MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

scootw1

Morlock wrote: »

So it is right that the government subsidises companies who are making hundreds of millions or billions per year in profit because wages are so low they need to be topped up with benefits, but tough if someone is made redundant and can't find employment?

And where is this £10bn cut going to come from? Universal credits will be slowly eroded, the Tories are dismantling the benefits system brick by brick, and all of the ignorant masses agree because their neighbour has a nicer car and goes on holiday more. The politics of envy.



Go read the Daily Mail. "Get real", pathetic.

so are you saying people on benefits should have expensive mobile phones (a lot of them do) and sky (a lot of them do). hell, I work and have to go for the cheapest package going and do not have SKY (Freeview does me nicely thank you and besides I can't afford SKY). the ignorant masses you are referring to are the ones who pay for the benefits claime in this country (including you I suspect) and, yes, a lot of the time they do have nice cars and houses and go on holidays. I do not own a car as i couldn't afford to run it and I haven't been on holiday ever so maybe it is the politics of envy but would you not feel a bit miffed to see all this going on if you were working your socks off all week?

TSx

I've posted on the topic of housing benefit for under 25's before.

I've worked since I was 16 (I'm now over 25 so these proposals don't affect me). Since 18, I've always supported myself or been a student. I live 325 miles away from home, and my parents have downsized since I left and now live in a 1 bedroom bungalow.

For a brief period (3 months), I had to rely on the 'safety net' of housing benefit when I was 23 - I had a medical issue following an operation which meant I couldn't work with computer screens. It got better over time, but my employer couldn't afford to take the chance of me not getting better and sacked me. After several months of searching, and making several hundred applications, I found a new job. The tax I've paid in the new job covers any benefits I was paid in those 3 months several times over.

I live in a shared house with a contract for 12 months. If housing benefit was denied to me at that time, there would be the following issues...

1) I live in one City, my parents live hundreds of miles away
2) They don't have room for me (unless I'm sleeping on the Sofa)
3) I'm in a joint contract (as is the norm) so I'm liable to pay rent even if I do move out

I guess the simple response would be 'so?' - move back, live on the sofa, try to find a job away from all my friends - but I don't see why your age matters. Should a 26 year old who has never worked a day in their life be entitled to housing benefit, when a 24 year old who's worked since they were 16 isn't? Is that really fair?

Morlock

jobdone1 wrote: »

GET REAL

"Britons are among "the worst idlers" in the world preferring a "lie-in to hard work", according to group of rising stars of the Tory party, who have advocated a tough set of work reforms in a new book."

"The MPs claim the UK workforce should model itself on the workers of South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, rather those in European nations..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/17/tory-backbenchers-urge-welfare-reforms

clemmatis

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Maybe they could if there were enough real jobs
But THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS

I thought this bore repeating, Glen, particularly given the current Tory "everybody must work" mantra. There are far far fewer jobs than there are JSA claimants, and so, far far far fewer jobs than there are work-less. THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

jobdone1 wrote: »

I don't agree

So, you think all the official government statistics are wrong? You have better statistics? Post them.

there are jobs but they are not the jobs that people feel they should do,

Oh, that is true, in some instances. However, if each and every job vacancy were filled, there would still be many people who were unemployed, because, THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

A job is a job.

Yep. And THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS.

jobdone1

Morlock wrote: »

"Britons are among "the worst idlers" in the world preferring a "lie-in to hard work", according to group of rising stars of the Tory party, who have advocated a tough set of work reforms in a new book."

"The MPs claim the UK workforce should model itself on the workers of South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, rather those in European nations..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/17/tory-backbenchers-urge-welfare-reforms

And your point is """"""

Mrs_Arcanum

No thought for the parents of violent children looking forward to a bit of peace.
No thought for young adults who have left home & have their own family.
No thought for the young adult whose parents die after they have moved out so they cannot move back in with them.
No thought for the disabled young adults finally old enough to move into adult supported housing.

MUMZ2BEE

I am defo a great believer in cutting child benefit if you have too many children.

My ex neighbour's daughter had 12 children, the eldest being 21.

She had NEVER done a days work to support having a large family like this.

She rakes in thousands of pounds a year in benefits; yet her parents shouted at me to get a job!!

I do agree that her benefits should be capped.

I've also seen them in an expensive people carrier vehicle, latest mobile phones, and digital cameras!!

Its people like this the Government should be clamping down on; not the disabled!!

robpw2

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Maybe they could if there were enough real jobs
But THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS

i went into town with my cv at weekend at least 1in3 shops were looking for staff

PaulF81

annie1975 wrote: »

To a certain point yes you should only have children if you can afford them,but the problem is there is a lot of people working hard out there for minimum wage,and without the help of Tax credits would not be able to survive.They might already have their children and then have to take a lower paid job,to which they should get help.
But I am all for benefits being stopped for people who keep having children when they are not working..That said its not the kids fault,they didnt ask to be brought into the world.

You have to ask if the state needs more mouths to feed from parents that let's face it, haven't done fantastically in life. Best to cut taxes for those who are doing well than pay for what is in effect state sponsored reverse evolution.

2 kids max for any benefits. After that, you find the cash for them or have a vasectomy or have an abortion. The state can no longer afford any other option, whilst the top 5% of earners are paying for 25% of the income tax bill. If labour get back in, I am emigrating and taking my salary with me. The uk and its rotten socialist policies can go to hell.

PaulF81

Morlock wrote: »

So it is right that the government subsidises companies who are making hundreds of millions or billions per year in profit because wages are so low they need to be topped up with benefits, but tough if someone is made redundant and can't find employment?

And where is this £10bn cut going to come from? Universal credits will be slowly eroded, the Tories are dismantling the benefits system brick by brick, and all of the ignorant masses agree because their neighbour has a nicer car and goes on holiday more. The politics of envy.



Go read the Daily Mail. "Get real", pathetic.

They could freeze benefits rises for 5years then cap rises in line with CPI rather than rpi. It would be a start.