Question Time

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If there were no workshy claiming benefits, and everyone getting them was a genuine safety-net case, and the benefits were not over generous (like paying for 5 bedroom houses in Hampstead) then I would not support cuts. But then nor would most people, and nor would the government, and nor would the public finances be in such a parlous state.

The reality however is very different, and of course every effort must be made to distinguish between the genuine hardship cases and the lazy, f e c k less, and workshy when the cuts are made.

why would you support something when the majority of the people it hits are innocent? they dont distinguish between the genuine and the workshy. its like knowing there is a murderer living in a street but not knowing which person it is. so you choose to send everyone in the street to prison to ensure the murderer doesnt get away with it.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

You say that, and maybe the person concerned does too. But presumably someone who is paid to review such cases thinks otherwise. I assume there is a right of appeal if people think they have been unjustly treated. But it can't just be left to people themselves and their friends to decide whether they will work or draw benefits. That's more or less how we got where we are.

yes of course it cant be left to them to decide however it is obvious it would be impossible for them to beat an able bodied person to a job. i only spoke to him briefly and only met him today as he knows someone i work with. i forgot to mention his speech is also affected and he doesnt seem like he is all there.
picking up on something said earlier i agree there should be help there for people but i think when a persons chances of employment are severely affected by a health condition then i dont think the same should be expected of them as is of a healthy person.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

why would you support something when the majority of the people it hits are innocent? they dont distinguish between the genuine and the workshy. its like knowing there is a murderer living in a street but not knowing which person it is. so you choose to send everyone in the street to prison to ensure the murderer doesnt get away with it.

So are you are happy for things to stay as they are. There is a limited pot of money and buy giving benefits to those who don't need them and being too generous to some of those that do you are not helping the people who do need them.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Eveyone claiming a disability benefit will face a review to see whether they are genuine, and that's quite right. People who really have zero ability to do a paid job will have nothng to fear. If you think that nobody claiming benfits should have theircase reviewed in case it causes them stress, then you and people like you are part of the problem

i believe there are also cuts to disability benefits happening. that is what the demonstrations i refered to earlier were about. they werent about everyone having their cases reviewed.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

other than the usual tax rises that happen anyway. what other tax rises have occurred. income tax hasnt changed at all has it? it is unfair to expect the people at the very bottom to take the majority of the pain.

VAT has risen by 33% since 2007 for a start, fuel duty keeps going up, air passenger duty, all income tax bands were frozen for a year, the 40% band hasn't increased in step with inflation for years, pushing more people into higher rate tax, the personal allowance is phased out for people earning more than £100,000 and a 50% band was increased over £150,000 which has now been cut to 45%.

Benefits, in contrast, have just been increased constantly in line with inflation every year since 2007.

To date most of the pain has fallen on taxpayers. My view is that taxes need to rise more, but it is simply not going to be viable to increase taxes by another 30% from here. We already collect over 40% of GDP in tax.

Are you going to come up with any alternative suggestion about how we curb public spending or are you just going to stick your head in the sand and keep saying it's not fair and you want your benefits to keep being increased even if it bankrupts the country.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

VAT has risen by 33% since 2007 for a start, fuel duty keeps going up, air passenger duty, all income tax bands were frozen for a year, the 40% band hasn't increased in step with inflation for years, pushing more people into higher rate tax, the personal allowance is phased out for people earning more than £100,000 and a 50% band was increased over £150,000 which has now been cut to 45%.

Benefits, in contrast, have just been increased constantly in line with inflation every year since 2007.

To date most of the pain has fallen on taxpayers. My view is that taxes need to rise more, but it is simply not going to be viable to increase taxes by another 30% from here. We already collect over 40% of GDP in tax.

Are you going to come up with any alternative suggestion about how we curb public spending or are you just going to stick your head in the sand and keep saying it's not fair and you want your benefits to keep being increased even if it bankrupts the country.

the first few things affect everyone not just working people. more people will enter into the higher tax rate only if they get a pay rise.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

the first few things affect everyone not just working people. more people will enter into the higher tax rate only if they get a pay rise.

i would have thought that if people on benefits are living on the absolute breadline as you suggest, to the point that they will turn to crime if their benefits are cut at all, then i rather doubt that they are spending a lot of money on flights and petrol, or indeed many VATable goods (or alcohol / tobacco duty). if they are spending lots of money on those things then they can afford to bear significant cuts.

but you're at it again, you have no alternative solution - just pretend there's not an issue and it will go away - someone else can pay for it. why not move to greece, i think they'd like you there (not sure the sae levels of benefits are available there, mind).

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

So are you are happy for things to stay as they are. There is a limited pot of money and buy giving benefits to those who don't need them and being too generous to some of those that do you are not helping the people who do need them.

i havent talked about benefits that go to people who dont need them. i have only talked about the people at the bottom. if benefits are too generous for some then obviously that needs looking at. the issue i have been talking about is taking money away from everyone at the bottom.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i would have thought that if people on benefits are living on the absolute breadline as you suggest, to the point that they will turn to crime if their benefits are cut at all, then i rather doubt that they are spending a lot of money on flights and petrol, or indeed many VATable goods (or alcohol / tobacco duty). if they are spending lots of money on those things then they can afford to bear significant cuts.

but you're at it again, you have no alternative solution - just pretend there's not an issue and it will go away - someone else can pay for it. why not move to greece, i think they'd like you there (not sure the sae levels of benefits are available there, mind).

increased fuel costs affect prices. so it does affect people on benefits. can benefit claimants really avoid everything affected by vat?

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

increased fuel costs affect prices. so it does affect people on benefits. can benefit claimants really avoid everything affected by vat?

no they cannot, it will obviously affect them to some extent, as some food has standard rate VAT, and so do adult's clothes. domestic fuel has VAT on it, but only at 5% and that hasn't been increased. but if you are existing on the breadline it's not likely that the majority of your purchases are going to be standard rated for VAT.

are you ever going to set out your alternative solution for resolving this country's financial deficit? what costs are you going to cut, and how much are you going to increase tax, in order to eliminate the deficit whilst ensuring that benefits continue to be increased in line with inflation every year.