I.d.s.

[whiskeryron]

I see the Tories hit man has been let out again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720940/Iain-Duncan-Smith-new-welfare-war-Plans-lower-benefit-cap-restrict-child-handouts.html
( open link & scroll down)
why have the Tories got an absolute downer on their lower classes ( the bulk of the people in the UK) ?. It is a fact that our beloved leader & his cronies are mostly from privileged backgrounds & have very little time for the working class population. I personally know quite a few people who are out of work & trying very hard to find employment, they are not all the work-shy scroungers they are constantly being pointed out to be. The truth of the matter is there are not the jobs out there this government would have us believe, so come on fair play.

[murraymints]

That's why tax credits and child benefit is played out lady..one way or another the state does deliver...dependent benefits are added to single straight claims...but either way....

[lady-janine]

I still don't understand.

[mikey4444]

Its often conveniently forgotten that most benefits are paid to people who are in work, not those on the dole. We now have a low-wage economy, which the Tories didn't start in its entirety but are now quite happy to continue to encourage. My niece works as a care assistant, is paid the minimum wage, for only 16 hours a week. How is this is a "proper" job ? If her employer gave her 40 hours a week, it wouldn't be so bad but they won't do that, because they make more profits by employing more people, at 16 hours a week. Its obscene. Is it any wonder that our old and vulnerable are not being treated in a decent manner ?

[murraymints]

If people take jobs at a lower level one way or the other, if there are dependants, The govt tops up ...so it's still coming from the same purse...

[murraymints]

Indeed mikey...in work benefits and state pensions are all delivered from same purse as out of work benefits and greatly outnumber them too..

[Svejk]

///which the Tories didn't start in its entirety///
aka, didn't start at all. That'd be, what are they called, oh yeah, Labour. When I said the same thing on another thread I came in for a load of abuse from someone.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //Its obscene.//

Tell that to your beloved Labour. It was their idea.

[Quizmonster]

Remember a year or so ago, when he claimed he could easily live on £53.00 per week? An online petition was started which attracted almost half a million signatures in the end saying in effect, "Go on then...show us!" He dismissed it, calling it "a stunt". That's pretty much what he is himself, a "cupid stunt" in the immortal words of Kenny Everett.

[naomi24]

Let’s not give a false impression. The £53 mentioned was after rent and bills were paid. If I had to, I could feed myself on that.

[murraymints]

No one Pays your power bills for you! Or clothes you, or pays bus fares, or papers or telephone bills etc etc to look for work...

[naomi24]

Minty, in this instance, the person in question had £53 left after his rent and bills were paid, so actually his bills were paid by other people.

[murraymints]

If he had people paying his living expenses then he is very lucky...but not generally the rule , most people have to totally subsist on this paltry sum... and have to often sacrifice food for heat or vice versa ..or bus fares to even get to sign on...they are horrendously expensive up here !

[naomi24]

Minty, he paid his bills from his benefits. After they were paid he had £53 left.

[murraymints]

Still not much to feed, clothe, buy necessary consumables, fares etc...it would cost me £30 a week just to present at job centre or go into town...that's just one bus in and out !

[naomi24]

So if the average wage after tax is enough for working people to manage on but not enough for people on benefits to manage on, what would you suggest?

[jim360]

In general the way the benefits system has changed in the years leading up to 2010 is that it's tried to move towards recognising the many and varied individual circumstances that people who receive benefits need. This complexity is coming with a system that is rather unwieldy, rather costly -- but also is probably more realistic in reflecting society than various one-size-fits-all caps, or Universal Credit. The problem with reforming benefit to simplify it, then, is that this simplicity inevitably comes with less "fairness" rather than more.

In terms of comparing the money received on benefits against minimum wage, what this should demonstrate most is that the minimum wage is too low, rather than benefits being too high. Of course the Conservative Party opposed the Minimum Wage when it was first introduced but have now accepted it and have continued the increases. They should go further still in that regard. On the other hand reducing the money paid out on benefits means that those on Minimum Wage and those on benefits will struggle to make ends meet, and is therefore rather a punitive measure and, I think, the wrong attitude.

The entire philosophy of benefits caps, Universal Credit, ever-increasing conditions to be met to claim JSA, etc., is to assume that people on benefits are, by and large, the "undeserving poor". For a minority this may be true, but the way in which the system is being reformed harms the vast majority of honest claimants who have fallen on hard times and treats them as somehow responsible for the mess they are in irrespective of whether or not this is even remotely true. In many cases it simply isn't. And anyway, why should it matter? It isn't a crime to, say, make mistakes with money by not saving during the good times. A mistake, but not a crime, and I don't see that it's right to punish such mistakes by handing out less. It just creates victims.

[naomi24]

Jim, the sum suggested equates to considerably more than the minimum wage.

[LyndaB]

I cannot personally stand the man - however, I have to admit that I agree with some of the things in this article. Benefits should never amount to more than a couple on average earnings get for working full time. And why should you get more money the more children you have? I don't remember hubby getting paid more when we had our children! I have every sympathy with people who are genuinely struggling under this callous government, but I think that benefit should be a set amount, no matter what your circumstances.

[Old_Geezer]

Hi Ron, was there a particular bit you were down on ? No time to read the article at present (should be working) but the headline points seem fair enough.

If one needs benefits greater than the average working person manages to take home, then one should have a good reason. I suspect most of the time it means that some feckless individual has made life decisions without bothering to ensure they can support them, and the taxpayer ought not be expected to pick up the tab. "lower classes" are taxpayers too. Granted if there is a good reason then ok.

As for child benefit; we have too many folk here anyway. For compassion reasons I can see an argument for helping the poor to have a child since they only have one life (as far as we know) to experience continuing their family line. But beyond that it surely must be up to the parents to ensure they have the means and again not expect the ("lower class") taxpayer to pick up their tab.

Surely neither of these are an attack on folk temporarily out of work and trying to get back in ?

[jim360]

Naomi, I suppose my argument then amounts to "raise the minimum wage rather than lower benefits".