Opposition grows to benefit cap

[edh]

LucreLout said:

I disagree. We should be capping all benefits and reducing them such that they eventually net out at a maximum 80% of the post tax minimum wage, thereby making anyone working a full 40 hour week better off for the effort than someone choosing not to.

I'm not suggesting that's what CMD is proposing, only that it's the first step on a long road, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

That's just too simplistic - you really believe that the majority of benefit claimants are choosing that life? Millions of people of ESA and DLA because of illness or disabilities would love to be well enough to work.

Do you propose to stop benefits for the millions of in-work claimants earning more than your 80% NMW threshold?

How about the construction worker with a family, 3 kids under 5, renting privately, who gets injured at work. Serious back injury leaving him unable to do the manual work he's experienced in. His firm (agency) tell him they have terminated his employment. Do you think they can survive on 80% of NMW? (or is that 2 x 80% for a couple?)

The benefits system is very complicated because people's circumstances are all very different. that's why universal credit is taking so long.

[JagLover]

LucreLout said:

I disagree. We should be capping all benefits and reducing them such that they eventually net out at a maximum 80% of the post tax minimum wage, thereby making anyone working a full 40 hour week better off for the effort than someone choosing not to.

I'm not suggesting that's what CMD is proposing, only that it's the first step on a long road, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

It is gesture politics but yes a step in the right direction.

We desperately need two reforms.

1. A universal credit with a realistic rate of withdrawal as income rises.
2. A cap on all benefits at the second child. Want more children?, pay for them yourself.

[Sheepshanks]

JagLover said:

2. A cap on all benefits at the second child. Want more children?, pay for them yourself.

So the construction worker above has to dispose of one of his children when he falls on hard times?

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

[sidicks]

Sheepshanks said:

So the construction worker above has to dispose of one of his children when he falls on hard times?

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

If he can afford 3 children, he can afford insurance cover to protect himself in the event of the scenario you describe!

[JagLover]

sidicks said:

If he can afford 3 children, he can afford insurance cover to protect himself in the event of the scenario you describe!

Yep

Apply it to new claimants only. But widely publicise that further children will not increase benefits regardless of the circumstances.

[turbobloke]

Sheepshanks said:

JagLover said:

2. A cap on all benefits at the second child. Want more children?, pay for them yourself.

So the construction worker above has to dispose of one of his children when he falls on hard times?

No, taking free training / upskilling / increasing employability would seem to be the responsible options of choice.

If unable to work (as opposed to unwilling) there'd still be £23k of taxpayers' hard-earned on offer.

Sheepshanks said:

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

Not if they've taken effective steps towards funding retirement and old age. You may be referring to those lacking responsibility who think that other people should pick up the tab. Gordon Brown's pensions raid didn't help, but then who could possibly think a Labour politician would help.

It wouldn't need all of those children thinking that 'going on the social' is OK as a lifetyle choice to be an economic disaster.

[JagLover]

Sheepshanks said:

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

The key ratio is between economic dependents and active.

Workless households, or those reliant on the state working the standard 16 hour week, are just as much a burden on the state, if not more, than the retired.

[Convert]

Sheepshanks said:

So the construction worker above has to dispose of one of his children when he falls on hard times?

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children workers - an ageing population on benefits is economic disaster.

Fixed that for you.

[speedy_thrills]

Sheepshanks said:

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

Why? As long as the UK can continue to attract immigrants you'll avoid getting into the situation Japan is in.

From what I can see the only threats to immigration are a severe economic downturn that is UK specific, the EU employment situation dramatically improving or the UK shooting itself in the foot with immigration measures.

[Sheepshanks]

turbobloke said:

If unable to work (as opposed to unwilling) there'd still be £23k of taxpayers' hard-earned on offer.

No - the suggestion above was it would be capped at 80% of post tax national minimum wage.

[turbobloke]

Sheepshanks said:

turbobloke said:

If unable to work (as opposed to unwilling) there'd still be £23k of taxpayers' hard-earned on offer.

No - the suggestion above was it would be capped at 80% of post tax national minimum wage.

OK...with that suggestion in mind...

turbobloke revision would have said:

If unable to work (as opposed to unwilling) there'd still be 80% of post tax national minimum wage via taxpayers' hard-earned on offer.

The principle hasn't changed.

Taking the taxpayers' interest into account and hardworking NMW toil into account is fine by me.

[crankedup]

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market. Problem is there will always be the winners and losers. In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

I see what you did there.

Seriously, they won't wait for the tax demand to land on the plush mat. Ask supersocialist Hero Hollande.

crankedup said:

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market.

AKA lower corptax, lower income tax.

crankedup said:

Problem is there will always be the winners and losers.

Good luck with the egalitarianist eugenics programme to put a stop that. Gene equality, what every young socialist would give their shoulder chip for?

crankedup said:

In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

What's balance, and who decides? Forget the tricky bit of the solution that gets there. Just define the 'balance' point first. We can forget the issue of who is doing the deciding and, what authority or validity they bring

[Sticks.]

In the context of increasing the tax take by reducing the rate, VAT would seem to be a prime candidate.

After all, indirect taxation, like VAT, is usually used (or so I thought) to cool down an overheating economy/demand-led inflation.

Re HB more generally, the impact other than on the claimant seems largely ignored imho.

[turbobloke]

Sounds like you're expecting politicians to be competent at managing a national economy for the good of the country, with no thought to their own self-interest. It's possible there's a flaw there somewhere.

[Sticks.]

turbobloke said:

Sounds like you're expecting politicians to be competent at managing a national economy for the good of the country, with no thought to their own self-interest. It's possible there's a flaw there somewhere.

You're right, silly of me They'll probably announce halving it in April.

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

xjsdriver said:

Rents are at an all time high, due to every incumbent at 10 Downing Street, since the reign of Maggie the Merciless allowing councils to sell of their housing stock, but not to replenish them by building more homes........and it has been a downward spiral ever since.

When these houses were sold did they disappear or are they still there, just with different owners?

Not sure if you were around at the time, but you've missed the most important aspect of the selling off. Firstly, councils were not allowed, they were forced in most cases. Secondly, they didn't just sell, they sold at a loss. Thirdly, councils were strictly limited to whether they could replace the houses. This did not take into account the fact that the loss on the deal would have limited their ability to replace all, or even most.

I reckon Thatcher was one of the two best post war PMs we've had. But she made mistakes.

When she made decisions based on politics she always cocked-up. Selling council houses was intended to get a house-owning majority more likely to vote tory. The unintended consequence has been the current lack of housing stock because successive governments has seen increasing house prices as a sop to the middle voters.

So houses did indeed disappear. You can see the lack of them everywhere.

The benefits cap is, as someone pointed out, gesture politics. The real target should be those who fiddle their claims but the emphasis has not been on them. The suggestion is that the amount that is fiddled is not quite as high as suggested by the government.

Each investigator brought in considerably more than the cost of their employment but this has not stopped, at least down my way, their numbers being reduced. Oddly enough, to save money.

It beggars belief, or rather generates a shake of the head.

[rover 623gsi]

if anyone wants evidence that selling off council houses (without replacing them) was luncay - look no further than Harrow Council which now spends around £500,000 a year to rent properties it used to own!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/soci...

Edited by rover 623gsi on Wednesday 28th January 19:06

[turbobloke]

rover 623gsi said:

if anyone wants evidence that selling off council houses (without replacing them) look no further than Harrow Council which now spends around £500,000 a year to rent properties it used to own!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/soci...

Purely out of curiosity, and I read Derek's comment on sale prices, it would be interesting to know what the money that Harrow got from selling the houses was in total, and what it translates to today, with interest.

[JagLover]

rover 623gsi said:

if anyone wants evidence that selling off council houses (without replacing them) look no further than Harrow Council which now spends around £500,000 a year to rent properties it used to own!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/soci...

Replacing housing benefit in particular with a universal credit would end cases like this.

The working poor, like everyone else, would commute into central London and wages would rise in those sectors as a consequence. The housing benefit system has given rise to the nonsense of the state paying for people to work in minimum wage employment at the centre of one of the most expensive cities in the world.