Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crash2006

Cutting Benefits Is Vital For Economy, Says Iain Duncan Smith

Recommended Posts

He will also say that the number of immigrants entering the country was fuelled by British people refusing to take jobs because of the “way our benefits system was constructed”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11025059/Cutting-benefits-is-vital-for-economy-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html

What about cutting expenses for MP's , What about pushing the MPs pension age in line with the state pension age.

he's still going on he does not see the big picture yet does he.

Lets cut all corporate benefits, they just never seem to do that do they.

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I agree with him. If two people work they should earn enough to house cloth and feed their family with out benefits. Benefits have enabled wages to be to low to the decrement of the low earners that don't get benefits and the advantage of the one percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, many people working are on benefits. Second, many people do not drive, no transport available to get them to work in a town 20 or so miles away where there may be some paid work,also many can't speak the language,

read or write, thousands more also have mental health and addiction problems....what employer will employ someone who doesn't turn up for work or who doesn't do a satisfactory days work when they get there upsetting existing employees?...... Do the children suffer for their parents problems?.......all I say is this is not a one size fits all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy will never fully recover unless families on benefits return to work, Iain Duncan Smith will say on Monday.

Where are the jobs prat-face?

The Work and Pensions Secretary will use a speech to say that the Coalition’s welfare reforms will lead to a “more contented future” .

I know one person with mental health issues who has no job and has had all his benefits stopped. He and his parents (who now support him) are most certainly more contented now - thanks IDS!

Ensuring that people who were previously dependent on welfare “play a full and productive part” will help Britain to compete with countries like China, Mr Duncan Smith is expected to add.

As a previous poster stated, a lot of people in work have to claim benefits. China - hrmmm, is the cat out of the bag Mr. IDS?

He argues that the Government is “making Britain great again” by “matching economic recovery with social recovery”

Even for a comedian he is funny. I live in Edinburgh so my best hope is independence.

There have been reports that the party could consider lowering the £26,000 cap on benefits to bring it closer into line with the average take-home pay of about £18,000.

Ministers are also understood to be considering plans to limit to two the number of children for whom benefits can be claimed.

Interesting and possibly even sensible. However it would be better to get paid enougth to raise two children without being dependant on the state or even find a way to raise the take home pay to the level of benefits! Start by collecting corporation tax and go from there ...

“Under the last government whole sections of society had been stuck on the sidelines year after year after year, even in the so-called good times,” he will say.

and Thatcher was a .... Labour ... no a Conservative politician who dumped whole towns on benefits. Two-faced IDS.

Mr Duncan Smith has championed the policy of Universal Credit, which is regarded his personal political mission.

May both he and it burn in hell. Until then I will continue to dream of dancing around him naked screaming for satan to take his soul.

It will merge several benefits into a single payment that will be adjusted to ensure that claimants are always better off in work than on welfare.

By making it a race to the bottom by any chance?

Mr Cameron has also announced that European Union migrants can only claim out-of-work benefits for three months and will have to wait three months before they can claim for those at all.

Until the EU rules yet again that you can't treat one group of people different to another. The government will wate anoter load of millions fighting it of course.

Christ, what a T1at IDS is. Now where did I put that receipt for my shiny new underpants?

Edited by doahh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefits= Government expenditure.

Therefore, what he actually means, and this I agree with, is cutting Government expenditure is vital to restore the economy.

Therefore, I strongly support a policy to half all public sector emoluments over 25K for workers, and 8K for pensioners.

eg, a salary of 30K is reduced by 2500...a 100K salary by 37500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll just take another stab at jobseeker's, which is the benefit we spend almost nothing on. They should either be leaving it alone or raising it - isn't the point of national insurance that we get a safety net? I might need to claim myself, one day. But no, tabloids love to demonise the unemployed, so we turn the screw ever tighter on the unlucky.

DId the death of David Clapson teach this man nothing?

It seems that no politician dares to sort out housing benefit or tax credits, which is where we are actually spending all the money. Got to keep the landlord and employer subsidies going, and too many people claim for it not to have electoral consequences. If he's talking about getting people off welfare dependency then those are the dragons he has to slay.

Gordon Brown casts a long shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cough...Turn up volume.. Eu farming subsidies, Missus.. Cough...

Piss right off.

You forgot the £300k wind turbine subsidy for the Old Git in law.

It's the people who never had to work for their lifestyle who are the most shrill in expecting others, less lucky, to be self sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll just take another stab at jobseeker's, which is the benefit we spend almost nothing on.

It's a small percentage of the overall benefits bill. However he wasted more than the entire JSA bill on UC which is a total and abject failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know one person with mental health issues who has no job and has had all his benefits stopped. He and his parents (who now support him) are most certainly more contented now - thanks IDS!

Surely his parents should be looking after him instead of expecting the state to house, feed and take care of him.

This is what's wrong with Britain most people expect the state to take care of absolutely everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely his parents should be looking after him instead of expecting the state to house, feed and take care of him.

This is what's wrong with Britain most people expect the state to take care of absolutely everything.

Im afraid that argument leads to some very difficult situations that make the whole thing untenable...first example comes to mind..He ( the person in mental difficulty) has no parents, was living a life independantly and became ill.

Should he now be left to die on the streets...and if one is helped why not the other circumstance. Then why are people who have taken a risk to buy a place and cant pay offered help with little conditionality, when those who rent who also fall into the exact same situation are means tested and only get the help if they first have drawn down on their other resources?

The system is riddled with nonsense likethis...I have yet to hear of a politician attempt to deal with the safety net issue when it is clear that the safety net can provide some with a lifestyle of some value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very good posts above seems like we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

On the radio today a think tank policy exchange recons that London SE should have higher welfare payments than the rest of the county. I don't know what other people think of this but I think it 's a stupid idea.

It would mean that the deprived areas of Britain would have even less money. I would rather those that don't want to work leave London and move somewhere cheaper and leave empty houses for those that do want to work.

It seems strange to me that policy exchange is a right wing think tank. Surely think tanks should be unbiased and come up with their answer by logical debate and not from any pre ideological preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im afraid that argument leads to some very difficult situations that make the whole thing untenable...first example comes to mind..He ( the person in mental difficulty) has no parents, was living a life independantly and became ill.

Should he now be left to die on the streets...and if one is helped why not the other circumstance. Then why are people who have taken a risk to buy a place and cant pay offered help with little conditionality, when those who rent who also fall into the exact same situation are means tested and only get the help if they first have drawn down on their other resources?

The system is riddled with nonsense likethis...I have yet to hear of a politician attempt to deal with the safety net issue when it is clear that the safety net can provide some with a lifestyle of some value.

We are talking about someone with parents who are able to look after him.

Ive a friend who done too much drugs as a kid and by 19 had developed schizophrenia, his parents are wealthy and are able to look after him, should others pay for his care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about someone with parents who are able to look after him.

Ive a friend who done too much drugs as a kid and by 19 had developed schizophrenia, his parents are wealthy and are able to look after him, should others pay for his care?

Whilst I have sympathy for your case, it is not the parents who are ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have sympathy for your case, it is not the parents who are ill.

No, but the parents created him thus have a responsibility to take care of him when he can't.

The alternative is ludicrously high taxes that the people do not want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently asked by someone why I was not claiming working tax credit....and I said I didn't qualify. In reply...oh aren't you working enough hours? No, actually household income is high.

The benefit culture is so ingrained now that if you are not claiming benefits you must be some kind of shirker not working. Talk about turning things on in its head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the jobs prat-face?

I know one person with mental health issues who has no job and has had all his benefits stopped. He and his parents (who now support him) are most certainly more contented now - thanks IDS!

As a previous poster stated, a lot of people in work have to claim benefits. China - hrmmm, is the cat out of the bag Mr. IDS?

Even for a comedian he is funny. I live in Edinburgh so my best hope is independence.

Interesting and possibly even sensible. However it would be better to get paid enougth to raise two children without being dependant on the state or even find a way to raise the take home pay to the level of benefits! Start by collecting corporation tax and go from there ...

and Thatcher was a .... Labour ... no a Conservative politician who dumped whole towns on benefits. Two-faced IDS.

May both he and it burn in hell. Until then I will continue to dream of dancing around him naked screaming for satan to take his soul.

By making it a race to the bottom by any chance?

Until the EU rules yet again that you can't treat one group of people different to another. The government will wate anoter load of millions fighting it of course.

Christ, what a T1at IDS is. Now where did I put that receipt for my shiny new underpants?

Labour voters

Because nothing says "numpty" quite so much as the heartfelt belief that if only they gave out more free money then everything would be fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the parents created him thus have a responsibility to take care of him when he can't.

The alternative is ludicrously high taxes that the people do not want.

Indeed. This is a basic conservative world view, that family make a much more efficient safety net than govt. I do have sympathy for those without family, and especially for children in that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. This is a basic conservative world view, that family make a much more efficient safety net than govt. I do have sympathy for those without family, and especially for children in that position.

Thats fine, and as I say I have much sympathy with that point of view...but it seems that if you have a resource, then you get palmed off onto that resource...WHETHER OR NOT THAT RESOURCE HAS THE CAPACITY.

furthermore, when does the child not get assigned to its parent in this circumstance...say the "child" or better "offspring" is now in his 60s, the parents in the 80s...is it STILL their responsibility.

Of course, parents will want to help in most cases.

but coming back to housing benefit...why is one class of unfortunate able to keep their 0000s in the bank and receive a benefit, whereas the other class cant.

I suspect its those old Tory principles at work again...renters cant be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour voters

Because nothing says "numpty" quite so much as the heartfelt belief that if only they gave out more free money then everything would be fine

Tory voter.

Because nothing says "numpty" quite so much as the heartfelt belief that if only they gave rich people subsidies or printed free money to give to banksters then everything would be fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fine, and as I say I have much sympathy with that point of view...but it seems that if you have a resource, then you get palmed off onto that resource...WHETHER OR NOT THAT RESOURCE HAS THE CAPACITY.

furthermore, when does the child not get assigned to its parent in this circumstance...say the "child" or better "offspring" is now in his 60s, the parents in the 80s...is it STILL their responsibility.

Of course, parents will want to help in most cases.

but coming back to housing benefit...why is one class of unfortunate able to keep their 0000s in the bank and receive a benefit, whereas the other class cant.

I suspect its those old Tory principles at work again...renters cant be trusted.

We all want a fair system but what is fair? Personally I don't see the difference between SMI and HB apart from the fact that the landlord pays for all the repairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labour voters

Because nothing says "numpty" quite so much as the heartfelt belief that if only they gave out more free money then everything would be fine

IDS's family have themselves claimed about a million pounds in agricultural subsidies in the last ten years- so it's not 'free money' that IDS objects to-he's all for it apparently.

This is all about scapegoating for votes, not a serious attempt to address the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds similar to a speech he made in January:


http://

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/iain-duncan-smiths-speech-on-welfare-reform-full-text/

The economy will never recover unless they stop supporting house prices at crazy levels and stop bailing out the incompetent and dishonest banks.

The benefit problem is regularly aired by the LibLabCon over the years but they never really get to grips with it in any serious way except in small pockets and in ways that seem actually designed to increase opposition to the overall required changes - and in ways that avoid attempting any real rebalancing of the economy. They continue to just keep borrowing more to kick the can down the road.

A lot of the benefit changes over the years are ideas imported from the US (and then introduced in excess to the UK without anything to balance it) - so it's unlikely the UK will depart much from that benefit theme anytime soon.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory voter.

Because nothing says "numpty" quite so much as the heartfelt belief that if only they gave rich people subsidies or printed free money to give to banksters then everything would be fine

Gordon brown printed free money to the bankers, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.