Osbourne Announces Benefit Changes for manifesto
Discussion
If the Conservatives were very smart, they would raise the state pension to cover housing benefit, fuel allowance to one simple figure per pensioner.
They could then eliminate the administration and payment of housing benefit & fuel allowance, cap unemployment at whatever that figure was decided to pay pensioners for and cap child benefit at the current level for all kids born nine months after implementation and capped to a maximum of three kids thereafter.
They could also provide assistance for people to move from high rent areas to value rent areas to eliminate hardship.
If they got their sums right pensioners would love this and it would go a long way to fixing the out of control costs that some people burden the system with.
They could then eliminate the administration and payment of housing benefit & fuel allowance, cap unemployment at whatever that figure was decided to pay pensioners for and cap child benefit at the current level for all kids born nine months after implementation and capped to a maximum of three kids thereafter.
They could also provide assistance for people to move from high rent areas to value rent areas to eliminate hardship.
If they got their sums right pensioners would love this and it would go a long way to fixing the out of control costs that some people burden the system with.
GavinPearson said:
If the Conservatives were very smart, they would raise the state pension to cover housing benefit, fuel allowance to one simple figure per pensioner.
They could then eliminate the administration and payment of housing benefit & fuel allowance, cap unemployment at whatever that figure was decided to pay pensioners for and cap child benefit at the current level for all kids born nine months after implementation and capped to a maximum of three kids thereafter.
They could also provide assistance for people to move from high rent areas to value rent areas to eliminate hardship.
If they got their sums right pensioners would love this and it would go a long way to fixing the out of control costs that some people burden the system with.
Why would you want to pay housing benefit to pensioners who do not need it though?They could then eliminate the administration and payment of housing benefit & fuel allowance, cap unemployment at whatever that figure was decided to pay pensioners for and cap child benefit at the current level for all kids born nine months after implementation and capped to a maximum of three kids thereafter.
They could also provide assistance for people to move from high rent areas to value rent areas to eliminate hardship.
If they got their sums right pensioners would love this and it would go a long way to fixing the out of control costs that some people burden the system with.
Adjusting any system where benefits (i.e. perceived money for nothing) are received is going to be difficult while a period of adjustment occurs. All prices, expectations etc are built in and adjusted to take account of this money and while it is reduced the rest of the system needs time to adjust. Labour, borrowing like crazy, dishing out free money so at to soften up, make dependent and generally dull down their target market, while generally creating and maintaining divisions in society (also by enabling mass immigration) is all just so they can create their ideal market place. Then, the Conservatives set about fixing these problems and of course get the blame by the very people who Labour have put in that position. All very sad and just like decades ago - swinging from the party to fix the country and the party to make it go bust - the less literate of the country changing their minds at each election, deciding the outcome of the election.
otolith said:
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?
AgreedYoung 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?
Potential Tory voters will be affected by the freeze in child benefit and on the "token" child tax credits those on decent incomes receive, but it will not be critical to household budgets and rises in the personal allowance will offset a part of it.
Most people's experience of benefits (those who pay for it all) is to turn up at a job centre and only have an entitlement for a glorified luncheon voucher as their partner works.
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.
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
JagLover said:
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.
Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
I agree (or costs would drop in that area as a subtle alternative). Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
Fittster said:
Daily Mail headline:
"Ten MILLION families to lose £500 under Osborne plan to freeze benefits for two years as he unveils £25billion in extra cuts"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773427/To...
Does CMD realise there's a election next year?
You gotta laugh at CMD. All the people saying he played a clever game over the Scottish Independence vote, and then he hands Labour an election victory as easily as this."Ten MILLION families to lose £500 under Osborne plan to freeze benefits for two years as he unveils £25billion in extra cuts"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773427/To...
Does CMD realise there's a election next year?
Even fecking idiots get lucky sometimes, but their true abilities catch up with them.
edh said:
It's a good question - how about "no representation without taxation" ? Paying tax is one way of keeping people in touch with the society they are living in - and maybe having some effect on what you might call the "entitlement" culture. "I pay tax, I'm part of society and have an interest in how it's (mis)spent".
Which suggests the you think that those currently working but earning less than the personal allowance do not feel 'in touch with society' as they don't pay tax.Plus of course if that tax is subsidised by benefits it is all fairly meaningless anyway.
edh said:
WTC and CTC were well intentioned but very poorly implemented & with massive unintended consequences. I doubt UC will be any better - although the chance of it ever arriving in a meaningful way are slim.
In any case, I'd suggest setting a higher tax allowance wouldn't stop us paying benefits to taxpayers, unless you have another very complex set of rules for many different circumstances.
It would clearly drastically reduce the number of people involved. Surely even you can see that?.In any case, I'd suggest setting a higher tax allowance wouldn't stop us paying benefits to taxpayers, unless you have another very complex set of rules for many different circumstances.
edh said:
btw do you mean the untaxed min wage is the same as the (taxed) living wage? I can see that there is a big problem that pay rises for low earners give them no benefit with a near 100% withdrawal of benefits.
Of course that doesn't happen at the moment....
edh said:
Of course if anyone wants to save £25bn from the govt budget, there are plenty of other decent options to consider 
There are two issues to worry about, one is to 'balance the books'. The second, which is equally or even re important, is to put the right incentivisations in place to encourage appropriate behaviours.Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 30th September 08:42
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 30th September 08:44
JagLover 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.
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
Hoofy said:
JagLover 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.
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
sidicks said:
edh said:
It's a good question - how about "no representation without taxation" ? Paying tax is one way of keeping people in touch with the society they are living in - and maybe having some effect on what you might call the "entitlement" culture. "I pay tax, I'm part of society and have an interest in how it's (mis)spent".
Which suggests the you think that those currently working but earning less than the personal allowance do not feel 'in touch with society' as they don't pay tax.Plus of course if that tax is subsidised by benefits it is all fairly meaningless anyway.
sidicks said:
edh said:
WTC and CTC were well intentioned but very poorly implemented & with massive unintended consequences. I doubt UC will be any better - although the chance of it ever arriving in a meaningful way are slim.
In any case, I'd suggest setting a higher tax allowance wouldn't stop us paying benefits to taxpayers, unless you have another very complex set of rules for many different circumstances.
It would clearly drastically reduce the number of people involved. Surely even you can see that?.In any case, I'd suggest setting a higher tax allowance wouldn't stop us paying benefits to taxpayers, unless you have another very complex set of rules for many different circumstances.
sidicks said:
edh said:
btw do you mean the untaxed min wage is the same as the (taxed) living wage? I can see that there is a big problem that pay rises for low earners give them no benefit with a near 100% withdrawal of benefits.
Of course that doesn't happen at the moment....sidicks said:
edh said:
Of course if anyone wants to save £25bn from the govt budget, there are plenty of other decent options to consider
There are two issues to worry about, one is to 'balance the books'. The second, which is equally or even re important, is to put the right incentivisations in place to encourage appropriate behaviours.In the voluntary work I do, I come across quite a number of people who are involved with the benefits system. I see very very few who don't want to work, or who don't want the self respect that comes with being a productive member of society. Maybe it's better expressed that we should remove the "disincentives" to work associated with high marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rates? I don't actually think anyone disagrees with that.
BTW - Don't be so adversarial - I'm trying to discuss this by finding common ground as you're one of the more sensible right wing nutters on here
Oh and I see the FT are bashing the pensions sector today - have they been infiltrated by the morning star this week?
edh said:
BTW - Don't be so adversarial - I'm trying to discuss this by finding common ground as you're one of the more sensible right wing nutters on here
Where's the fun in that??
edh said:
Oh and I see the FT are bashing the pensions sector today - have they been infiltrated by the morning star this week?
I saw that - how surprising, they pick the top of the equity market and surprise surprise we've barely recovered back to that following the two crashes in the middle.What would the performance have been looking at the bottom of the market in 2003 or 2009...?
A total non-story IMO.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 30th September 11:37
FT op ed is largely b
ks these days sadly, still cheerleading the Euro project.
I think we should all celebrate a politician actually trying to be reasonably honest with the electorate. I guess this is step one in a phased plan.
Highlight where the pain will fall, show the numbers and the need to close the deficit, it puts a massive spotlight on "forgetful Ed"
Get to the budget and unleash a couple of decent tax cuts, that make work pay. And hope that most people feel that the carrot is worth the stick...
ks these days sadly, still cheerleading the Euro project. I think we should all celebrate a politician actually trying to be reasonably honest with the electorate. I guess this is step one in a phased plan.
Highlight where the pain will fall, show the numbers and the need to close the deficit, it puts a massive spotlight on "forgetful Ed"
Get to the budget and unleash a couple of decent tax cuts, that make work pay. And hope that most people feel that the carrot is worth the stick...
Gargamel said:
FT op ed is largely bks these days sadly, still cheerleading the Euro project.
I think we should all celebrate a politician actually trying to be reasonably honest with the electorate. I guess this is step one in a phased plan.
Highlight where the pain will fall, show the numbers and the need to close the deficit, it puts a massive spotlight on "forgetful Ed"
Get to the budget and unleash a couple of decent tax cuts, that make work pay. And hope that most people feel that the carrot is worth the stick...
Yes because focusing on George's record will do wonders from the conservatives.ks these days sadly, still cheerleading the Euro project. I think we should all celebrate a politician actually trying to be reasonably honest with the electorate. I guess this is step one in a phased plan.
Highlight where the pain will fall, show the numbers and the need to close the deficit, it puts a massive spotlight on "forgetful Ed"
Get to the budget and unleash a couple of decent tax cuts, that make work pay. And hope that most people feel that the carrot is worth the stick...
"Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
not to worry,according to "revised" ons figures announced this morning , 0.9% increased growth when coke and hookers are factored in ,wtf ?
The figures from the ONS include a new methodology for calculating gross domestic product (GDP). The new measure includes factors such as spending on research and development, as well as the economic contribution made by drug dealers and prostitutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29422267
The figures from the ONS include a new methodology for calculating gross domestic product (GDP). The new measure includes factors such as spending on research and development, as well as the economic contribution made by drug dealers and prostitutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29422267
Fittster said:
Yes because focusing on George's record will do wonders from the conservatives.
"Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Trying to balance achieving economic growth, and reducing the deficit has proved to be beyond the powers of Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and arguably the US too. "Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
Gargamel said:
Trying to balance achieving economic growth, and reducing the deficit has proved to be beyond the powers of Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and arguably the US too.
Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
Didn't you get the memo from Labour HQ? The way to reduce borrowing is to borrow more money.....Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
sidicks said:
Gargamel said:
Trying to balance achieving economic growth, and reducing the deficit has proved to be beyond the powers of Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and arguably the US too.
Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
Didn't you get the memo from Labour HQ? The way to reduce borrowing is to borrow more money.....Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
jshell said:
Hoofy said:
JagLover 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.
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
If you don't subsidise service works the pay will rise to make sure they can fill positions. Sunsidising with benefits simply passes a part of the cost onto the tax payer (so everyone) rather than the consumer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff