/ Benefits Cap
I wonder if they've decided in advance how many disabled will fail the WCA..
I get the impression that IDS is well meaning but a bit dim.
I haven't met him, interested in the views of anyone here who has?
Not met him. Whenever I see IDS my mind thinks IBS.
The war on benefits is good for getting votes, but having been through the mill I am a tad cynical.
520 politicians understand that the books have to balance in the long run.
Until spending is cut significantly debt interest raises each year. Most other budgets are being cut year on year. As debt interest continue to raise money must by necessity be taken from elsewhere.
Tough, init? Pay now, or pay more, later.
Benefits should be set at a level and administered such that they go to those in need at a level that is compatible with a civilised, humane lifestyle.
Applying a cap implies there is some discretionary element ('If we have more money then we'll bung it at disabled people to give them a plasma TV, if we don't they can starve.')
There are budget elements which can be cut - HS2, defence, even (many aspects of) health and education. But there shouldn't be a discretionary element of benefits, otherwise we're doing it wrong.
That's not what it is about. It's about raising public awareness of the amount of spending that goes to welfare. What it will mean is that the government has to periodically go to the Commons and ask for an increase in the cap, with all the attendant publicity and scrutiny of the effectiveness of welfare spending.
I don't see what is "dim" about this. I think it's a good principle, indeed I'd advocate that every year each taxpayer should receive a letter detailing how much of their tax had been spend on various items. So if someone had paid £4000 in tax this would be broken down into so much for welfare, so much for NHS, so much for defence, etc.
Well, £120Bn is £2000 from every man, woman and child in the country, so £8000 from a family of 4.
UK unemployment is 7.5% - 4.5m, so £120bn is average £26.7k/person.
Average working wage is £26.5k
So, no I don't think it's unreasonable.
Every man, woman, child and business.
And don't equate benefit with unemployed.
Educate yourself. That's not unreasonable.
Not really; corporation tax is small compared with income tax and VAT.
The other way is still a good check. In general, those on other benefits are also unemployed. The numbers are a good approximation.
But hey, don't worry - I'll keep paying for you. I haven't complained about it, I don't mind it and I'll doubtless carry on doing so. [ ;¨) ]
But if you start whiny threads about entitlement then you can expect some disagreement.
If you merely wanted to state your view, buy a premier thread and don't accept replies.
It also implies the funding available has a cap - which it does. As it stands there is a lot of money spent, I am amazed that it can't do everything it needs to - 25% of the entire tax take of the one of the 20 wealthiest - per capita - countries in the world isn't enough?
Stiring words. The defence budget is TINY compared to the welfare budget. Large cuts are being made across most other headline items. If we just keep over-spending now the future gets worse in a non-linear way with current spend, just like any other debt. Pain now or much more pain later.
Further, HS2 is a one-off, welfare is never-ending, so yes why not kill some projects like that that will be of genuine benefit to the country to temporarily delay the bailiffs. Sound thinking. What do we cut when HS2 is gone?
"The cap will include spending on the vast majority of benefits, including pension credits, severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefits, child benefit, both maternity and paternity pay, universal credit and housing benefit.
However, Jobseeker's allowance and the state pension will be excluded."
But hey, don't worry about facts... like, I can pay my own tax thanks and quite happy for it to be used to help those in need; like, I'll point out it's not my thread; like, I can row with the best of them; like, stuff like that really.
You knock yourself out with the hatred, buddy.
If there is a cap then that means expenditure stops at some arbitrary point. And if some child is rendered disabled after that point, or a family has to be taken into care because of circumstances beyond their control, then that help is no longer available because of an arbitrarily imposed limit. A child who needs help should receive it, whether they are spending the first £1 of the welfare budget or the £100 billionth.
I didn't say it was dim, I said IDS is. Come back in a year's time and see where his reforms are.
If the benefit cap fits, wear it.
Or rather that the government has to go back to Parliament for more.
Then it'll be well within the noise level.
In the real world "need" is not an exact clear-cut level. It will never be the case that 30p less than that level is obviously too little and 30p more obviously too much.
You missed my smiley?
That's a lot of "likes"; perhaps there should be a button.
You don't have much sense of irony I'm guessing; no hatred here.
No it doesn't have a cap. It goes up and down depending on tax take, borrowing costs and a massive inter-related web of policy decisions. And a whole load of other stuff too, e.g. how much tax you actually manage to collect.
I don't think that your amazement provides very good evidence that there is slack or waste in the system that is best addressed with a cap on the total budget.
This isn't the issue. Opposing the cap is not the same as saying you agree with uncontrolled public spending, even though that is the facile argument pedalled by IDS. You know, it might be politics rather than genuine thinking about how best to solve a problem. What a thought!
The issue is about how you control public spending, not whether you control public spending. For example, we all know that the Tories like to give tax cuts that benefit rich people, for obvious political reasons. One might think that the number of people who need state support might have an influence on whether such a tax cut is affordable, but this cap breaks that link. That would be handy if you prioritised giving tax cuts to the rich above providing state support for those who need it. You could control public spending either way, the question is which you choose, what are your priorities.
Let's not confuse capital spending with revenue spending. The question is about the latter, and whether the impact of changes in the welfare bill should impact on wider spending, or whether the govt should trade off
one area of benefit spending against another to absorb increases in need.
The "tax cuts for the rich" was a reduction of the 50% top rate to 45% (still above the 40% in place through Blair's reign). There is a lot of evidence that putting it at 50% rather than 40 or 45 doesn't actually get you any more tax take, thus the above two things are not either-or.
No, I had the inheritance tax threshold in mind actually.
This govt has been particularly devious in how it makes the public aware of welfare spending, with IDS getting plenty of telling offs from the UK Statistics Authority. Still, perhaps they've turned over a new leaf.
Beyond seeing too many beggars on the streets/too many unemployed famlies with big TVs (delete as appropriate too your political persuasion), I'm not sure many of us have the ability to scrutinise how effective welfare spending is. The cynic in me says it'll be a chance for the govt of the day to look tough by bashing the poorest in society, but you never know, things might change.
As for the "good principle" thing, whatever happened to automatic stabilisers which take the edge of recessions?
The inheritance tax threshold has been held level throughout this government's term, which means that it has been dropping slightly in real terms. Thus there hasn't been any inheritance-tax "tax cut for the rich".
Has any government not been?
Which was only established in 2008, so one can't really compare such rates with much.
It's been suggested:
I specifically worded my post to indicate what I think on this.
To get criticised for using dodgy stats once would be okay, I guess. Four times?
Anyhow, you miss the most important bit of my post...
That's disingenuous BS. There's no way this government will be going back to increase the cap. It's a deliberate blunt tool: "we can't go past the cap".
> In the real world "need" is not an exact clear-cut level. It will never be the case that 30p less than that level is obviously too little and 30p more obviously too much.
£10k more might be the right level! The amount we *need* to support people can vary significantly. This kind of utilitarianism is the economic side of compulsory euthanasia for the unproductive of society.
I haven't met him, but I believe this is a widely held view amonst people who deal with him regularly and not just from the left.
Don't be fooled, this is simply political manoeuvring and usual poor bashing to please the opinion, but in fact that will lead to very little change in policy. With state pensions excluded from the cap, benefits payment cost about 73£bn pounds, so there is no reason to think that this cap will ever be met.
In fact the single most expensive benefit is the state pension, which they won't touch, even though many wealthy pensioners who don't need it receive it...
The Blair-Brown era was wall-to-wall dodgy stats. I'm not claiming the current government are any better. This is just standard politician behaviour. In nearly every interview and speech they use cherry-picked and dodgy stats.
Elsewhere on the site
The release of Peter Jackson's new film The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on 12th December may not appear to link to... Read more