Question Time

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

you think causing great hardship will solve our problems? you think it will get these people into employment? you think it will make the low paid worker better off? who will cover the cost related to the extra crimes committed? who will cover the extra cost to the nhs due to the impact on health this would have?
the government is pretty much blaming the poorest for the problems we have. even thatcher didnt sink that low.
if money is as tight as they say how do they find the hundreds of millions of pounds to pay for back to work schemes that dont get people back to work? cutting them isnt even considered.

the social impact is somewhat irrelevant really.

the maths is:

tax revenue £440 billion
public spending £565 billion (128% of tax revenue)

benefits spending has been outstripping inflation for years, it has risen nearly 20% faster than inflation since 2007.

it's nto a sustainable situation, and hoping that the economy will magically grow by huge amounts to make up the difference isn't a solution. at the very least the benefits bill needs to be frozen at its current level (of £200 billion a year) for a number of years. because half the benefits bill is paid to pensioners, and the govt is committed to increasing their benefits by at least 2.5% per annum, then that means nominal cuts for everyone else.

inevitably this will cause difficulties for people, but you can't just keep spending money you don't have forever.

alternatively we could just scrap the NHS or something like that, that would sort the deficit out nicely...

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

In my book nobody who has substantial wealth, however legally acquired, and enjoys the fruits of it has the right to criticise others with legally acquired wealth just because that's what they are.

Yes but my question is what has each of these people said that is critical of other people? Your original comment accused a whole load of people of nothing in particular. Until you answer this question this is just hot air.

This sounds like the tired old socialist dogma again that the working class lad made good is automatically a superior human being to the privileged aristocrat who went to Eton.

Never said that, I just said that many of them made the money themselves (what is wrong with that?). Some of those on your list were born into privilege. Either way what have they done to appear on your list?

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

This sounds like the tired old socialist dogma again that the working class lad made good is automatically a superior human being to the privileged aristocrat who went to Eton.

I don't think that is true. There are many working class people who are more intelligent and have more common sense than the privileged aristocrat class for sure, doesn't make them superior..

The fact that the individuals you are discussing are wealthy merely elevates them into a position to compete more evenly.

One of the reason they don't wheel out more of "Eton's" students is that they would be seen for what they are.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

the problem with capping hb is it creates ghettos and takes people away from their communities and possibly away from the jobs. rent control would prevent all of this and would reduce the hb bill at the same time.

In my area a couple with 3 children would get £555 a week £229 of which is housing and council tax leaving them £326 after cap that would be £250 more than enough to live on.

People keep asking for rent controls what rent would you set for say a 3 bed in London.

chewmylegoff

Capping housing benefit is a form of rent control.

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Capping housing benefit is a form of rent control.

I suppose in a way you are right but the resulting rent might be higher than that allowed for in benefit cap.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the social impact is somewhat irrelevant really.

the maths is:

tax revenue £440 billion
public spending £565 billion (128% of tax revenue)

benefits spending has been outstripping inflation for years, it has risen nearly 20% faster than inflation since 2007.

it's nto a sustainable situation, and hoping that the economy will magically grow by huge amounts to make up the difference isn't a solution. at the very least the benefits bill needs to be frozen at its current level (of £200 billion a year) for a number of years. because half the benefits bill is paid to pensioners, and the govt is committed to increasing their benefits by at least 2.5% per annum, then that means nominal cuts for everyone else.

inevitably this will cause difficulties for people, but you can't just keep spending money you don't have forever.

alternatively we could just scrap the NHS or something like that, that would sort the deficit out nicely...

the social impact is not irrelevant because what would the financial cost be to the nhs and what would the financial cost be to investigate, prosecute and then incarcerate people who are forced to turn to crime. also do you want to be too scared to go out at night? how much of the welfare bill goes to pensioners? how much of it goes to admin? how much actually goes to paying jsa? the spiralling cost of hb/lha can be linked to spiralling rents. so deal with the rents.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

In my area a couple with 3 children would get £555 a week £229 of which is housing and council tax leaving them £326 after cap that would be £250 more than enough to live on.

People keep asking for rent controls what rent would you set for say a 3 bed in London.

well i have acknowledged that perhaps people with kids get too much. however people often push for cuts for everyone. many cuts that happen are targeted at people who dont get too much.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Capping housing benefit is a form of rent control.

only if the landlords reduce what they charge accordingly.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

the social impact is not irrelevant because what would the financial cost be to the nhs and what would the financial cost be to investigate, prosecute and then incarcerate people who are forced to turn to crime. also do you want to be too scared to go out at night? how much of the welfare bill goes to pensioners? how much of it goes to admin? how much actually goes to paying jsa? the spiralling cost of hb/lha can be linked to spiralling rents. so deal with the rents.

None of the benefits bill goes to admin, £200 billion is the amount paid out every year to the recipients of benefits. The admin cost is part of the cost of running the dept of work and pensions and hmrc. Their budgets are being cut in real terms, but savings need to be made from benefits as well if we are to have any real chance of tackling the deficit.

I don't buy the "everyone will turn to crime of you cut benefits" argument I'm afraid. It's just the equivalent of "if we tax bankers they will all leave".

Rent controls would require a load of administration overhead, the cost of which would probably eliminate any savings in HB. Lowerig the maximum HB forces landlords to lower their rent, especially the ones who deliberately target the HB market because they know that they can get more than market rate that way.

Anyone who thinks that benefits can carry on increasing faster than inflation given no economic growth and a deficit of £125 billion is in for a surprise, I think.