MSE News: Benefits to rise by less than inflation: full breakdown

halifax71

After benefits going up 5.2% (link to sept cpi if i recall) last year I'm all for this.

MissMoneypenny

bloolagoon wrote: »

No it is your terminology I disagree with. I benefit from Schools, NHS, Refuse Collection and many others.

I do not benefit from the Government removing my disposable income. It is a charge not a benefit. The only reason they have the Personal Allowance is to reduce the benefits paid to lower workers, this is shown in the way they then advance the taxation for medium/higher earners.

Often high earners will use private helathcare and private schools too.

High rate tax earners put in a lot to the UK's pot and take out very little: which is the opposite of what long term welfare claimants of working age, do. Paying taxes; taking benefits - not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination (and it would take some imagination to pretend they are).

Dunroamin

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

It certainly would, he would have been able to have an adapted car, instead of having to cycle every night.

My dad was just grateful for the extra job security that being registered disabled gave him. An adapted car wouldn't have helped him much as he was using a bike all the time on his post round.:)

benefitbaby

halifax71 wrote: »

After benefits going up 5.2% (link to sept cpi if i recall) last year I'm all for this.

Whilst I understand your thinking I cannot bring myself to agree.
A 5.3% rise for a single person on JSA equates to the cost of a sandwich.

The 1% rise announced last week actually equates to a 2% cut (because cost of living has increased 3%).

The government have said it is not fair for people to go to work and see their neighbours living a life on benefits, this overlooks the following:
2011-2012 £159 billion spent on welfare
£88 billion on pensioner benefits (over working age)
£17 billion on housing benefit (90% of new HB claims in the same period were for people in work)

As a result of the 1% increase a single job-seeker over 25 years of age will gain 71p per week giving £10 a day to live on. How can this be right in a fair and just society where in the last 5 years food has increased 32% and just two weeks ago it was announced that energy prices will increase next year by an average of £23 per week.

And this is before we factor in the changes to come next year which will further impact disposable income e.g. CT contributions, PIP, UC, abolition of SDP, and then the LHA increase change in 2014.

I fear a huge increase in child poverty, rent/mortgage arrears, evictions, worsening of health and overall this is likely to be a larger cost to the public purse.

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Often high earners will use private helathcare and private schools too.

But should they be unable, for whatever reason, to continue to pay, then the NHS and state education will be there. Should their children wish to attend a university, the state universities will be open to them -- and I doubt many of their children would, if they were offered a place at a top state university, choose Buckingham instead.

And should they need emergency medical care, the NHS will provide it.

And anyway, they do benefit from the provision made for others. They benefit from a better educated and healthier society, they benefit from public transport even if they don't use it. They benefit from free vaccinations even if they pay for theirs. Etc..

princessdon

So if the Personal Allowance is a benefit - does that mean people on none working benefits are double claiming an overlapping benefit as they don't pay tax on their "income"?

Of course not and the reason is because it is not a Benefit, it's a way of ensuring that the lower paid don't lose out financially and if the next govt decided to scrap it and add it to WTC (to ensure people worked 30 hours a week) they would.

It is a benefit of a kind - but only for those that don't get whalloped with 40% later.

Dunroamin

benefitbaby wrote: »

A 5.3% rise for a single person on JSA equates to the cost of a sandwich.

Only if they buy their sandwiches in M&S!

£4 a week could pay for someone's food budget for a couple of days.

UsetheFORCE

benefitbaby wrote: »

As a result of the 1% increase a single job-seeker over 25 years of age will gain 71p per week giving £10 a day to live on. How can this be right in a fair and just society where in the last 5 years food has increased 32% and just two weeks ago it was announced that energy prices will increase next year by an average of £23 per week.

I will assume this is an error, do you mean a year?

Muttleythefrog

princessdon wrote: »

So if the Personal Allowance is a benefit - does that mean people on none working benefits are double claiming an overlapping benefit as they don't pay tax on their "income"?

Of course not and the reason is because it is not a Benefit, it's a way of ensuring that the lower paid don't lose out financially and if the next govt decided to scrap it and add it to WTC (to ensure people worked 30 hours a week) they would.

It is a benefit of a kind - but only for those that don't get whalloped with 40% later.

This is my point. The bottom line is they're just terms of convenience. The reality is there's a pot.. some people take more out than they put in.. most people in fact. How the putting in and taking out is managed is pure politics.. and the words and mechanisms used entirely manufactured. One word is benefits and people seem to regard that as referring to a narrow band of things people can claim (or automatically get).. but it strikes me the word is more more a concept of emotion than anything meaningful to the management of the state (e.g. some will regard child benefit as not a benefit yet DLA as a benefit). For example... people in low paid employment are helped in various ways.. you could call them subsidies, benefits, exemptions, allowances, assistance, credits, rewards, supplements or anything quite frankly. Bottom line is they're probably getting support from the state meaning they're net takers.. getting more out than putting in... what you call that net take is entirely valueless. The complexity of the system (taxation, benefits) is largely testimony to the fact politicians are in a popularity contest yet have to do unpopular things like take your money one way or another... or give as little as possible away. Money has no motive or morality.. it just is... people attach meaning and direction to it... hence when you give £20 in an Xmas card and say 'this is to pay for school books' the money has a habit of actually turning into chocolate.

schrodie

Dunroamin wrote: »

£4 a week could pay for someone's food budget for a couple of days.

Watch out Martin someone's trying to steal your crown!!!
:rotfl::rotfl: