Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Why Don't The Tories Want To Reduce Certain Benefits Significantly?

Recommended Posts

I know there are a lot of headline grabbing policies such as the Tories saying they will reduce the benefits cap from £26k to £23k per year but they have made this so easy to circumvent it (if you are getting working tax credits or on disability benefits it doesn't apply) and even in London it is quite easy to get by on £23k (£440 per week) tax free.

It makes me wonder why they are so reticent to reduce certain benefits. I understand that some benefits are necessary but things like child tax credits and housing benefits are much too generous. There is a comment on this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927561/New-welfare-crackdown-workshy-100-day-election-countdown-begins-PM-vows-slash-cap-3-000-days-Tory-election-victory.html#comments which I will quote and it shows just how little benefits have actually been touched and how easy it is to get around the system;

Freedom fighter, manchester, United Kingdom, 10 hours ago

Why its not enough- A man living in London with his wife and four kids, claiming he's working the minimum number of hours to claim. So working 24 hours on minimum wage he can get the following. He earns £8150 a year on which he pays no tax and only around £24 a year in National insurance, he can then go onto claim. Housing benefit £20,420 Working Tax credits £3225 Child tax credits £8802 Child benefit £2475 Council tax support £791 Total tax free benefits £35715 + salary of £8126 Total of NET income of £43,841 A man earning £60,000 a year can't claim child benefit, nor any of the above and his take home pay after tax and NI is NET £41,942. That's nearly £2000 a year less than the guy working 24 hours on minimum wage! , So Mr Cameron come back and discuss caps, when that includes those in work too. People should be paid by an employer , not the state and they should be paid on skills, qualification and experience, not the number of kids they've bred!

I have no doubt that Labour won't do anything to tax credits/housing benefits (in fact they will probably increase them) but why aren't the Tories (supposedly the party of the working man and against welfarism) so reluctant to make any real cuts? Is it because they don't want their landlord and business friends to lose out (by cutting housing benefit/tax credits)? Otherwise I don't get it and surely all these benefits are costing the country a fortune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason is it they changed the scam that is creating a company and playing the system unemployment figures would rocket.

They've put millions on the sick and kept the young in education eternally, funding people to make fake businesses seems to be the last place they can put people to fudge the figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they invested all their benefit change capital in a two-legged bell end called IDS.

A quick round robin of MPs from the early 90s would have revealed what a useless d1ck he is.

But oh know, they fell for his compassionate pitch.

He may be compassionate but useless is his defining trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bread and circuses are a major part of keeping the unwashed masses quiet.

They'll pick a few easy targets which mostly end up disenfranchising genuine claimants but give the public (thanks to a compliant media) the impression that they are 'being tough on benefit cheats' - but ultimately they aren't stupid enough to make large amounts of people with time on their hands angry and motivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are a lot of headline grabbing policies such as the Tories saying they will reduce the benefits cap from £26k to £23k per year but they have made this so easy to circumvent it (if you are getting working tax credits or on disability benefits it doesn't apply) and even in London it is quite easy to get by on £23k (£440 per week) tax free.

It makes me wonder why they are so reticent to reduce certain benefits.

Otherwise I don't get it and surely all these benefits are costing the country a fortune.

Economic Churn.

How many jobs and hence tax reciepts rely on the unemployed spending money. How many off licences, 50 inch plasma screen sellers, lazy boy sofa shops, etc etc rely on the unemployed spending money. How many people are employed in dealing with the disability payouts, how many coffees shops and resturants rely on all those DWP wages being spent. How many employed in the car industry rely on motability schemes. All these so called private sector jobs. (all paying tax as well)

I work what I would consider a 'proper job', physical and many hours a week, in oil and gas. Many guys I work with get on the old Daily Wail soap box and moan about the feckless and lazy breeding under class, lazing around while they work their fingers to the bone. What they dont consider is if all benefits were cut right now, they and I would probably be out of a job in the morning, along with half the country.

The Under class are spending heroes and need to be appreciated for that fact. How much industry do they support, with their spending habits. They are Atlas, and we should be grateful they are too lazy and useless to shrug

How can it cost anything when the government can just pull a couple of billion out of its backside whenever it feels like.

Its not about production or efficiency. Welcome to the post industrial economy, and the key to it is consumption.

How do we get people to spend, thats the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the illusion of wealth that they are trying to create.

The benefit recipients go out and spend money in the economy, most importantly pay rent to BtL landlords which keeps them in profit and ultimately houses prices up.

The economy cannot work in it's current guise (without a big crash), so massive state support is a good way of getting money into keeping the plates spinning.

They will propose caps etc and publicise them in the Daily Mail to pacify their voters whilst at the same time leaving massive gaps like the example above, so that the money still gets through.

I don't know what the salary figures look like in London, but £60k income would probably still put you in the top 5% of the population and the top 10% of earners, so the fact you can get the same on a part time minimum wage job shows that something is seriously wrong. I know people who work hard in full time jobs for much less than £60k - how must they feel about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Churn.

How many jobs and hence tax reciepts rely on the unemployed spending money. How many off licences, 50 inch plasma screen sellers, lazy boy sofa shops, etc etc rely on the unemployed spending money. How many people are employed in dealing with the disability payouts, how many coffees shops and resturants rely on all those DWP wages being spent. How many employed in the car industry rely on motability schemes. All these so called private sector jobs. (all paying tax as well)

Aside from the cash borrowed into existence, that money would still be out there, just in the hands of taxpayers not benefits claimants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Churn.

.

.

The Under class are spending heroes and need to be appreciated for that fact. How much industry do they support, with their spending habits. They are Atlas, and we should be grateful they are too lazy and useless to shrug

How can it cost anything when the government can just pull a couple of billion out of its backside whenever it feels like.

Its not about production or efficiency. Welcome to the post industrial economy, and the key to it is consumption.

How do we get people to spend, thats the problem.

Interesting point of view, thanks. As depressing as it sounds, I suspect that you are right on the money.

Edited by LC1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two more examples from my family , my ex-wife, part time supply teacher perhaps £24k p.a., 4000 p.a. tax credits £1700 p.a. child benefit mortgage fee house (mine) discounted CT so perhaps £2100 pcm (i pay here £800 pcm maintenance). as i earned £58k and she didnt work, the house had less going into it when i was there!

second example father died last year, retired industrial chemist. retired in 1988 at 60 on around £30k pa. he was receiving around £3k per month net final salary pension and state pension (no NI), mortgage free house, free dental care, free glasses, winter heating allowance, discounted travel etc. for 25 YEARS!!!

two households not working and earning vastly more than most can dream of.

The only thing that my ex and father have in common is that they are the only members of the family who are remotely interested in voting, there could be a connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the illusion of wealth that they are trying to create.

The benefit recipients go out and spend money in the economy, most importantly pay rent to BtL landlords which keeps them in profit and ultimately houses prices up.

I always try and remind myself of this. You can easily get a bit green with envy seeing benefit recipients stacking up with their ready meals, buying alcohol and cigarettes and wasting it at Poundworld on stuff when some of them haven't done a day's work in their lives. I temporarly lived in a council block so I was fully aware that most of them were playing the system and getting enormous DLA enhancements too.

But indeed they are getting played too and their profligacy and waste is what keeps the wheels spinning. Plus they donate a lot back instantly in excise duty. No good if we were all like crashmonitor and prudent.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two more examples from my family , my ex-wife, part time supply teacher perhaps £24k p.a., 4000 p.a. tax credits £1700 p.a. child benefit mortgage fee house (mine) discounted CT so perhaps £2100 pcm (i pay here £800 pcm maintenance). as i earned £58k and she didnt work, the house had less going into it when i was there!

second example father died last year, retired industrial chemist. retired in 1988 at 60 on around £30k pa. he was receiving around £3k per month net final salary pension and state pension (no NI), mortgage free house, free dental care, free glasses, winter heating allowance, discounted travel etc. for 25 YEARS!!!

two households not working and earning vastly more than most can dream of.

The only thing that my ex and father have in common is that they are the only members of the family who are remotely interested in voting, there could be a connection.

People need to at least register to vote and turn up on ballot day, if only to spoil their vote in protest.

As long as large numbers of people don't vote, their non-participation in the process will be taken as acquiescence and provides legitimacy to whichever scumbag politico who gets elected by a small number of people.

Our voting system basically rubberstamps a ticket for politicians to do what they want for the next 4-5 years - it's about time people made it clear that the existing corrupt cartel of the political class does not represent them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are a lot of headline grabbing policies such as the Tories saying they will reduce the benefits cap from £26k to £23k per year but they have made this so easy to circumvent it (if you are getting working tax credits or on disability benefits it doesn't apply) and even in London it is quite easy to get by on £23k (£440 per week) tax free.

It makes me wonder why they are so reticent to reduce certain benefits. I understand that some benefits are necessary but things like child tax credits and housing benefits are much too generous. There is a comment on this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927561/New-welfare-crackdown-workshy-100-day-election-countdown-begins-PM-vows-slash-cap-3-000-days-Tory-election-victory.html#comments which I will quote and it shows just how little benefits have actually been touched and how easy it is to get around the system;

I have no doubt that Labour won't do anything to tax credits/housing benefits (in fact they will probably increase them) but why aren't the Tories (supposedly the party of the working man and against welfarism) so reluctant to make any real cuts? Is it because they don't want their landlord and business friends to lose out (by cutting housing benefit/tax credits)? Otherwise I don't get it and surely all these benefits are costing the country a fortune.

Brave move by the Tories in my mind, they must lose a number of votes by this move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers waking up to the fact that they can bring in more per annum working PT min wage than in full time work are increasing in large numbers.

I was chatting to a an ex colleage the other day and he had worked out that tax credits & min wage would bring in £35k yr for him.

I just doesnt seem sustainable or maybe it is with QE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers waking up to the fact that they can bring in more per annum working PT min wage than in full time work are increasing in large numbers.

I was chatting to a an ex colleage the other day and he had worked out that tax credits & min wage would bring in £35k yr for him.

I just doesnt seem sustainable or maybe it is with QE.

Bit of a gamble, I would have thought. Even if your ex colleague got a minimum wage job, how secure would it be? What about when the children grow up and the CTCs stop? Or what if a future government were to reduce tax credits? Would he be able to get back into a £35k a year full time job if necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the cash borrowed into existence, that money would still be out there, just in the hands of taxpayers not benefits claimants.

Don't forget that £90bn of govt spending is borrowed by government on behalf of the taxpayer and sprayed into the economy via the benefit system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bread and circuses are a major part of keeping the unwashed masses quiet.

They'll pick a few easy targets which mostly end up disenfranchising genuine claimants but give the public (thanks to a compliant media) the impression that they are 'being tough on benefit cheats' - but ultimately they aren't stupid enough to make large amounts of people with time on their hands angry and motivated.

Tend to agree....this cap, does it include housing benefit if so in London most of that is paid to other beneficiaries....it is good discipline for people to work for a living but not when the state pays the majority of it not the employer....all it ends up being is a landowners and employers subsidy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers waking up to the fact that they can bring in more per annum working PT min wage than in full time work are increasing in large numbers.

I was chatting to a an ex colleage the other day and he had worked out that tax credits & min wage would bring in £35k yr for him.

I just doesnt seem sustainable or maybe it is with QE.

i bet a single guy without children can`t claim ?

Edited by longgone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers waking up to the fact that they can bring in more per annum working PT min wage than in full time work aras talking to e increasing in large numbers.

I was chatting to a an ex colleage the other day and he had worked out that tax credits & min wage would bring in £35k yr for him.

I just doesnt seem sustainable or maybe it is with QE.

Yeh

Was talking to a guy who was over 60 working 3 days a week and shacked up with lady much younger with 3 kids, He said he could not afford to work more than 3 days a week as it affected his credits, His main worry was about getting his pension at 65 and how it was going to affect the credits.!

I understand the number of part time workers is growing is that true.

Edited by awaytogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet a single guy without children can`t claim ?

i bet a single girl without children can't claim ?....anyway you don't require children to claim tax credits. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh

Was talking to a guy who was over 60 working 3 days a week and shacked up with lady much younger with 3 kids, He said he could not afford to work more than 3 days a week as it affected his credits, His main worry was about getting his pension at 65 and how it was going to affect the credits.!

I understand the number of part time workers is growing is that true.

......unintended consequences....still keeps the unemployment rate down and encourages people to go out to work for money part of the time. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disgusting that my taxes are going to prop up companies paying poverty wages and into the pockets of landlords.

They should scrap tax credits and housing benefit immediately. If companies can't pay the cost of living then labour should be withheld until the cost of living falls. If people can't afford to house themselves then the state should house them in dormitories until rents come into line.

They always bang on about unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit should be regarded as an insurance scheme, that we all might need at one point or another. It's a tiny fraction of benefit spending and is the one benefit that I would make considerably more generous.

Gordon Brown did his very best to destroy opportunity and self-reliance in this country. If you're not in a favoured demographic then you're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state has two choices if it wants to make the economy look good. It can:

a. Create lots of government-non jobs, like Labour did in the 90s. Keith Waterhouse as long ago as the mid 70s wrote a very funny book about this called 'Office Life'. The trouble with this is that it takes a certain amount of effort and training to get people into those jobs, and because a modicum of intelligence is required, it's not long before questions start being asked about waste, accountability etc. Of course, the NHS is an exception, because nobody is allowed to question the NHS; anybody who works in it is an angel of mercy and it is allowed to employ limitless people (it's the third largest state employer in the world I believe).

b. Keep benefit spending high. This has the advantage that it doesn't require people to make any effort or have any education, it keeps unruly elements happy, it keeps people spending, it brings in immigrants (who work and have children who will work to help the benefit system for everyone else) it provides work for armies of state employees, and cannot be questioned because if you do so, you are an 'evil tory' who wants to throw pregnant women out into the snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet a single guy without children can`t claim ?

Yes he can but its not a fat lot...from my dodgy memory I think it was about £800 a year if you earn a really low wage doing 24 hours or there abouts. The hours may have changed recently.

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:   206 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.