Osbourne Announces Benefit Changes for manifesto

[Crafty_]

0a said:

Interesting headlines. The issue for Miliband is that if he chooses to fight the Tories on this issue he is fighting on his weakest area - and one he forgot to mention in his conference speech.

The embarrassing problem for Labour is that their previous policies were proved wrong, their criticism of Osborne unfounded, he's actually done a half decent job much to the surprise of the left and a fair few of the right.

Miliband and Balls can't speak about the economy because they are way, way out of their depth.

[crankedup]

Guybrush said:

crankedup said:

Fittster said:

And these freezes will also be applied to state pensions?

Looks like the tory party desperately trying to protected its dying electoral base from any pain.

Don't mention pensions, they are not so stupid are they. I can't see any Party proposing to hurting the grey vote, unless they really are stupid.

Not like Labour then, who from 1997 quickly set about destroying what was one of the best pension set ups in the World.

Indeed, an utterly stupid policy from which many people lost their pensions, unforgivable. But then many policies they introduced or simply the decision making was mind-bogglingly crass. Gold.

[XJ Flyer]

Gargamel said:

sidicks said:

Which is exactly the problem!

We tax people earning minimum wage and then have to give money back to them through benefits. It makes no sense.

Exactly, cutting benefits, reducing the size of government, providing lower taxation and freeing people from dependency on a fickle public sector policy are all core Conservative values.

Obviously those 'values' can be selectively 'adjusted' to allow for the contradiction between the cost of living and the minimum wage,for example.Great idea lets shut down the NHS and the social security and pensions system but lets keep the minimum wage as it is.Con thinking in action.

[vonuber]

It's funny how the midwives are not getting a measly 1% pay rise, with the MPs showing solidarity with them by getting 10%..

[crankedup]

petemurphy said:

why wasnt this done 4 years ago - to do it before a GE seems madness and opens them up to the usual crap from labour - v bad planning imho

I would suggest the Tories are making a gamble upon the electorate wishing to see the chosen benefits cut. After all four years have passed and the mantra hasn't changed at all, in changing that right now would smell of hypocrisy. They seem to be showing their ace card, do you want us to rescue the U.K. from financial Armageddon, or leave it to the others to destroy what has been already repaired.
I am no Tory follower but its how I see it playing out.

[BlackLabel]

Fittster said:

otolith said:

How many people on benefits were going to vote for them anyway?

What do you mean by benefits?

Unemployment, state pension, working family tax credits, child benefit, etc.

A very high percentage of the population gets something from the state, and unless you are some wacky libertarian party you want some of them to vote for you.

They have excluded disability benefits, pensions and carer benefits. And whilst it does include tax credits those who receive this benefit are better off under the coalition anyway due to the tax free allowance changes.

But you're right - this is a risky move. Perception is everything and many folks won't look beyond the headlines.

[XJ Flyer]

markcoznottz said:

XJ Flyer said:

Fittster said:

Gargamel said:

There are 30m people working, we want lower taxes. We need to cut there deficit.

The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners

Why do we need to cut the deficit? The gilt market doesn't show any sign of your concern.

If you want to worry about something you might try and focus on the UK poor productivity and high unemployment levels that are behind the deficit. Although maybe we would all blame White Dee.

The unemployment rate being the result of using immigration to over supply the labour market and the de industrialisation of the Thatcher years and making us over reliant on imports of manufactured goods.Thereby creating the perfect storm of high trade deficit,high unemployment,low wage employment and lack of tax revenues.

The new much lauded self employed contingent won't make a dent, it's sme's we need, but with unreformed Marxists being voted into power every five years, who the hell would start a business that actually employed low cost natives. This country now has a split vote and will flip flop between coalitions for the foreseeable future.

It is the large big paying industrial employers that we've lost that we need.The Marxists in this case being the cheap labour Chinese employers who've been given the work and who are adding to our trade deficit.Voting for the LabLibdenCon alliance won't change that situation.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

A very high percentage of the population gets something from the state, and unless you are some wacky libertarian party you want some of them to vote for you.

Which is exactly the problem!

We tax people earning minimum wage and then have to give money back to them through benefits. It makes no sense.

But the winner from this scenario must be the Company that employs those people and pays as little as possible, thereby increasing profit margin and keeping the city boys happy. It could be said that tax payers are subsidising those Companies. Perhaps it would be more equal for the Companies to pay above the threshold line.

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

It does to those cheap labour employers who expect the state to subsidise their profits in the form of top up benefits to allow those on wages which don't meet the cost of living to make the figures more or less add up.

The fact is this country is going the way of Greece.

As usual, you have it the wrong way around.

The untaxed minimum wage is the same as the living wage. The reason that people on minimum wage need government top-ups is that the government is taxing them too heavily...!!

I'm still waiting for your justification as to why taxing low incomes and then giving money back in benefits (with the associated inefficiencies and anomalies that this creates) makes any sort of sense (unless you're trying to force a benefit dependency onto people to retain their votes...)

[anonymous-user]

vonuber said:

It's funny how the midwives are not getting a measly 1% pay rise, with the MPs showing solidarity with them by getting 10%..

I have to agree that that is very wrong. I would much rather see the value of the MPs' increase spread throughout the lower paid, hands on NHS staff.

[sidicks]

REALIST123 said:

I have to agree that that is very wrong. I would much rather see the value of the MPs' increase spread throughout the lower paid, hands on NHS staff.

But given the number of MPs and the number of NHS staff, it would be an extra £1 each per annum (or something like that).

[XJ Flyer]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

A very high percentage of the population gets something from the state, and unless you are some wacky libertarian party you want some of them to vote for you.

Which is exactly the problem!

We tax people earning minimum wage and then have to give money back to them through benefits. It makes no sense.

But the winner from this scenario must be the Company that employs those people and pays as little as possible, thereby increasing profit margin and keeping the city boys happy. It could be said that tax payers are subsidising those Companies. Perhaps it would be more equal for the Companies to pay above the threshold line.

The answer would be the same old CBI rhetoric in that keeping wages low keeps us 'competitive' in the global free market economy.In which case that problem needs to be dealt with at its cause.IE it is our involvement in the cheap labour global free market economy which is the cause of the problem.Which is effectively just a Communist/Capitalist hybrid working for the benefit of the few at the top as in any other Communist system.

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

It does to those cheap labour employers who expect the state to subsidise their profits in the form of top up benefits to allow those on wages which don't meet the cost of living to make the figures more or less add up.

The fact is this country is going the way of Greece.

As usual, you have it the wrong way around.

The untaxed minimum wage is the same as the living wage. The reason that people on minimum wage need government top-ups is that the government is taxing them too heavily...!!

I'm still waiting for your justification as to why taxing low incomes and then giving money back in benefits (with the associated inefficiencies and anomalies that this creates) makes any sort of sense (unless you're trying to force a benefit dependency onto people to retain their votes...)

What we actually need is a wage which is sufficient to cover the real costs of living in raising a family 'plus' enough left over to pay for the other social costs like a decent health insurance policy and income protection policy and a decent share of the taxes needed to keep the country's other public spending requirements on track.In which case your tax free minimum wage won't work.By that standard its obvious that we can't make that work within the low wage environment dictated by the global free market economy.

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

What we actually need is a wage which is sufficient to cover the real costs of living in raising a family 'plus' enough left over to pay for the other social costs like a decent health insurance policy and income protection policy and a decent share of the taxes needed to keep the country's other public spending requirements on track.In which case your tax free minimum wage won't work.By that standard its obvious that we can't make that work within the low wage environment dictated by the global free market economy.

You seem to be missing the point (a common theme for you) that benefit spending would be lower if we weren't giving these people benefits...

[otolith]

Fittster said:

otolith said:

How many people on benefits were going to vote for them anyway?

What do you mean by benefits?

Unemployment, state pension, working family tax credits, child benefit, etc.

A very high percentage of the population gets something from the state, and unless you are some wacky libertarian party you want some of them to vote for you.

Yes, getting everyone to think their prosperity is at the largess of the state was the Labour strategy, but I'm not sure it fools everybody. Redistributive taxes combined with token benefits are not convincing.

Young people receiving housing benefit - Tory votes lost there?

Families receiving more than 23k in benefits - Tory votes lost there?

People who think a 23k benefit ceiling is a shocking social injustice - Tory votes lost there?

[0a]

crankedup said:

petemurphy said:

why wasnt this done 4 years ago - to do it before a GE seems madness and opens them up to the usual crap from labour - v bad planning imho

I would suggest the Tories are making a gamble upon the electorate wishing to see the chosen benefits cut. After all four years have passed and the mantra hasn't changed at all, in changing that right now would smell of hypocrisy. They seem to be showing their ace card, do you want us to rescue the U.K. from financial Armageddon, or leave it to the others to destroy what has been already repaired.
I am no Tory follower but its how I see it playing out.

I'd agree - I credit with Cameron and Osborne with the ability to turn the screws on Labour as we get closer to the next election. These headline, "non Labour" announcements hand down the gauntlet and force Labour to decide whether to fight the next election on the economy (the deficit) - an area they are rightly seen as weak on, or to face criticism for having no coherent plan.

The anti-Tory lot on the Guardian are up in arms ("evil Tories" etc) - but this will cause a real headache for Labour strategists (but they must have known it was coming!).

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

I would suggest the Tories are making a gamble upon the electorate wishing to see the chosen benefits cut. After all four years have passed and the mantra hasn't changed at all, in changing that right now would smell of hypocrisy. They seem to be showing their ace card, do you want us to rescue the U.K. from financial Armageddon, or leave it to the others to destroy what has been already repaired.
I am no Tory follower but its how I see it playing out.

Totally agree (yes I'm sitting down ) .

I suspect they know that more wishy washy than this and they are guaranteed to be on another coalition at best, and on the losing side at worst.

This way they ask us whether we have the balls to do what's needed.

If they win, I suspect Osbourne will turn the screws 2yrs in and, IMO, we could see ourselves with a surplus before the following election. If he were to really go for it.

Lose and they sit and ride out the next lot destroy the place.

Sadly I think they're going to lose. But it would be nice if this country got a grip of itself.

(I also suspect this might well sway a few UKIP voters back. Especially if accompanied by stronger views on Europe and immigration.)

[Hoofy]

davepoth said:

Hoofy said:

I'm in two minds. Interesting point made on LBC last night - it's not weighted by area. Someone could happily live on £23k up north but a similar family in South London could be in serious trouble.

So they should get jobs then. Universal Credit is set up in such a way that, with the cap involved, any money they earn from a part time minimum wage job will go straight into their pockets without affecting their benefits.

If they can't find minimum wage employment in the most buoyant job market in Europe, they probably do deserve to be sent to a sink estate in the north, and let someone from a sink estate in the north have their flat and opportunity.

You're assuming that the recipients of this money are all able-bodied. Let's say they are - how does having a full-time minimum wage job affect their benefits?

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

What we actually need is a wage which is sufficient to cover the real costs of living in raising a family 'plus' enough left over to pay for the other social costs like a decent health insurance policy and income protection policy and a decent share of the taxes needed to keep the country's other public spending requirements on track.In which case your tax free minimum wage won't work.By that standard its obvious that we can't make that work within the low wage environment dictated by the global free market economy.

You seem to be missing the point (a common theme for you) that benefit spending would be lower if we weren't giving these people benefits...

You seem to be missing the point that the reason we are 'giving these people benefits' is because of the oversupply in the labour market reducing job opportunities and the low wage environment assuming they can find a job.

Which then leaves the question of the so called 'benefits' themselves.Assuming employers are paying the right wages for the right type of private income protection insurance policy system the issue of cover terms and claims would then be a private matter between the claimant and the insurer and nothing to do with you or the Cons.

The Cons reply in that case no doubt still being the minimising of insurance terms to save the employers money and thereby add to their profits.

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

You seem to be missing the point that the reason we are 'giving these people benefits' is because of the oversupply in the labour market reducing job opportunities and the low wage environment assuming they can find a job.

No, we give them benefits because after the government takes tax from the wages the net amount is not considered sufficient to live on.

You've still not justified why someone on minimum wage should be paying tax....

XJ Flyer said:

Which then leaves the question of the so called 'benefits' themselves.Assuming employers are paying the right wages for the right type of private income protection insurance policy system the issue of cover terms and claims would then be a private matter between the claimant and the insurer and nothing to do with you or the Cons.

The Cons reply in that case no doubt still being the minimising of insurance terms to save the employers money and thereby add to their profits.

Total nonsense - a long-winded attempt at avoiding the question.