Total = £589 per week.

This does not include any disability benefits or other benefits such as free prescriptions that they might need. So, you can see that quite a lot of people in London will be affected by the cap.

Aye this is the problem, we live in council housing in Devon, costs £290 p/m 3 bed house.

Housing Association costs just over £100 p/w but privately rented (which is the most common and freely available) would cost £650 p/m+

A national housbuilding programme of council housing/housing assocation (pure rent) housing would support the construction industry no end and would provide an income for the future and jump start the economy in one way. At least 7000 homes would need to be built in Exeter alone.

But then the problem is that the population is increasing all the time. Take away extra tax credits or benefits for someone who has more than 3/4 children. (obviously only future claimants) then people would think twice before having excessive amounts of children as a wage earner as it is practically FREE money.

drc

StixUK wrote: »

Aye this is the problem, we live in council housing in Devon, costs £290 p/m 3 bed house.

Housing Association costs just over £100 p/w but privately rented (which is the most common and freely available) would cost £650 p/m+

A national housbuilding programme of council housing/housing assocation (pure rent) housing would support the construction industry no end and would provide an income for the future and jump start the economy in one way. At least 7000 homes would need to be built in Exeter alone.

But then the problem is that the population is increasing all the time. Take away extra tax credits or benefits for someone who has more than 3/4 children. (obviously only future claimants) then people would think twice before having excessive amounts of children as a wage earner as it is practically FREE money.

Yes, they definitely need to build more social homes for working people. The problem is that many social homes have workless families in them and there is no point spending lots of public money building new social homes if they are going to a) go to workless households who do not contribute to the system and be a net burden b) encourage more people to come to the UK in order to get social housing, causing the population to increase and more social housing to be built ad infinitum.

Social housing needs to have very strict eligibility requirements imo, otherwise you have a situation where those in work are paying high rents in private rentals, whereas those who don't work get low, subsidised rent (and a bigger property than a private rent) which I think is very unfair.

Conrad

I'm not usualy a neg - head but I have this feeling the Uk is going to collapse at some point as more and more people chose a life on welfare (I won't bore you'all with examples, but through my work I see endless cases of welfare being simply a lifestyle option).

A pension specialist on LBC Radio claims he typically advises GP's at retirment that have an NHS pension pot of £4m. Think how many Tax payers effectively fund this one individual. And yet left wingers constantly tell us Doctors are'nt in it for the money!

How is all this extravagance sustainable?

Jennifer_Jane

drwho2011 wrote: »

I was giving numbers based on today's requirements, i.e the threshold of £139 per week (23 hrs at NMW) along with the 30 years requirement. As this is in line with government plans for universal credit.

However

30 years @ national average salary of £26,000 means NI contributions (including employer conts) of approx £145,000.

Wonder what annuity that would buy these days?

For a female aged 60 (so should be a pretty bad rate as women are deemed to live longer, and this is quite young) rates on the first page of a general website give £7276 per annum for £100,000 consideration. So pretty much what I'm getting from my Company Pension people.

Of course, tax (including BSP tax) still needs to come off that figure.

StixUK

Conrad wrote: »

I'm not usualy a neg - head but I have this feeling the Uk is going to collapse at some point as more and more people chose a life on welfare (I won't bore you'all with examples, but through my work I see endless cases of welfare being simply a lifestyle option).

A pension specialist on LBC Radio claims he typically advises GP's at retirment that have an NHS pension pot of £4m. Think how many Tax payers effectively fund this one individual. And yet left wingers constantly tell us Doctors are'nt in it for the money!

How is all this extravagance sustainable?

I can concur with this.

I have been on welfare and sit on the border line of welfare being as good as working for 16k basic salary. I get commission, which is the only way financially it makes it worthwhile. I could make that choice tomorrow, but I cannot just sit at home all day with children, it would do my nut in. But it is easy to see how easy it is for people to choose that life over working.

StixUK

drc wrote: »

Yes, they definitely need to build more social homes for working people. The problem is that many social homes have workless families in them and there is no point spending lots of public money building new social homes if they are going to a) go to workless households who do not contribute to the system and be a net burden b) encourage more people to come to the UK in order to get social housing, causing the population to increase and more social housing to be built ad infinitum.

Social housing needs to have very strict eligibility requirements imo, otherwise you have a situation where those in work are paying high rents in private rentals, whereas those who don't work get low, subsidised rent (and a bigger property than a private rent) which I think is very unfair.

I agree with you, but surely that is what the waiting list system is for. Once again a system that needs gradual change. Did the government bring in tenancies whereby you have to forfeit your council house if your children leave home and you have excessive space? I am on a secured tenancy so here for life if I choose, unless I break terms of the tenancy.

Mrs_Arcanum

Perhaps one cut could be on free prescriptions for adults on JSA who are not on long term or multiple doses of medication.

BigAunty

At least the last few govts have started to reduce the age when lone parents get moved onto Job Seekers Allowance from Income Support, given that lone parents are in the categories with the highest rates of poverty.

I think they used to only be required to work when their youngest child turned 13 (don't know if it was ever 16) and this is now at a sensible level of 7, soon to reduce to school starting age.

drc

BigAunty wrote: »

At least the last few govts have started to reduce the age when lone parents get moved onto Job Seekers Allowance from Income Support, given that lone parents are in the categories with the highest rates of poverty.

I think they used to only be required to work when their youngest child turned 13 (don't know if it was ever 16) and this is now at a sensible level of 7, soon to reduce to school starting age.

Easy way around that. Simply get pregnant once your youngest reaches school age. I know someone who has just done exactly that.

Pennywise

drwho2011 wrote: »

They would have had to work for the majority of their career in the public sector, what your missing though is working for national minimum wage @ 24 hours a week means the state has lower employer national insurance contributions to make and saves on the cost of employing people at a living wage.

So in effect the state has the benefit of a low paid worker at the cost of higher pension payments in the future, which will be largely funded by existing public sector worker contributions.

Meanwhile it is spending public sector worker pension contributions to pay for Government services.

Not necessarily earning minimum wage. What about teachers & nurses who only work 1 or 2 days per week. They may only earn £8k p.a. but on an hourly rate far above minimum wage. What about administrators who may be working 2-3 days per week, again over NMW?

This kind of irregularity will get more common place as the basic tax allowance and NIC threshold are increasing at above the rate of inflation, taking more people out of tax/nic, but those people are still accumulating pension pots well out of proportion to the amounts they've actually paid into the system. Not to mention the public services they're using such as education, healthcare, transport network, etc., that if they're not paying tax/nic, they're not contributing to those either.

At the end of the day, automatic state funded pensions are simply not affordable if we continue down the road of so many people not actually paying enough (if anything) in tax/nic towards them.

If people are managing to live on working 1,2, or 3 days per week, and thus not paying much in tax/nic, then rather than an automatic state pension, why not a pension pro-rata-d to their earnings or working days, i.e. instead of an automatic £130 as proposed, reduce that to £65 for those who've only worked an average of 2.5 days per week during their working lives.

It simply isn't right, nor affordable, for people to receive more in pension upon retirement than they earned whilst working. It's a complete nonsense and can't last much longer.

The end game is inevitable in that state pensions will have to be means tested. It may not happen in the next decade or two, but unless there are major changes in the tax/nic/benefits/pensions system, the whole pyramid scheme will come crashing down as it's all out of control and there is precious little political will to tackle it.