Liz Truss Resigns [Who'll be the next Prime Minister?]

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Julian

Wouldn’t raising benefits by double the rate of wage increases encourage people to not work?

I’m intrigued as to why some baby eating tories want to do just that….

It’s almost like they aren’t tories at all.

It's amazing what politicians will do/say with their backs against the wall.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's easier to live on a wage that goes up less than the rate of inflation than it is for someone on means tested benefits.

Following the freezing of benefits by the Cameron Government, even if benefits are uprated by inflation, the level of benefits will still be less than the poverty line.

On top of this, most of the poorest in society now have to contribute towards their rent and Council Tax (which used to attract a possible 100% rebate) out of money meant for other day to day living expenses.

I think that Truss wanted to do this to effectively claw back the energy help given to those on benefits, whilst those of us that are better off because they are working or have independent means get to keep theirs.

I doubt very much if someone with a wage that goes up by 5% will want to swap places with someone with a benefit going up by 10%. Even if they did decide to stop working on the back of this, they would receive short thrift from the Job Centre. Regulations are in place to deal with people who pack in a job for no good reason or are dismissed for misconduct.

I think you have a bias towards those who claim benefits.

There are those who have no option due to circumstance that need benefits, these people also use services that are funded fro council tax, why should they not contribute a small amount? as the maximum rebate available is ninety percent it is a small amount. Doesn't universal credit have a housing component which replaced housing benefit?

Then, there are those who claim benefits who are quite able to work but see benefits as a lifestyle, THey manage to evade sanction by knowing how to play the system. some also have side hustles such as 'fag houses' and if you're in my neck of the woods, it's quite a few with side hustles or working cash in hand jobs.

We also, hav working families who are working and ineligible for most if not all benefits. Who are also below the poverty line.

Poverty is not exclusive to those claiming benefits.

Finally, how many peoples wages are going up by 5% ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

There are those who have no option due to circumstance that need benefits

Then, there are those who claim benefits who are quite able to work but see benefits as a lifestyle, THey manage to evade sanction by knowing how to play the system. some also have side hustles such as 'fag houses' and if you're in my neck of the woods, it's quite a few with side hustles or working cash in hand jobs.

Can I just ask why you think people in group 1 should be penalised because people exist in group 2 exist?

We also, hav working families who are working and ineligible for most if not all benefits. Who are also below the poverty line.

Poverty is not exclusive to those claiming benefits.

Finally, how many peoples wages are going up by 5% ?

The UK certainly has plenty of in work poverty, and a system of subsidising employers paying poverty wages. I’m not sure why the enemy here is other poor people.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think you have a bias towards those who claim benefits.

There are those who have no option due to circumstance that need benefits, these people also use services that are funded fro council tax, why should they not contribute a small amount? as the maximum rebate available is ninety percent it is a small amount. Doesn't universal credit have a housing component which replaced housing benefit?

Then, there are those who claim benefits who are quite able to work but see benefits as a lifestyle, THey manage to evade sanction by knowing how to play the system. some also have side hustles such as 'fag houses' and if you're in my neck of the woods, it's quite a few with side hustles or working cash in hand jobs.

We also, hav working families who are working and ineligible for most if not all benefits. Who are also below the poverty line.

Poverty is not exclusive to those claiming benefits.

Finally, how many peoples wages are going up by 5% ?

So much in here rings true. There is a big difference between the "can't work" and the "won't work" and the latter really should get no help at all (unless the "won't" attitude is clinically determined) but then what about the families of the skivers? And if they do get benefit what do their children learn about responsibility and working for a living.


A problem that Truss (or whoever is in charge) has is that if you try to focus benefits (vouchers, meals etc) it is "denigrating" to recipients not the trust them to make the right choices. She also has to fight her own party who may agree with her but don't want to be seen to.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think you have a bias towards those who claim benefits.

There are those who have no option due to circumstance that need benefits, these people also use services that are funded fro council tax, why should they not contribute a small amount? as the maximum rebate available is ninety percent it is a small amount. Doesn't universal credit have a housing component which replaced housing benefit?

Then, there are those who claim benefits who are quite able to work but see benefits as a lifestyle, THey manage to evade sanction by knowing how to play the system. some also have side hustles such as 'fag houses' and if you're in my neck of the woods, it's quite a few with side hustles or working cash in hand jobs.

We also, hav working families who are working and ineligible for most if not all benefits. Who are also below the poverty line.

Poverty is not exclusive to those claiming benefits.

Finally, how many peoples wages are going up by 5% ?

It is rife around here, benefits is a lifestyle we have young people in their 20s-30s-40s who have never worked and therefor never contributed a penny to the country ,they sell baccy ,they sell drugs ,they work cash in hand jobs ,its disgusting, I worked 47 years to fund these parasites.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

Can I just ask why you think people in group 1 should be penalised because people exist in group 2 exist?



The UK certainly has plenty of in work poverty, and a system of subsidising employers paying poverty wages. I’m not sure why the enemy here is other poor people.

I don't think and never had said that people in group 1 should be penalised because of those in group 2. if that's what you're taking from my statement then you're overreaching, badly.

I do think that everyone should be making some form of contribution albeit in some cases it would be very minimal to to the services that they use.

Group 2 need to be cracked down on, sognificantly, but in order to do that it's going to cause distress to those in group 1

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I don't think and never had said that people in group 1 should be penalised because of those in group 2. if that's what you're taking from my statement then you're overreaching, badly.

I do think that everyone should be making some form of contribution albeit in some cases it would be very minimal to to the services that they use.

Group 2 need to be cracked down on, sognificantly, but in order to do that it's going to cause distress to those in group 1

They aren’t linked but you want to punish some of the poorest people in society simply because some are taking advantage (and as Richard correctly pointed out breaking the law). Those in group 2 will simply engage in more side hustle.

Benefits (and pensions) in the UK are already among the lowest in the G20 and the supposedly “advanced” economies.

DWP estimates fraud and error to be around £8bn a year. HMRC on the other hand measure the tax gap at £32bn. Interest payments on the UK debt is £90bn and getting more expensive. If you think anything will be solved by punishing the vast majority of honest benefit claimants to get a few who are gaming the system then you are mistaken. It’s extremely small beer, but a good right wing trope to demonise the poor.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

They aren’t linked but you want to punish some of the poorest people in society simply because some are taking advantage (and as Richard correctly pointed out breaking the law). Those in group 2 will simply engage in more side hustle.

Benefits (and pensions) in the UK are already among the lowest in the G20 and the supposedly “advanced” economies.

DWP estimates fraud and error to be around £8bn a year. HMRC on the other hand measure the tax gap at £32bn. Interest payments on the UK debt is £90bn and getting more expensive. If you think anything will be solved by punishing the vast majority of honest benefit claimants to get a few who are gaming the system then you are mistaken. It’s extremely small beer, but a good right wing trope to demonise the poor.

Where did i say that i wanted to punish them? Again, you're overreaching.

People in group 1 should be given all the help needed to live as full as life as possible. I've categorically stated this multiple times whilst being a member on here.

IF we could somehow figure out how to get group 2 out of the benefits system that they're not entitled to, then in theory that money would be able to be used to improve the lives of those in group 1 ?

it APPEARS that you can't make progress with group 2 without imposing those in group 1.

If we' are in such a shit state financially then we have to go after avery single option, ALL of them. Tax, benefits, the lot.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Where did i say that i wanted to punish them? Again, you're overreaching.

People in group 1 should be given all the help needed to live as full as life as possible. I've categorically stated this multiple times whilst being a member on here.

IF we could somehow figure out how to get group 2 out of the benefits system that they're not entitled to, then in theory that money would be able to be used to improve the lives of those in group 1 ?

it APPEARS that you can't make progress with group 2 without imposing those in group 1.

If we' are in such a shit state financially then we have to go after avery single option, ALL of them. Tax, benefits, the lot.

Group 2 need to be cracked down on, sognificantly, but in order to do that it's going to cause distress to those in group 1

I forgot as well almost £30bn a year goes via housing benefit - a wealth transfer from taxpayers to landlords because we've no social housing.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

I forgot as well almost £30bn a year goes via housing benefit - a wealth transfer from taxpayers to landlords because we've no social housing.

Group 2 do need to be cracked down on thats a simple fact, that doesn't however as i've already quite categorically said (yet for some reason you still choose to ignore) mean causing distress to those in group 1

Out of interest what do you class as 'punishment' ?

Using an example of something else being wrong doesn't equate to something else being right, as per my earlier post, if we're in such a state financially then we should be going down EVERY avenue

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think you have a bias towards those who claim benefits.

There are those who have no option due to circumstance that need benefits, these people also use services that are funded fro council tax, why should they not contribute a small amount? as the maximum rebate available is ninety percent it is a small amount. Doesn't universal credit have a housing component which replaced housing benefit?

Then, there are those who claim benefits who are quite able to work but see benefits as a lifestyle, THey manage to evade sanction by knowing how to play the system. some also have side hustles such as 'fag houses' and if you're in my neck of the woods, it's quite a few with side hustles or working cash in hand jobs.

We also, hav working families who are working and ineligible for most if not all benefits. Who are also below the poverty line.

Poverty is not exclusive to those claiming benefits.

Finally, how many peoples wages are going up by 5% ?

Payment for and use of essential services should not be linked. Applying this principle would mean the sickest people in society would have to pay towards their NHS care, whilst unable to work.

The money that those on benefits receive towards their rent depends on their circumstances. Some are on Housing Benefit and some receive help via Universal Credit.

The remainder of their income is for day to day living expenses, so making them pay towards their rent and between 20 to 30%* of their Council Tax means going without essential things (as does the frozen period of benefit uprating that is currently being carried forward yesr on year).

The weekly amount is so finely tuned that only one bath/shower a week is catered for within the allowance!

There are indeed working families in poverty; 40% of those on Univetsal Credit are working. They would face the double whammy of their wages and benefits not keeping pace with inflation whilst prices are skyrocketing.

It is simply not possible to claim out of work benefits without suspensions or sanctions by packing in your job, losing it through misconduct or not being availablr for or actively seeking work. Regular checks are made via form enquiries, checking efforts that are input online, interviews and requirements to attend training courses to improve employability.

Such sanctions are brutal and include a man being refused benefits because he had a heart attack during an interview, a lone parent who was late because her child needed to use the toilet and a man with cancer who was forced to choose between attending the jobcentre or going to a hospital appointment. He chose the latter and was sanctioned.

In this situation it's hardly surprising that people are breaking the law in order to survive, I know I couldn't survive on today's benefits alone.

The 5% figure quoted is said by the Government to be the current rate of wage increases.

* Help towards the council tax now varies across the country. This used to be met in full under the Council Tax Benefit scheme.

The Cameton Government essentially slashed the budget for this, handed the amount remaining to local authorities and said "do what you will with it". The maximum amount of help available is, bizarrely, now dependent upon where one lives!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I don't think and never had said that people in group 1 should be penalised because of those in group 2. if that's what you're taking from my statement then you're overreaching, badly.

I do think that everyone should be making some form of contribution albeit in some cases it would be very minimal to to the services that they use.

Group 2 need to be cracked down on, sognificantly, but in order to do that it's going to cause distress to those in group 1

l am in group 1 and have been for 20 years plus because of my long term health and we certainly don't mind making contributions each month as we already pay a certain amount of council tax each month and if they required a bit more we would certainly pay that bit more.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Payment for and use of essential services should not be linked. Applying this principle would mean the sickest people in society would have to pay towards their NHS care, whilst unable to work.

The money that those on benefits receive towards their rent depends on their circumstances. Some are on Housing Benefit and some receive help via Universal Credit.

The remainder of their income is for day to day living expenses, so making them pay towards their rent and between 20 to 30%* of their Council Tax means going without essential things (as does the frozen period of benefit uprating that is currently being carried forward yesr on year).

The weekly amount is so finely tuned that only one bath/shower a week is catered for within the allowance!

There are indeed working families in poverty; 40% of those on Univetsal Credit are working. They would face the double whammy of their wages and benefits not keeping pace with inflation whilst prices are skyrocketing.

It is simply not possible to claim out of work benefits without suspensions or sanctions by packing in your job, losing it through misconduct or not being availablr for or actively seeking work. Regular checks are made via form enquiries, checking efforts that are input online, interviews and requirements to attend training courses to improve employability.

Such sanctions are brutal and include a man being refused benefits because he had a heart attack during an interview, a lone parent who was late because her child needed to use the toilet and a man with cancer who was forced to choose between attending the jobcentre or going to a hospital appointment. He chose the latter and was sanctioned.

In this situation it's hardly surprising that people are breaking the law in order to survive, I know I couldn't survive on today's benefits alone.

The 5% figure quoted is said by the Government to be the current rate of wage increases.

* Help towards the council tax now varies across the country. This used to be met in full under the Council Tax Benefit scheme.

The Cameton Government essentially slashed the budget for this, handed the amount remaining to local authorities and said "do what you will with it". The maximum amount of help available is, bizarrely, now dependent upon where one lives!

Why shouldn't everyone have to make a degree of contribution to services that they use ?

Why should there be exceptions? People who have a relatively small degree of savings are getting hit more and more and are having to make cutbacks, and not just to luxuries such as netflix.

So you agree there is a housing component and rent doesn't necessarily come out of 'other living expenses'

You've massaged the 5% figure. the actual stats are

In real terms (adjusted for inflation), growth in total and regular pay fell on the year in April to June 2022 at 2.5% for total pay and 3.0% for regular pay; this was a record fall for regular pay. Average total pay growth for the private sector was 5.9% in April to June 2022, and 1.8% for the public sector.16 Aug 2022

I'm not arguing that some of the methods involved have had catastrophic impact to individuals, however, the examples you give are of edge cases . This of course by no means lessens the impact felt.

I also via SWMBO see people who are sanctioned, why? because they refuse to travel outside of a three mile area for work, because they refuse to work shifts (not that they have compelling reasons such as childcare, simply because they don't want to work shifts) people who refuse to work because they don't want to work weekends . For every example you give of those who really do need our support, there are an equivalent number of people who are quite simply abusing the system because they can't be bothered. there are those also who are desperate to work including people in 'Group 1'

People who cannot work should get every single piece of help available, but still make a contribution to the services if they consume, even if it's 50p


TLR the whole system is screwed, it's needs rebuilding from the ground up

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It is rife around here, benefits is a lifestyle we have young people in their 20s-30s-40s who have never worked and therefor never contributed a penny to the country ,they sell baccy ,they sell drugs ,they work cash in hand jobs ,its disgusting, I worked 47 years to fund these parasites.

The vast amount of the welfare budget is spent on retirement pensions. The rest is spent on the sick, disabled, carers etc

The smallest amount was spent on Jobseekers Allowance.

Sure, you've worked and paid in, but so have most of the others as that's how the scheme works. When you can afford to, you pay in, when you need help, you take it out.

It sounds like you have the all too common attitude of "Benefits should be cut, but not those that I claim as i'm genuinely entitled and have paid into the system". Well, so have most of the others.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by denphone

l am in group 1 and have been for 20 years plus because of my long term health and we certainly don't mind making contributions each month as we already pay a certain amount of council tax each month and if they required a bit more we would certainly pay that bit more.

It's not even about 'paying that bit more' it's about everyone in society making a small in some cases tiny contribution for the services they consume. and having enough money provided to be able to make that contribution.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The vast amount of the welfare budget is spent on retirement pensions. The rest is spent on the sick, disabled, carers etc

The smallest amount was spent on Jobseekers Allowance.

Sure, you've worked and paid in, but so have most of the others as that's how the scheme works. When you can afford to, you pay in, when you need help, you take it out.

It sounds like you have the all too common attitude of "Benefits should be cut, but not those that I claim as i'm genuinely entitled and have paid into the system". Well, so have most of the others.

I can't believe im going to defend Papa here, but, the point is that there are people who are abusing the system, adding billions to our welfare bill which could be given to those who are in genuine need. to improve their quality of life.