George Osborne warns £25bn more cuts needed

coastline

With State pensions already forecast to rise with the triple lock statement yesterday then it looks like welfare payments will be hit hard.
You can see in the link below that the range of welfare payments are spread right across the income brackets.

Figure: Average weekly entitlements to benefits and tax credits among working-age families in 2012–13



http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6362

You dont have to be well off to hit those 6th and 7th Income Decile Groups....have a try.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

We cant blame the under 25 yo and single parents for a surge since 2009 in housing payments....

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1990_2016UKb_13c1li111mcn_46t

N1AK

MS1950 wrote: »

http://wpeg.group.shef.ac.uk/Archive/papers2007/47AnyadikeDanes.pdf

3. Slower growth since 1996”.

Checked a couple of sources and you are right MS1950. The rate of increase decreased from pre-97 under Labour what I said was, thus, nonsense and I apologise.

We did see disability benefit claimants increase by ~45% under that government though; but again it appears that the figures under the current government and projected aren't very different.

N1AK

SailorSam wrote: »

It's not just the money that HS2 is costing or the benefits it may bring but it's going to devide the nation even more.
More industry will move to the south leaving even more in the north depending upon a life living on benefits. Those living near to where these trains stop may find they do well, but if you're not in that area work will move away.

It's a nonsense view that simply doesn't make sense. The residents of Newcastle wouldn't benefit from us pulling up the rails and destroying the roads leading south new railways don't follow magically different rules to current ones.

Loughton_Monkey

JencParker wrote: »

What a ridiculous thing to say. Child benefit is not enough to raise a child - if you were referring to child tax credits, then that would be different.

It's not ridiculous to say it. Were you to have read it, you will see that I was referring specifically the point on "needing" children to sustain the population. Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that basic CB is enough to raise a child. I know damned well it isn't. I referred to it as a "bribe", just as refunding 20% tax for pension contributions is a "bribe" to take a certain action.

In that context of population numbers, I'm just asking a question. Read it again. "If we believe that birth rate would significantly drop without child benefit, then we are effectively admitting that many people have children for [short term] economic reasons." By this I clearly mean they 'take the bribe'.

You seem to be saying that child benefit removal wouldn't drop the birth rate because it's too small. Fine. I'll go with that. In which case you would have to agree with the alternative "If we believe that birth rate will susbstantially continue without child benefit (as I do) we do not need to fear removing child benefit."

It could be somewhere in the middle. I don't know. If you can convince me that (a) we truly need more children (or no fewer), and (b) Basic CB does influence the birth rate, then I would be the first to argue to maintain it.

Since you seem to be denying point (b), and not commenting on (a) I'm not sure where you stand in the debate.

I happen to think CB shouldn't be paid. And I certainly don't like the £3k-ish additional Child Tax Credit either.

N1AK

spacey2012 wrote: »

How much is the Foreign aid budget ?
I mean the real one.

I would have thought he could find a lot of this at the stroke of a pen and gain support of most of the country in one move.
Let India and Pakistan pay for their own space rockets.
We are supposed to be skint.

£11.2 billion pa and clearly axing it or decimating it would be very popular politically.

Although I think the foreign aid budget is a good thing and shouldn't be cut I will admit I don't understand why DC hasn't done it. I can only assume that it is partly political, based on the thinking that protecting foreign aid makes the conservatives seem more caring etc.

I wouldn't, for example, of been against the government cutting foreign aid while youth unemployment is high on the basis that all the money was used to support given young people who volunteer in foreign countries support instead. That way our young get experience and we provide assistance to those in need.

MS1950

N1AK wrote: »

Checked a couple of sources and you are right MS1950. The rate of increase decreased from pre-97 under Labour what I said was, thus, nonsense and I apologise.

We did see disability benefit claimants increase by ~45% under that government though; but again it appears that the figures under the current government and projected aren't very different.

Thanks for your response NIAK.

However, I'd be interested in your source for a roughly 45% increase in disability benefits other than IVB/IB (which has now become ESA) - under Labour or the coalition?

The only other significant disability benefit I can think of is 'Disability Living Allowance' (currently also undergoing a rebrand), which is paid to more severely disabled people in and out of work to help with the costs of aids and support needed because of their disability, and often enabling them to gain or maintain a job.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Taking this logic further, do you not feel it's fair to treat any benefit as a loan? For example, job seekers allowance could be repaid at a few quid a month once the person was back in work. Sickness benefit repaid once the patient is cured and back at work, etc.?

SMI is a completely different beast to that of other welfare payments.

Not to labour the point here, the issue isn't SMI, it's that it's paying off a mortgage in which the beneficiary is soley the homeowner. When the homeowner ceases using SMI for any reason, maybe because the mortgage has now ended, the homeowner will end up with a property worth X amount of which they can do with what they please. I don't find that a particularly good use of taxpayer money considering those benefitting from it are are tiny fraction of the population but benefit greatly from it.

As the majority of SMI claimants are over 60, it stands to reason SMI will be used until the mortgage is fully paid off.

In these times of austerity, looking at what you can cut, or at least claim back later on, this, surely, is a prime example. The owner gets to stay in their home until they either decided to sell on their own accord or pass on. At that point, the taxpayer get's their loan back. I don't see what's to dislike or take issue with in all honesty. I'd go as far to say some currently using SMI may drop the scheme and find another way if they see it as a loan, rather than a free handout, so we'd save money.

Jobseekers, income support, housing benefit etc. None of those directly support paying down a privately owned asset. Similarly it's unlike the person receiving said welfare could even attempt to pay down an asset on the sums provided while maintaining a living. The welfare is aimed primariliy at living costs, food, clothing, heating, rent etc. It's not aimed at supporting the ownership of a private property.

So no, it's not fair to treat those benefits as a loan in the same sense as SMI. In doing so, you will just hamper any progress when they stop using welfare and move on.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

SMI is a completely different beast to that of other welfare payments.

Not to labour the point here, the issue isn't SMI, it's that it's paying off a mortgage in which the beneficiary is soley the homeowner. When the homeowner ceases using SMI for any reason, maybe because the mortgage has now ended, the homeowner will end up with a property worth X amount of which they can do with what they please. I don't find that a particularly good use of taxpayer money considering those benefitting from it are are tiny fraction of the population but benefit greatly from it.

As the majority of SMI claimants are over 60, it stands to reason SMI will be used until the mortgage is fully paid off.

In these times of austerity, looking at what you can cut, or at least claim back later on, this, surely, is a prime example. The owner gets to stay in their home until they either decided to sell on their own accord or pass on. At that point, the taxpayer get's their loan back. I don't see what's to dislike or take issue with in all honesty. I'd go as far to say some currently using SMI may drop the scheme and find another way if they see it as a loan, rather than a free handout, so we'd save money.

Jobseekers, income support, housing benefit etc. None of those directly support paying down a privately owned asset. Similarly it's unlike the person receiving said welfare could even attempt to pay down an asset on the sums provided while maintaining a living. The welfare is aimed primariliy at living costs, food, clothing, heating, rent etc. It's not aimed at supporting the ownership of a private property.

So no, it's not fair to treat those benefits as a loan in the same sense as SMI. In doing so, you will just hamper any progress when they stop using welfare and move on.

Well as SMI is only available for 2 years I can't imagine it would clear too many mortgages or net too much profit in that amount of time. Where do you stand on having a time limit on benefits? Housing benefit is a good example, do you feel this should be used as a safety net for tenants in temporary financial difficulties, or a permanent benefit to subsidize tenants who otherwise would not be able to afford to rent the property they are in?

spacey2012

N1AK wrote: »

£11.2 billion pa and clearly axing it or decimating it would be very popular politically.

Although I think the foreign aid budget is a good thing and shouldn't be cut I will admit I don't understand why DC hasn't done it. I can only assume that it is partly political, based on the thinking that protecting foreign aid makes the conservatives seem more caring etc.

I wouldn't, for example, of been against the government cutting foreign aid while youth unemployment is high on the basis that all the money was used to support given young people who volunteer in foreign countries support instead. That way our young get experience and we provide assistance to those in need.

So he wants £25 billion of cuts over 4 years.
The foreign aid budget is 11bn a year.

Well thats 44 billion, a surplus of 19 billion left !
Have a referenda on abolishing foreign aid George, I bet the result is 99% in favour, possibly higher and you could walk the next election as people would at last see a government in tune with the people.

The cronies pocketing the money on the kick backs might not be happy, but hey ho.
We are all in together.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

SMI is a completely different beast to that of other welfare payments.

Not to labour the point here, the issue isn't SMI, it's that it's paying off a mortgage in which the beneficiary is soley the homeowner. When the homeowner ceases using SMI for any reason, maybe because the mortgage has now ended, the homeowner will end up with a property worth X amount of which they can do with what they please. I don't find that a particularly good use of taxpayer money considering those benefitting from it are are tiny fraction of the population but benefit greatly from it.

As the majority of SMI claimants are over 60, it stands to reason SMI will be used until the mortgage is fully paid off.

In these times of austerity, looking at what you can cut, or at least claim back later on, this, surely, is a prime example. The owner gets to stay in their home until they either decided to sell on their own accord or pass on. At that point, the taxpayer get's their loan back. I don't see what's to dislike or take issue with in all honesty. I'd go as far to say some currently using SMI may drop the scheme and find another way if they see it as a loan, rather than a free handout, so we'd save money.

Jobseekers, income support, housing benefit etc. None of those directly support paying down a privately owned asset. Similarly it's unlike the person receiving said welfare could even attempt to pay down an asset on the sums provided while maintaining a living. The welfare is aimed primariliy at living costs, food, clothing, heating, rent etc. It's not aimed at supporting the ownership of a private property.

So no, it's not fair to treat those benefits as a loan in the same sense as SMI. In doing so, you will just hamper any progress when they stop using welfare and move on.

the SMI only covers the interest on the mortgage and not capital so it can't fairly be said to be 'paying down a privately owned asset'