Is It Silly To All Of A Sudden Feel This...
Family & Relationships9 mins ago
Which Benefits Would You Cut?
The Daily Mail has asked. I'm very glad I'm not a decision maker as I wouldn't have a clue where to start.
I do think that state pensions should be taken out of the equation altogether, though.
http://
I do think that state pensions should be taken out of the equation altogether, though.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
There are plenty of young people to pay for the baby boomers. Not everyone is in a job at one time, it is always the case that the job opportunities, not the people, must create sufficient wealth to pay the country’s bills, and since all the older folk contributed in the understand that this meant they were entitled it would be immoral to steal that away now. For sure pensions should be out of the equation simply because the agreement in the past was different. It was earned from the financial support of the previous generations, not a welfare thing, even if it can be argued it should be. It is atrocious the age one has to reach to become eligible is rising. Just shows the total lack of morality once one gets into power and can do what one wishes to a large degree. Power corrupts, or at least brings existing corruption to the surface.
Child benefit is an obvious candidate for cuts. We have too many folk trying to live here already, having problems getting enough resources; we should not be encouraging/subsidising more. It needs to be phased in because folk thought they could depend on the taxpayer paying for their kids but go it should go. There are moral arguments for allowing help for the first child. I’d rather not means test welfare wherever possible; it is demeaning and may not save much anyway once the taxpayer has paid for all the checks.
TV licences should be abolished anyway. They cost to produce and check up on, and could easily be covered by general taxation. It’s a national benefit; let the nation pay from general taxation.
Most suggestions here seem flawed. Usually because making checks cost money. May as well pay things as a right as a citizen and be done with it. Likewise depriving ex-pats is not such a fair thing to do. If you aren’t going to pay for winter heating as they are in a warmer country, are you going to pay for air conditioning instead for the same reason ? It’s grabbing for the sake of it.
Aye charitable status should be looked at. If the taxpayer is not getting a contribution from a money making business, that sounds like a benefit for them, to me. Not contributing or taking, it’s just the other side of the coin. It’s all to do with the public kitty. I’m unsure how much one can save that way though.
Not sending your child to a State school can not be defined as a good thing. It’s just a choice thing.
Speaking of which and I know it’s expanding on the OP question, but it was too restrictive; they should look into multi-nationals wriggling out of tax payments by playing one country against another. And not be frozen with fear on any threat the company might make. Merchants should not rule over elected governments.
Stamp duty, that tax on moving, should be stamped out. But that isn’t helping matters when one is looking to save on spending and increase tax income.
Personally I see few easy targets to get slashed. I've said in other threads I think the Tory aim is too great. I think they are likely to have to consider ‘salami slicing’ across the board.
Child benefit is an obvious candidate for cuts. We have too many folk trying to live here already, having problems getting enough resources; we should not be encouraging/subsidising more. It needs to be phased in because folk thought they could depend on the taxpayer paying for their kids but go it should go. There are moral arguments for allowing help for the first child. I’d rather not means test welfare wherever possible; it is demeaning and may not save much anyway once the taxpayer has paid for all the checks.
TV licences should be abolished anyway. They cost to produce and check up on, and could easily be covered by general taxation. It’s a national benefit; let the nation pay from general taxation.
Most suggestions here seem flawed. Usually because making checks cost money. May as well pay things as a right as a citizen and be done with it. Likewise depriving ex-pats is not such a fair thing to do. If you aren’t going to pay for winter heating as they are in a warmer country, are you going to pay for air conditioning instead for the same reason ? It’s grabbing for the sake of it.
Aye charitable status should be looked at. If the taxpayer is not getting a contribution from a money making business, that sounds like a benefit for them, to me. Not contributing or taking, it’s just the other side of the coin. It’s all to do with the public kitty. I’m unsure how much one can save that way though.
Not sending your child to a State school can not be defined as a good thing. It’s just a choice thing.
Speaking of which and I know it’s expanding on the OP question, but it was too restrictive; they should look into multi-nationals wriggling out of tax payments by playing one country against another. And not be frozen with fear on any threat the company might make. Merchants should not rule over elected governments.
Stamp duty, that tax on moving, should be stamped out. But that isn’t helping matters when one is looking to save on spending and increase tax income.
Personally I see few easy targets to get slashed. I've said in other threads I think the Tory aim is too great. I think they are likely to have to consider ‘salami slicing’ across the board.
The government is making noises about cutting the cost of tax credits for people in poorly paid jobs because in reality it is the employer that we taxpayers are supporting.
All well and good, and I do see the point but surely if employers wages bills go up it will have a knock on effect up the ranks so everyone's wage will have to go up. That will be recouped by higher costs of the product/service so the cost of living will shoot up, which means the lower paid workers will still not be earning sufficient for basic living.
All well and good, and I do see the point but surely if employers wages bills go up it will have a knock on effect up the ranks so everyone's wage will have to go up. That will be recouped by higher costs of the product/service so the cost of living will shoot up, which means the lower paid workers will still not be earning sufficient for basic living.
-- answer removed --
//Which Benefits Would You Cut?//
If most people (sheeple) went by what they view on TV, then the unemployed and those claiming sickness (ESA) benefits would be first. A bit like how the Nazis first came for the jews, then the sick, then the "useless eaters', (unemployed) then the .....(fill in your blank)
If most people (sheeple) went by what they view on TV, then the unemployed and those claiming sickness (ESA) benefits would be first. A bit like how the Nazis first came for the jews, then the sick, then the "useless eaters', (unemployed) then the .....(fill in your blank)
Benefits street?
What about Westminster street, with all the pedo MP's and their expenses?
That would make better tv than the poverty porn thats churned out every night and passes for 'factual tv'.
Is their anyone that actually believes this rubbish?
Would be surprised if you do. Musn't have a mind of your own if you do, easily led by propoganda etc.
What about Westminster street, with all the pedo MP's and their expenses?
That would make better tv than the poverty porn thats churned out every night and passes for 'factual tv'.
Is their anyone that actually believes this rubbish?
Would be surprised if you do. Musn't have a mind of your own if you do, easily led by propoganda etc.
I can see that in some ways the state pension is a benefit as the average employee pays quite a bit less in NI than they receive in pension over a lifetime.
My ideas of the top of my head:
Scrap all pensioner supplements such as winter fuel allowance, free TV licence for over 75s (or make it free for all), Christmas bonus and make an equivalent basic increase to state pension. It would then become part of taxable income.
Freeze child benefit so it withers on the vine. And/or announce that benefits for children born after 2016 will be lower or nil= or do so at least for children after the first two.
At this time of low inflation freeze all benefits for three years (other than disability ones) so there is marginally more incentive to go the extra mile to find work.
Increase minimum wage to make it more likely that work pays more than benefits
Remove the triple lock on state pensions. Paul Lewis has shown it'll cost a couple of billion more per year than simply indexing with prices.
Build more housing so rents and hence housing benefit will fall. It will also help those in the bedroom tax trap where no smaller accommodation can be found
I'd also reintroduce the 50% tax band. (not quite on topic I know)
Expect claimants in expensive areas such as London to move to other areas. This after all is what employed people have to consider if they can't afford high housing costs in their area
Despite all the unacceptable stories about ATOS etc dealing badly with deserving people with disabilities I'm sure lots of claimants still slip through- e.g. people who are overweight/alcoholic and don't do what's needed, or those who feel too stressed.
It's been tried before without success but maybe a large chunk of benefits should be food vouchers.
I doubt Cameron will get far unless he uses smoke and mirrors as there will be protests at any attempt to make any group worse off, and EU may prevent action.
My ideas of the top of my head:
Scrap all pensioner supplements such as winter fuel allowance, free TV licence for over 75s (or make it free for all), Christmas bonus and make an equivalent basic increase to state pension. It would then become part of taxable income.
Freeze child benefit so it withers on the vine. And/or announce that benefits for children born after 2016 will be lower or nil= or do so at least for children after the first two.
At this time of low inflation freeze all benefits for three years (other than disability ones) so there is marginally more incentive to go the extra mile to find work.
Increase minimum wage to make it more likely that work pays more than benefits
Remove the triple lock on state pensions. Paul Lewis has shown it'll cost a couple of billion more per year than simply indexing with prices.
Build more housing so rents and hence housing benefit will fall. It will also help those in the bedroom tax trap where no smaller accommodation can be found
I'd also reintroduce the 50% tax band. (not quite on topic I know)
Expect claimants in expensive areas such as London to move to other areas. This after all is what employed people have to consider if they can't afford high housing costs in their area
Despite all the unacceptable stories about ATOS etc dealing badly with deserving people with disabilities I'm sure lots of claimants still slip through- e.g. people who are overweight/alcoholic and don't do what's needed, or those who feel too stressed.
It's been tried before without success but maybe a large chunk of benefits should be food vouchers.
I doubt Cameron will get far unless he uses smoke and mirrors as there will be protests at any attempt to make any group worse off, and EU may prevent action.
The shocking fact is that if a parent (single or claiming as a couple) got a low paid job then the government would not save money. The low wage would have to be topped up with tax credits, working tax credits, child tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and maybe other benefits I am unaware of.
And there is every chance the worker would be worse off after deducting work costs such as travel.
The employer gets a state subsidised employee on the cheap.
And there is every chance the worker would be worse off after deducting work costs such as travel.
The employer gets a state subsidised employee on the cheap.
85% of housing benefit is paid to people who work full time. I have thought for years that house prices are far too high, but I can't see what can be done about it. There are too few houses for the population and it is getting worse.
We need to build 200,000 houses a year and we manage less than 1/2 that.
I just can't see how anyone will be able afford to live in 10 years time.
We need to build 200,000 houses a year and we manage less than 1/2 that.
I just can't see how anyone will be able afford to live in 10 years time.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles99 mins ago
Politics173 mins ago
ChatterBank289 mins ago
