just stop all benefits.

Forever

A._Badger wrote: »

To anyone who isn't on the Left of Neil Kinnock at a guess.

IDS (I'm not a fan of his by any means) has been trying to espouse 'compassionate Conservatism' within the Party. Clearly, it isn't compassionate enough for the Left.



Which is a meaningless non-answer to my question.

Let me try again. How long do you think a country can go on with an estimated 53 per cent taking out more than they put in?

Who gets the benefits, isn't the question.

Is there more money going out in benefits than coming in? I haven't seen any proof of this yet. Perhaps you could provide proof of this?

Supposing that what you say is correct, my next point is that the biggest costs in benefits are the elderly and the low wage earners. The first group will argue they need the money because they have paid into the system. The latter group needs benefits because their wages are too low and house prices are too high so they can't afford the cost of living.

However, the elderly group are more likely to vote than anyone else so this group is probably safe from cuts until after the next election.

For the low waged group, there is nothing the government can do until they introduce a new higher minimum wage which the government won't do because they need to promote business entrepreneurship during a recession. Alternatively they can lower house prices which they won't do because they need to safeguard the banks.

So instead, the government makes it really, really hard on everyone else regardless of whether it's right or wrong and regardless that they are talking about saving hardly any money on the overall budget. That's not right and neither is it moral. But it looks good to the Daily Wail readers.

Also, the tax payer is now wasting a whole load of money on companies like ATOS and A4E that could be benefiting people directly on benefits. There are also dubious connections with these companies and the politicians as highlighted by the Rebecca of A4E and the Cameron relationship.

But still everyone ignores the billions paid out in foreign aid, the amount paid for EU membership, the MPs fiddling their expenses and the amount of rich people fiddling their taxes.

I hope people one day, people open their eyes and spot the real scroungers. And it's not the poor btw.

Edit: for the record, I will repeat again, I am not left wing.

nicknameless

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is good. the more people that are "shamed" and realise they are scroungers the better.

Mummy and daddy really were mean with their hugs weren't they?

It might be possible to work it through. Just go private to start with, thereby avoiding any additional internal conflict.

A._Badger

Forever wrote: »

Is there more money going out in benefits than coming in? I haven't seen any proof of this yet. Perhaps you could provide proof of this?

No doubt you will complain about the source, but try this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214379/Half-homes-burden-state-Benefit-payments-services-outweigh-taxes-53-properties.html

Your ("not Left wing") analysis overlooks the Brown device to buy votes, in which he locked countless middle class families into the ridiculous child tax credit scheme which has seen people perfectly capable of looking after themselves become clients of the state.

I would be the last to defend the millions squandered on EU membership, defence procurement wastage, foreign aid, crony capitalism, quangos and the like but they are the inevitable consequence of an overblown state - and that's the point. You simply cannot sustain a system where more people get benefits than don't.

You can cut the cake a different way and give more to the low paid if you like, but you can't go on inflating the dead dog of state benefits before it rots and collapses. Benefits should be given to what were once called 'the deserving poor' - not middle managers in the IT industry and school teachers.

The_White_Horse

never mind just benefits, what about all the public sector workers. financially, they just take out. their tax is meaningless, just a tiny proportion of what they are given taken back. financially they create nothing and are a drain. clearly, SOME of what they do is necessary, but we should not forget that it is only the tax of the private sector workers (and borrowing) which pays for them. THEY DO NOT SUSTAIN THEMSELVES OR CONTRIBUTE.

concerned43

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is good. the more people that are "shamed" and realise they are scroungers the better.

Really? wish I had known that when the 33 year mother of two little ones sat across from me two weeks ago in tears as she described her cancer and that she had to wear a colostomy bag, she's exhausted, going through chemo and although she and her husband had worked full time, she no longer can because of her cancer and he (her OH) has had to shorten his hours in order to look after her and the kids.
The cannot meet their mortgage repayments and fear they will be repossessed and homeless....but don't worry White Horse - she wont be bleeding the country dry as she refused to apply for DLA and other benefits because she felt she could not cope with the stress of it all!
and in the end I managed to persuade the mortgage company to lesson their monthly payments but even then she won't have enough thereafter to meet their other financial obligations...the car will go next which means she will just have to suffer the 1.5 hour journey to hospital on the bus to receive her chemo treatment and the OH won't be able to get into work without the car and thus I expect him to lose his job because of it ! but hey ho that's life in your world white horse - one world which I hope I will NEVER live in!!!

Forever

A._Badger wrote: »

No doubt you will complain about the source, but try this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214379/Half-homes-burden-state-Benefit-payments-services-outweigh-taxes-53-properties.html

Your ("not Left wing") analysis overlooks the Brown device to buy votes, in which he locked countless middle class families into the ridiculous child tax credit scheme which has seen people perfectly capable of looking after themselves become clients of the state.

I would be the last to defend the millions squandered on EU membership, defence procurement wastage, foreign aid, crony capitalism, quangos and the like but they are the inevitable consequence of an overblown state - and that's the point. You simply cannot sustain a system where more people get benefits than don't.

You can cut the cake a different way and give more to the low paid if you like, but you can't go on inflating the dead dog of state benefits before it rots and collapses. Benefits should be given to what were once called 'the deserving poor' - not middle managers in the IT industry and school teachers.

You are right regarding the Daily Wail in that I don't see it as a very respectful or truthful newspaper.

And I also mostly agree with the latter part of your post. But it doesn't take away from what I am saying:

That the vast majority of people on benefits are on hard times or have retired.

The biggest group of benefit claimants are actually the elderly and low wage workers and not people who are unemployed which only makes up 2.58% of the total bill.

The official fraud and error rate is only 2% out of the whole benefits bill so there is a lot less fraud than the Daily Wail try to make out.

People claiming unemployment benefit are not paid a lot of money at all ie. 71 pw for a single person over the age of 25 and even less for if you are under 25.

Yet all the hate goes to these people on benefits as they all get labelled as 'scroungers'. Yet not much hate is given towards the more sensible things that we really should be up in arms about. Such as the rich avoiding paying tax through many legal loop-holes, our tax money subsiding corporates like ATOS, A4E, other corporates where our tax money are now subsiding low waged workers, large supermarket chains getting free labour at our expense via mandatory work placements, the EU membership, foreign aid, etc etc etc.

Forever

The_White_Horse wrote: »

never mind just benefits, what about all the public sector workers. financially, they just take out. their tax is meaningless, just a tiny proportion of what they are given taken back. financially they create nothing and are a drain. clearly, SOME of what they do is necessary, but we should not forget that it is only the tax of the private sector workers (and borrowing) which pays for them. THEY DO NOT SUSTAIN THEMSELVES OR CONTRIBUTE.

Well public sector workers are paid to help keep the country running by doing the following vital jobs:

- emergency workers such as firemen and ambulance men
- the police
- NHS workers
- department for work and pensions
- the foreign and commonwealth office
- ministry of defence
- local council jobs such as recycling, rubbish collection, traffic wardens etc
- the armed forces

In Q1 of 2012, their numbers were reduced to:

"Total UK public sector employment decreased for the tenth consecutive quarter in the first quarter of 2012, by 39,000 to 5.899 million."

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pse/public-sector-employment/q1-2012/stb-pse-2012q1.html

They have also had their pensions cut and I have read somewhere that many of their former employment rights are to be lost (but I cannot locate the source at the moment).

I, for one, am glad that we have these people. They do crucial jobs and if they weren't around, society would decay dramatically.
Therefore, I don't mind my tax paying for these people. They also spend their wages largely in the UK which helps keeps the economy running too.

PaulF81

nicknameless wrote: »

Mummy and daddy really were mean with their hugs weren't they?

It might be possible to work it through. Just go private to start with, thereby avoiding any additional internal conflict.

Might have to actually. Nothing pleases me more than hungry children of the great unwashed.

GeorgeHowell

Forever wrote: »

There is a tiny percentage of people like this but everyone else gets a bad name because of it.

If people keep grassing people up who are committing fraud (and I understand the majority of people do), then we should get less and less people doing this.

If you look at the breakdown of benefits, the group claiming unemployment benefit is actually tiny anyway.

The largest groups claiming benefits are actually pensioners and people on low incomes who cannot afford to live with the current minimum wage and high housing costs.

- Total benefits for families with children 18.11%
- Total benefits for unemployed people 2.58%
- Total benefits for people on low incomes 22.08%
- Total benefits for elderly people 41.64%
- Total benefits for sick and disabled people 15.17%
- Total benefits for bereaved people 0.36%

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

And still no mention of the billions we loose through foreign aid...

I assume that the elderly people portion includes state pension. That's a different category because most recipients have paid in specifically for that.

How do we know that the ones I describe are only a tiny proportion ?

GeorgeHowell

ILW wrote: »

Our crazy benefits system allows employers to pay below market rates.

No they are paying the market rate because they can fill their jobs at that rate. Force them to pay more and there will just be more unemployment. If it's not considered enough to live on (which opens up a whole different debate due to the relative definition of poverty), then it's better to have top up welfare than have these people unemployed and have to pay them 100% welfare.