Benefits bill to hit record high
Discussion
Terminator X said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Probably worth finding another job.
Fill us in on your glorious pay rises then fella.TX.
In 2008 I was on £20,000 a year.
In 2010 I was on £22,500 a year.
In 2011 I was on different pay structure, taking home more a month than I did before (unsure what annual was).
As long as you're getting better at your work, you have the right to ask for more money, move company to receive more money, or move trade entirely if it's really not working.
Puggit said:
Du1point8 said:
Puggit said:
Terminator X said:
Why are the unemployed getting a 5% rise, haven't had one myself since 2008.
TX.
This was actually the decision that cemented my inability to vote for this Tory party. It was in the 2011 budget, I believe.TX.
However everyone forgets the Lib Dem part and assumes its the Tories doing it all.
They can't win.
Du1point8 said:
Puggit said:
Du1point8 said:
Puggit said:
Terminator X said:
Why are the unemployed getting a 5% rise, haven't had one myself since 2008.
TX.
This was actually the decision that cemented my inability to vote for this Tory party. It was in the 2011 budget, I believe.TX.
However everyone forgets the Lib Dem part and assumes its the Tories doing it all.
They can't win.
turbobloke said:
We're all in it together but we don't all get a 5% rise for doing nothing extra.
That is the real problem here. Only the responsible, employed pay. The freeloaders are better protected and receive far too much support. The truth is this has run out of control for many years and currently continues to do so.Iain Duncan Smith has the right ideas. Can we trust the Coalition U turn specialists, Caneroon and Boy George to enact the necessary legislation? Sadly I doubt it. In opposition, Moonpig and Balls Up are only interested in increasing benefits to buy more votes. I does not look good, does it?
A bit of time might be well spent considering the definition of freeloader. A huge chunk of "welfare" spending is directed to the previously employed and those not yet employed. It does appear at times that these fora want to chuck all recipients into one ugly group. If only it were so simple.
And up and up it goes.
Spending on benefits is going “through the roof" despite Government attempts to crack down on the spiralling welfare budget, figures show.
Spending on benefits is going “through the roof" despite Government attempts to crack down on the spiralling welfare budget, figures show.
Article said:
Figures show the forecast spend on benefits and tax credits in the five years between 2011/2 and 2015/16 has now jumped by £6.4billion since December 5.
It means that every day since Chancellor George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement, the projected benefits bill has risen by £61million.
The revised figures mean that Mr Osborne is now on course to spend £20billion more on benefits than he had expected at the start of the Coalition.
It means that every day since Chancellor George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement, the projected benefits bill has risen by £61million.
The revised figures mean that Mr Osborne is now on course to spend £20billion more on benefits than he had expected at the start of the Coalition.
Well most benefits go to pensioners so:
"UK's coldest spring since 1963 claims 5,000 lives: Pensioners worst affected - and experts say final toll could be 'horrendous'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298246/UK...
"UK's coldest spring since 1963 claims 5,000 lives: Pensioners worst affected - and experts say final toll could be 'horrendous'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298246/UK...
Fittster said:
Well most benefits go to pensioners
Bloody pensioners, what have they ever done for this country? Also working people on low incomes struggling to get by who want to leech off the state, they'll be next in the gas chambers when I come to power 
.Let’s be honest the idea of cutting benefits is far too unpalatable for the general public in Britain, it’s a non-starter politically for social and historic reasons. However there is space for reform and I've previously argued that it would eliminate much waste and incentivise people to seek employment if you just paid adults a basic liveable wage (enough to rent a flat and a marmalade for toast, not enough to support a habbit).
With your increasing subsidisation of low wage workers you are heading in that direction anyway, why waste money on an ever increasing and inefficient hodgepodge of means tested benefits and allowances? This way you get more efficient system and an unemployed population who will be truly incentivised to work (because there is no penalty for working or working too much or earning too much). Capitalists will accept the system because it espouses more capitalist ideals by doing away with artificial inefficiencies in labour markets which is for them at least a step in the right direction, socialists will accept the system because it still balances with the material needs of individuals more broadly than the current flawed system.
...Or you could sit on your hands and you’ll be saying the same things in 20-50 years.
As for pensioners set up a proper compulsory savings/investment scheme, let the current NI Ponzi scheme sink at a fixed rate.
Fittster said:
Well most benefits go to pensioners...
We've been here before, 42% isn't most and that's total benefits for elderly people not just pensions.www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
See table with percentages on pdf p5.
Fittster said:
"UK's coldest spring since 1963 claims 5,000 lives: Pensioners worst affected - and experts say final toll could be 'horrendous'"
Thank goodness for global warming.BoRED S2upid said:
It can't be just me who finds the concept that someone has never in their life paid NI unbelievable. Most of us have paid NI every day since we were old enough to have a paper round.
Not only that but I find this concept of entitlement by some people that they think they deserve it despite not contributing, when its altered they are the first complaining about their human rights.Not put anything in, but first complain the free handouts need to be cut.
BoRED S2upid said:
It can't be just me who finds the concept that someone has never in their life paid NI unbelievable. Most of us have paid NI every day since we were old enough to have a paper round.
If you are referring to the 43% figure in the Telegraph article I suspect it is a misleading statement and actually means that 43% of benefits are paid based on NI contributions (job seekers allowance, state pension) and 57% are paid based on means testing or ability testing (pension credit, disability living allowance etc).Whilst 43% benefits are based on NI payments it does not automatically follow that the remaining 57% have never paid NI (just that the benefit is not dependent on NI payments).
good40 said:
50% of the welfare bill is towards old age pensioners ,be it the pension , heating ,Tv Licence, Pension credits etc etc.
I'm fairly sure most of these people would have been paying there way ie your &mine mother & fathers.
Sounds a lot of b8lls, as usual!
As a pensioner I actually do agree that the current system is far too beneficial to be continued in the future in the UK. I am staggered at the savings I get in the Midlands where I can travel to see my children in Solihull and South Birmingham on an excellent rail service every day free. And go anywhere on buses free. And get my gym memnbership free and go swimming free etc etc. It is simply unnecessary as I could well afford all of these personally. But I did qualify as a Chartered Accountant and work for 42 years to ensure I was reasonably protected financially. I'm fairly sure most of these people would have been paying there way ie your &mine mother & fathers.
Sounds a lot of b8lls, as usual!
The real problem now is the ever increasing cradle to the grave benefits claimants who sign on at 16, remain on benefits, knock out a large number of children and live off the state for the whole of their lives. I will probably die as a net contributor because I did earn and pay tax on a pretty significant income for over 40 years. I am happy with that. The benefits recipients in my example above will never pay a penny or do a days work in the UK system. I am not happy with that.
good40 said:
I think they are attempting to address the life long claimants but I am also annoyed/concerned at how E.U. citizens can send there benefits ie child benefits home to wherever for children who have never entered the UK, how will this help the UK economy?
article said said:
But of the 2 million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker's allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/25/downing-street-defend-immigration-speechAlthough i note you say child benefits; so i am not sure about that - so maybe ignore my above bit
I do find it amazing though, 43%? That can't be right surely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff