Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

curty510

If NMW increases, then so does the income of the working household, therefore more ££££ to spend on goods/services, thus improving the economy

BJV

curty510 wrote: »

If NMW increases, then so does the income of the working household, therefore more ££££ to spend on goods/services, thus improving the economy

Completely agree but the problem is that so will the cost of living, the cost of food.


It is all proportional. We employee staff and have never paid NMW but we are now faced with having to increase again. TBH we may have to cut some peoples hours or at the very least make sure that every single minute they are being paid for they are productive.

bloolagoon

BJV wrote: »

Completely agree but the problem is that so will the cost of living, the cost of food.


It is all proportional. We employee staff and have never paid NMW but we are now faced with having to increase again. TBH we may have to cut some peoples hours or at the very least make sure that every single minute they are being paid for they are productive.

I suspect those above NMW will not see much difference. It's always the same with lower the bottom, above doesn't see the same percentage and then above even less. It's why wages have stagnated over the years (apart from the lowest, whose tax credits never reduced accordingly)

ab1982

Just to throw my twopenneth in here.

I think the government (blue, red or otherwise) has an absolutely impossible task cutting welfare spending. This and the previous blue government has demonised welfare recipients with the help of their tabloids to the extent where it’s become politically viable for them to slash the overall spend.

Particularly cruel measures include the bedroom tax and sanctions as these must be an absolute kick amidships for people who don’t have much money to begin with.

But the ones who are fiddling will continue to fiddle and be unaffected, they are good at it and know the system. It’s the vulnerable genuine people that will be most affected and that’s just not fair.

dodger1

ab1982 wrote: »

Just to throw my twopenneth in here.

I think the government (blue, red or otherwise) has an absolutely impossible task cutting welfare spending. This and the previous blue government has demonised welfare recipients with the help of their tabloids to the extent where it’s become politically viable for them to slash the overall spend.

Particularly cruel measures include the bedroom tax and sanctions as these must be an absolute kick amidships for people who don’t have much money to begin with.

But the ones who are fiddling will continue to fiddle and be unaffected, they are good at it and know the system. It’s the vulnerable genuine people that will be most affected and that’s just not fair.

I have no problem with either of those measures providing that in the case of the "bedroom tax" there are actually properties available of the correct size to move into and sanctions would be fine as long as any appeal is heard first.

Here_Comes_The_Judge

ab1982 wrote: »

Particularly cruel measures include the bedroom tax and sanctions as these must be an absolute kick amidships for people who don’t have much money to begin with.

It's not a Tax. It's a benefit reduction. And as a long, long, long suffering high rate tax payer, not before time. Vulnerable? Just another victim group.

ab1982

Here_Comes_The_Judge wrote: »

It's not a Tax. It's a benefit reduction. And as a long, long, long suffering high rate tax payer, not before time. Vulnerable? Just another victim group.

I’d love to join in your suffering as a high rate tax payer but unfortunately my employer won’t give me enough pennies!

What it’s called isn’t the point but the generally accepted term seems to be bedroom tax.

I think it’s something that’s aimed at punishing housing benefit recipients rather than saving any serious money, those affected either have to move house or lose money and the former isn’t usually feasible.

I think its punitive, cruel and I can’t imagine that it will be anywhere near “value-for-pain”. In my opinion, it would probably be fairer to make you a middle rate tax payer.

Bogof_Babe

dodger1 wrote: »

I have no problem with either of those measures providing that in the case of the "bedroom tax" there are actually properties available of the correct size to move into and sanctions would be fine as long as any appeal is heard first.

Plenty of one and two bed flats in the private sector, and if a claimant is eligible for housing benefit they should be able to budget for the generally higher rent. I've never understood why people feel entitled not only to have their housing paid for by the rest of us, but to have it on a home-for-life basis.

I expect that people being unwilling to give up a council house contributes to their being unwilling to move to a different area where there might be employment, but they'd have to rent privately.

Bogof_Babe

Is anyone watching Council House Crackdown, 9.15 weekdays on BBC1? There's always some cheat who doesn't live in their council property, for which they pay about £500 a month, but sublets it for more than double that.

But of course benefits fraud doesn't exist, does it? Everybody is a fine upstanding citizen who wouldn't dream of playing the system.

ab1982

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Is anyone watching Council House Crackdown, 9.15 weekdays on BBC1? There's always some cheat who doesn't live in their council property, for which they pay about £500 a month, but sublets it for more than double that.

But of course benefits fraud doesn't exist, does it? Everybody is a fine upstanding citizen who wouldn't dream of playing the system.

Yes I am sure there are plenty of cheaters, they will continue to cheat the system and maximise income, they have previous.

Plenty of genuine vulnerable people who don’t know how to cheat the system (they have never done it), they will be worse off.