Are the Tories going to tear themselves apart?

kinger101

michaels wrote: »

I have no idea - total spend appears to be up, I'm assuming total disabled are not rising faster than population so are disabled better or worse off real terms than say 2010?

The disabled aren't a homogenous group. PIP was supposed to bring in savings (compared to DLA), which didn't materialize, but I don't think everyone has transferred to that yet. So GO announced cuts (while pretending the amount they were spending would still be going up.....which has been debunked in real terms).

I suspect a large part of the increase in the DLA/PIP spending since 2010 has been due to people challenging assessments by ATOS. The rates for PIP are certainly not any more generous than DLA, though the assessment criteria are different. There would have been plenty of people who kept broadly comparable benefits under PIP, but the proposed change would have cost them substantially as the drop from enhanced to standard rate.

Mistermeaner

My understanding matched Michaels, however I don't know enough of the detail to conclude either way. It does seem a strange area to go for politically however.

So backlash and back down on disability and tax credits. Where oh where will these savings be found? NHS is ring fenced noone is going near the grey vote.

What are labour proposing? How will they make savings?

Had my council tax through the other day that's gone up by 3% because the council provides lots of services I don't want or need.

kinger101

I think the backdown on the tax credits was the mistake. All they needed to do really to make it palatable to the Lords was make it dovetail correctly with the rise in minimum wage.

Savings might also be found by not slashing tax rates.

Mistermeaner

Taxation is pretty punitive already; sure paying high rate tax is a nice problem to have but its not a great incentive for high achievers to achieving more.... it also kicks in at very very low levels.

Add in the fact that there is a huge stepped cut off between eligibility to the plethora of benefits and earning more just to pay more tax there is already massive redistribution of wealth. Those who pay tax cannot be asked to pay any more surely.

Anecdotal I know but I am a high rate tax payer and have a mortgage, next door but one to me is a single mother who does not work. We both live in identical houses, I work she doesn't. I pay council tax, she doesn't. I pay for child care, she doesn't. To maintain a similar lifestyle in terms of housing I have to 1 pay a mortgage and then 2 keep a huge a sum of capital tied up in my home - she doesn't. Is that what a 'fair' society is like?

westernpromise

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Taxation is pretty punitive already; sure paying high rate tax is a nice problem to have but its not a great incentive for high achievers to achieving more.... it also kicks in at very very low levels.

Add in the fact that there is a huge stepped cut off between eligibility to the plethora of benefits and earning more just to pay more tax there is already massive redistribution of wealth. Those who pay tax cannot be asked to pay any more surely.

Anecdotal I know but I am a high rate tax payer and have a mortgage, next door but one to me is a single mother who does not work. We both live in identical houses, I work she doesn't. I pay council tax, she doesn't. I pay for child care, she doesn't. To maintain a similar lifestyle in terms of housing I have to 1 pay a mortgage and then 2 keep a huge a sum of capital tied up in my home - she doesn't. Is that what a 'fair' society is like?

I suppose the glib answer is that if she’s on benefits she’s not accumulating wealth and you are. Of course there is a vociferous body of opinion that thinks you shouldn’t actually be allowed to keep any of this wealth and that it should be taken away from you and given to themselves.

Mistermeaner

Re accumulating wealth in my pension etc yes but if you think of the house i am servicing debt and risk aonnd liability on repairs etc. She is not.

Eventually i will own the house, so no more debt to service but i retain liability and risk for repairs, so she is stilll like for like in a better position.

Owning the house also means i have x 100k tied up to provide me with rent free accomodation. She has rent free accomodation with zero capital tied up (plus ive had to work xxx 1000 hours to accumulate that capital, she has not)

If anything happens to me my access to benefits that she would enjoy are means tested in part against the value in the house. So again she is better off.

Hopefully wheb i die i can pasd the house to my heirs. But at what rate of tax?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Re accumulating wealth in my pension etc yes but if you think of the house i am servicing debt and risk aonnd liability on repairs etc. She is not.

Eventually i will own the house, so no more debt to service but i retain liability and risk for repairs, so she is stilll like for like in a better position.

Owning the house also means i have x 100k tied up to provide me with rent free accomodation. She has rent free accomodation with zero capital tied up (plus ive had to work xxx 1000 hours to accumulate that capital, she has not)

If anything happens to me my access to benefits that she would enjoy are means tested in part against the value in the house. So again she is better off.

Hopefully wheb i die i can pasd the house to my heirs. But at what rate of tax?

I'm sure you're envious of her £70p/w income as well.

mwpt

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Re accumulating wealth in my pension etc yes but if you think of the house i am servicing debt and risk aonnd liability on repairs etc. She is not.

Eventually i will own the house, so no more debt to service but i retain liability and risk for repairs, so she is stilll like for like in a better position.

Owning the house also means i have x 100k tied up to provide me with rent free accomodation. She has rent free accomodation with zero capital tied up (plus ive had to work xxx 1000 hours to accumulate that capital, she has not)

If anything happens to me my access to benefits that she would enjoy are means tested in part against the value in the house. So again she is better off.

Hopefully wheb i die i can pasd the house to my heirs. But at what rate of tax?

I understand the sentiment of your message here, but think of it this way: which situation would you rather be in, yours or hers? I'd choose yours every time!

It doesn't seem "fair" on the surface that a person gets things that you have to pay for, for free, but as long as the question above is balanced in favour of the productive and better off, I think we're doing ok in this country. We sleep safe at night because people aren't starving and trying to steal our stuff or do harm to us.

Things could be tweaked a little. I have no problem with asking people who receive benefits to make decisions on where to live like everyone else has to, for example.

Mistermeaner

my labour supporting parents always refer to the principle of paying benefits so that people don't riot / rob. Would paying for more policeman be more economic?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

my labour supporting parents always refer to the principle of paying benefits so that people don't riot / rob. Would paying for more policeman be more economic?

Maybe provide more opportunities for the less fortunate to get involved in "productive life".

What's the alternative? Do you expect people to forage through the local woods for berries and seeds..... as an average PAYE tax payer I don't begrudge paying to support the less advantaged population.

I don't expect the single parent that you described has a particularly fulfilling life if only her basic needs are met. So what benefits entitlement would you like to stop? Housing? £70pw income?