Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
David Cameron indicates universal benefits face curbs 
Author Message
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11462986

Quote:
Universal allowances, such as child benefit, could be curbed to help fund a major shake-up of the welfare system, David Cameron has indicated.

The prime minister wants to wrap all existing out-of-work benefits into a single payment that encourages work.

Speaking as the Tory conference got under way in Birmingham, he said the plan would get substantial numbers of people off benefit and into work.

Labour accused the government of planning a massive assault on families.

But Mr Cameron told the BBC the coalition's planned welfare reforms were "refreshingly radical" and would mean people would always be better off in work.

Appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, he said the welfare reforms would cost more upfront, but the changes would be phased in, with other welfare savings made to cover the cost.

He declined to confirm or deny reports that these cuts would include ending some universal benefits such as child benefit paid for those over the age of 16.

He said: "On the one hand we have got to ask, are there some areas of universal benefits that are no longer affordable?

"But on the other hand let us look at the issue of dependency where we have trapped people in poverty through the extent of welfare that they have."

It will be interesting to see what they do with housing benefits. If they have the same rate nationally they will make the situation worse in the south where housing benefits have been high because of the bubble.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:28 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
The Tories are only interested in you if you can afford to run a Bentley.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:58 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
The Tories are only interested in you if you can afford to run a Bentley.

The problem is that with the nature of the economy now, even middle class voters will fall into the benefits system and discover that they immediately fall into poverty as a result of the cut backs.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:41 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
paulzolo wrote:
The Tories are only interested in you if you can afford to run a Bentley.

The problem is that with the nature of the economy now, even middle class voters will fall into the benefits system and discover that they immediately fall into poverty as a result of the cut backs.


How many people in poverty still have pay TV, 2nd cars, holidays etc?

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:19 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
paulzolo wrote:
The Tories are only interested in you if you can afford to run a Bentley.

The problem is that with the nature of the economy now, even middle class voters will fall into the benefits system and discover that they immediately fall into poverty as a result of the cut backs.


It's 1986 all over again. Let me tell you that the kiddie classes are less able to cope with than you think. In the 1980s it was pretty tough for them - I think this ti e it will be tougher as there has been a long period of relative affluence.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:37 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
paulzolo wrote:
The Tories are only interested in you if you can afford to run a Bentley.

The problem is that with the nature of the economy now, even middle class voters will fall into the benefits system and discover that they immediately fall into poverty as a result of the cut backs.


How many people in poverty still have pay TV, 2nd cars, holidays etc?

I do not know anyone on benefits who has a second car. Pay TV even if you pay just £10 a month is only £120 a year and if you are at home all day the TV does give good value. Though a holiday can be cheap if done last minute and on standby. Also it does not have to be done at peak season if you do not have kids.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:37 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
I do not know anyone on benefits who has a second car.

Child benefit? I would imagine many may have a 2nd car.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:11 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
As much as I don't like the idea of losing out on £20 a week. It does seem like a fair way of cutting costs.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:12 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
As much as I don't like the idea of losing out on £20 a week. It does seem like a fair way of cutting costs.

The Child Benefit?

Yup, I agree, although there may be issues.

Say, for example, there's a couple, one earns £45k and the other is earning say £10k, total income £55k. They would lose child beneift whereas a couple bringing in two wages of £35k (£70k total), would still get it. That doesn't really make sense.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:59 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
As much as I don't like the idea of losing out on £20 a week. It does seem like a fair way of cutting costs.

They could cap it at two children. Though means testing it could mean that they actually pay slightly more. The same could be said for the free pensioner TV licences. Though even fairer and cheaper is to incorporate the costs of the BBC and public service radio and TV into general taxation and reduce everyones allowances to pay for it.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:05 am
Profile
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 289
Reply with quote
A couple can jointly be earning 88K a year and still claiming if both earn 44K. However if one earns 45K and the other nothing, you will lose the benefit.

With 2 kids thats £1752 a year - which is a hell of a lot if you are on 45k. (About 3000 before tax) - so 6.6% income cut!

TBH I can understand the need to cut this benefit but it should be fair .. and the fairest option isn't necessarily the easiest.

Didge.

_________________
eurotech


Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:14 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
Personally I think ALL benefits should be means tested

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:28 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
Personally I think ALL benefits should be means tested

+1

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:36 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon


Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:01 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 5490
Location: just behind you!
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
We're onto the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have them' argument again, aren't we...

Jon


No, I think were on the "benefits should be there as a safety net to ensure a minimum standard of living" argument and those earning by any measure a good salary should not be in receipt of benefits.

_________________
johnwbfc wrote:
I care not which way round it is as long as at some point some sort of semi-naked wrestling is involved.

Amnesia10 wrote:
Yes but the opportunity to legally kill someone with a giant dildo does not happen every day.

Finally joined Flickr


Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:11 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.