Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

We SHOULD cut welfare spending! Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we cut welfare spending?
    Yes
    210
    56.30%
    Leave it as it is
    82
    21.98%
    No-increase welfare spending
    81
    21.72%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peter12345)
    Probable 16-24 middle class white male who still lives with his parents and has high qualifications possibly at a prestigious university thinks we should cut welfare spending. Where do I start? All I will say is this; I was talking to my mum recently about how the government is using the same tactics as the Nazis in getting public support. While the Nazis used that Jews as a scapegoat for all of Germany's problems, the conservatives are doing the same thing with people on welfare. Yes there were some money grabbing Jews in Germany and there are scrounging benefit claimants but the majority including me struggle every day in a system that gives you the bare minimum to live on, is a total nightmare to deal with and offers you no real help in finding a job in a tough current job market.
    Absolutely Fantastic. It is well documented that it times of economic turmoil, the popularity of "hate" politics shoots up - just look at the success that UKIP has had recently. What the current government is doing is trying to divert attention - its impossible to turn on the news recently without hearing about Cameron suffering another blow. So what do they do - target a group that will unite everyone. I hate seeing front page news stories of "A family of 10 claiming £X above the average income" - its all done for the same reason ! Sure, these cases do exist, but demonising all claimants through this false image is dangerous politics. I wish more people realised this rather than merely jumping on the hate bandwagon when it is constantly wheeled out in times of political failure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Care to show me what I have said which is "BNP-like"?

    Actually I think you'll find they're moving for the weather AND they hold relatively good qualifications in comparison to most Romanians.

    Could you please tell me why these immigrants passed through 15 other safe countries on their way to the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?
    (Answer this one please)
    I think you are talking about asylum- which is completely different.

    There are many reasons why people claim asylum in the uk. They may already know people here or there may be a community they belong to already established.

    But asylum seekers get very little in benefits and aren't allowed to work. Many of them get their claims refused.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Having kids is not necessarily a "lifestyle choice" ... I have two children, when the first pregnancy started I was 23, my partner was 21, and we were both at University. Despite what the media would have you believe about people "living it up on benefits" when they have kids - believe me - the easy option would have been to "end" the pregnancy and carry on as normal. However, the right thing to do - no matter how difficult - was to accept responsibility for the life we created and find a way through, which we did. To do so, we do have to rely on Tax Credits, and again, believe me, they don't pay for "two cars" or "luxury holidays". You've been reading too much Daily Mail there.

    .
    Oh, just realised, you said elsewhere on the thread that you live comfortably on an income of £24K.

    Why do you need that much? Many people at uni are expected to live on £3.5K and pay it back. Why can't you be directly made to pay back all the money you claimed in benefits?

    It would only be fair.

    As for your point about pensioners- I don't see what the problem with that is.

    Why can't they just say no universal benefits/ state pension for those with a certain amount of capital/income? Or if they live in a big house they could be made to sell it?

    If they are in perfectly good health (as many are) they could just keep working. This generation can't retire until they are at least 70.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by euphful)
    Wasn't she ousted by her own party?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yes she was ,similar to what would have happened to Blair if he didn't eventually give way for Brown
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    Oh, just realised, you said elsewhere on the thread that you live comfortably on an income of £24K.

    Why do you need that much? Many people at uni are expected to live on £3.5K and pay it back. Why can't you be directly made to pay back all the money you claimed in benefits?

    It would only be fair.

    As for your point about pensioners- I don't see what the problem with that is.

    Why can't they just say no universal benefits/ state pension for those with a certain amount of capital/income? Or if they live in a big house they could be made to sell it?

    If they are in perfectly good health (as many are) they could just keep working. This generation can't retire until they are at least 70.
    People at Uni are single teenagers / early 20-somethings... it's easy to live on a small budget then. You rent a room, for one. When you have a family, you need a house - rent prices currently coming in at £6000 - £7000 per annum for 2-3 bedrooms. Then you have £1200 at least in council tax, and around £1500 in utility bills. Utilities are split in a shared house - and students don't pay council tax at all. So that's £10k or more a year gone, right off the mark, before you even start to consider day-to-day cost of living.

    As for the idea of paying it back, I suppose in theory, it's fine, but it doesn't actually work. I, personally, am fairly confident that we (as a family) will be earning a decent amount one day but our circumstance is fairly unusual - young parents, but with good prospects and a high level of education to utilise when we have the means/time to focus on that side of things. However, you have to first consider that the repayment threshold would have to be relatively high, or you instantly create a work disincentive, and then consider what you're actually saying: These benefits are needed to top up "low" wages. The sad reality is, most people who are on low wages will ALWAYS be on low wages. Yeah you can set up some sort of repayment system... but it would be a waste of time... most people who need these sorts of benefits will never be in the financial position to make such repayments.


    My own personal stance is that these wage conditions are created by the government and society in the first place, and so the responsibility for making fairer living conditions should not rest on the shoulders of the victims of that system. I realise, though, that that stance is neither understood nor accepted by most people, so best kept as an entirely separate debate.

    As for pensioners, I don't particularly have an issue with the idea of pensions being means-tested, however, not to the point where we're talking about pensioners having to live on "a bear minimum". The idea is frankly, terrifying, given the way society "pushes" life these days. Work your fingers to the bone for 40 years, and then retire into a life of scrimping and saving every penny to make ends meet? Horrifying. For those who have genuinely worked most of their adult life, it's entirely uncivilised to suggest that they shouldn't get to experience at least SOME comfort at the end of it. Otherwise, what is the point? Work, then die? Well, great! Good luck with that . Pensioners who happen to have a large estate and a good income outside of a pension, yes, might have to let some of that pension go in the years to come. But you can't have 50 years of a government promising a pension, and then saying "Yeah we're not doing that. Oh you didn't save up? Well that's tough."

    Also remember that it's not a "free" pension - these people have been paying National Insurance for 40+ years fully expecting that to go towards a pension. To have someone who has dutifully paid it told "you're not getting one" - no matter how rich they happen to be - is quite simply fraud / theft, unless at LEAST the portion of their NI contributions intended for a pension is refunded in full.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that we should cut welfare spending, but not necessarily by reducing the amount given to people on disability or jobseekers which barely covers the bills in some cases.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    Oh, just realised, you said elsewhere on the thread that you live comfortably on an income of £24K.

    Why do you need that much? Many people at uni are expected to live on £3.5K and pay it back. Why can't you be directly made to pay back all the money you claimed in benefits?
    But you don't pay tax or NI on that £3.5k, you don't have children to support on that, nor do you pay council tax. If you live in student accommodation, your bills are normally included in the rent. For many non-students, they have to pay their bills on top. I am also sure that contracts for accommodation for students aren't normally 52 weeks.

    You're comparing two different situations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    People at Uni are single teenagers / early 20-somethings... it's easy to live on a small budget then. You rent a room, for one. When you have a family, you need a house - rent prices currently coming in at £6000 - £7000 per annum for 2-3 bedrooms. Then you have £1200 at least in council tax, and around £1500 in utility bills. Utilities are split in a shared house - and students don't pay council tax at all. So that's £10k or more a year gone, right off the mark, before you even start to consider day-to-day cost of living.

    As for the idea of paying it back, I suppose in theory, it's fine, but it doesn't actually work. I, personally, am fairly confident that we (as a family) will be earning a decent amount one day but our circumstance is fairly unusual - young parents, but with good prospects and a high level of education to utilise when we have the means/time to focus on that side of things. However, you have to first consider that the repayment threshold would have to be relatively high, or you instantly create a work disincentive, and then consider what you're actually saying: These benefits are needed to top up "low" wages. The sad reality is, most people who are on low wages will ALWAYS be on low wages. Yeah you can set up some sort of repayment system... but it would be a waste of time... most people who need these sorts of benefits will never be in the financial position to make such repayments.


    My own personal stance is that these wage conditions are created by the government and society in the first place, and so the responsibility for making fairer living conditions should not rest on the shoulders of the victims of that system. I realise, though, that that stance is neither understood nor accepted by most people, so best kept as an entirely separate debate.

    As for pensioners, I don't particularly have an issue with the idea of pensions being means-tested, however, not to the point where we're talking about pensioners having to live on "a bear minimum". The idea is frankly, terrifying, given the way society "pushes" life these days. Work your fingers to the bone for 40 years, and then retire into a life of scrimping and saving every penny to make ends meet? Horrifying. For those who have genuinely worked most of their adult life, it's entirely uncivilised to suggest that they shouldn't get to experience at least SOME comfort at the end of it. Otherwise, what is the point? Work, then die? Well, great! Good luck with that . Pensioners who happen to have a large estate and a good income outside of a pension, yes, might have to let some of that pension go in the years to come. But you can't have 50 years of a government promising a pension, and then saying "Yeah we're not doing that. Oh you didn't save up? Well that's tough."

    Also remember that it's not a "free" pension - these people have been paying National Insurance for 40+ years fully expecting that to go towards a pension. To have someone who has dutifully paid it told "you're not getting one" - no matter how rich they happen to be - is quite simply fraud / theft, unless at LEAST the portion of their NI contributions intended for a pension is refunded in full.
    You haven't answered my question about how you afforded any luxuries?

    And anyway you didn't need a 2-bed house, some families live in a single room in a Bandb or a caravan, why couldn't you have done that?

    And it isn't possible for a single person to live on 3.5K either, but tough!

    15K is hardly a high wage, either!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The OP is talking as if the poor live in mansions and drive super cars and wipe their ass with their benefit money
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I saw lots of people saying that the original poster was a rich toff and had never known hardship or general points along these lines. It’s a sad twist that some people seem to become so aggressively left wing that they think your background (or their snap judgement of what your background must have been like) is important in whether you can have an opinion on something – hardly open minded, liberal or "left wing". Also, how many of those people work in finance or banking (?) I bet that doesn’t stop them commenting about it!

    Welfare makes up about 1/3 of yearly government spending and is the single biggest piece of expenditure by far:

    http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget...ve_summary.pdf

    If you don’t make any cuts to the welfare budget then you would either need to butcher the other areas of spending or borrow more. As has been mentioned, assuming the admin costs don’t engulf any savings, wealthy pensioners are a sensible place to start.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    You haven't answered my question about how you afforded any luxuries?

    And anyway you didn't need a 2-bed house, some families live in a single room in a Bandb or a caravan, why couldn't you have done that?
    Because it'll be classed as overcrowding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldie_2013)
    I saw lots of people saying that the original poster was a rich toff and had never known hardship or general points along these lines. It’s a sad twist that some people seem to become so aggressively left wing that they think your background (or their snap judgement of what your background must have been like) is important in whether you can have an opinion on something – hardly open minded, liberal or "left wing". Also, how many of those people work in finance or banking (?) I bet that doesn’t stop them commenting about it!

    Welfare makes up about 1/3 of yearly government spending and is the single biggest piece of expenditure by far:

    http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget...ve_summary.pdf

    If you don’t make any cuts to the welfare budget then you would either need to butcher the other areas of spending or borrow more. As has been mentioned, assuming the admin costs don’t engulf any savings, wealthy pensioners are a sensible place to start.
    This is only true if you include pensions, which are virtually ringfenced, and the great majority of the rest of the welfare budget goes on Families with children, and social exclusion. So to think that the Tories are going to attack the grey vote is asinine, if they did they would fall at the next election, so who do they choose to target, the "Dole Scroungers", and hook line and sinker people swallow it. Also as I have previously mentioned we spend 90 billion on the court system and prisons, we jail too many people in this country, especially people who commit non violent acts. A better way forward would be to get Britain working again, A promise that the tories have made before, yet every time they get back into power people start losing their jobs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    This is only true if you include pensions, which are virtually ringfenced, and the great majority of the rest of the welfare budget goes on Families with children, and social exclusion. So to think that the Tories are going to attack the grey vote is asinine, if they did they would fall at the next election, so who do they choose to target, the "Dole Scroungers", and hook line and sinker people swallow it. Also as I have previously mentioned we spend 90 billion on the court system and prisons, we jail too many people in this country, especially people who commit non violent acts. A better way forward would be to get Britain working again, A promise that the tories have made before, yet every time they get back into power people start losing their jobs.
    I don't think any political party is likely to do anything to upset the grey vote, I'm simply saying that if you want to reduce the 200+ billion welfare bill then there are some very wealthy people who receive payments and that's the most logical place to start. This isn't necessarily pensions but the universal benefits like free TV licence, bus pass, winter fuel allowance etc.

    I would absolutely agree that our approach to law and order is ineffective and expensive. However, I think appearing "soft" on law and order is about as popular as appearing to mug pensioners. Also, are you sure it's £90bn? The 2012 budget had £32bn for public order and safety which should include prisons, police and the courts.

    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    A better way forward would be to get Britain working again, A promise that the tories have made before, yet every time they get back into power people start losing their jobs
    I think everyone wants this but it's like saying the way forward is to get the economy growing and reduce the deficit - you need a plan as to how to achieve it otherwise it's just words. Currently we are in a confusing situation of rising employment levels (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...recession.html) but flat growth and, before someone says they are part time jobs, there are about 300k more people in full-time employment than 2 years ago and 200k more people in part-time employment (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publicatio...cm%3A77-222515).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldie_2013)
    I saw lots of people saying that the original poster was a rich toff and had never known hardship or general points along these lines. It’s a sad twist that some people seem to become so aggressively left wing that they think your background (or their snap judgement of what your background must have been like) is important in whether you can have an opinion on something – hardly open minded, liberal or "left wing". Also, how many of those people work in finance or banking (?) I bet that doesn’t stop them commenting about it!

    Welfare makes up about 1/3 of yearly government spending and is the single biggest piece of expenditure by far:

    http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget...ve_summary.pdf

    If you don’t make any cuts to the welfare budget then you would either need to butcher the other areas of spending or borrow more. As has been mentioned, assuming the admin costs don’t engulf any savings, wealthy pensioners are a sensible place to start.
    Exactly -thank you!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Care to show me what I have said which is "BNP-like"?
    From your previous post it sounds like you are very hostile towards foreigners and hold right-wing opinions like that of the BNP who are against immigration. What you must realise is that immigration into the UK is EXAGGERATED! And the media are partly to blame. Compared to other countries in the world, immigration into the UK is minimal, especially when you take into consideration net migration which fell by a THIRD in 2012!

    (Original post by billydisco)
    Actually I think you'll find they're moving for the weather AND they hold relatively good qualifications in comparison to most Romanians.
    That's besides the point, you can't compare Romanians, Bulgarians and other immigrants who are moving to the UK for economic purposes to Britons who are emigrating for better weather. If you were in their position and faced a future of unemployment and uncertainty, I'm sure you'd jump at the chance to immigrate to a more economically developed country. I know unemployment in the UK is high, but the immigrants who are coming to the UK are prepared to work in jobs which we are too 'proud' to do ourselves.


    (Original post by billydisco)
    Could you please tell me why these immigrants passed through 15 other safe countries on their way to the UK? Why the UK and not a closer country?
    (Answer this one please)
    Actually I can provide an answer to your question. I think you're being naïve as there are plenty of other European countries, particularly Germany, who have more immigrants (thousands more) in contrast to the UK. 16 million of Germany's population are immigrants, compared to 7 million in the UK. 7 million can be argued to be a large amount, but there are other countries where immigration is two-fold. Particularly in Middle Eastern countries.

    (Now, can you give me a reply to my answers please?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the BNP are left wing, what the **** is a right winger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldie_2013)
    I don't think any political party is likely to do anything to upset the grey vote, I'm simply saying that if you want to reduce the 200+ billion welfare bill then there are some very wealthy people who receive payments and that's the most logical place to start. This isn't necessarily pensions but the universal benefits like free TV licence, bus pass, winter fuel allowance etc.

    I would absolutely agree that our approach to law and order is ineffective and expensive. However, I think appearing "soft" on law and order is about as popular as appearing to mug pensioners. Also, are you sure it's £90bn? The 2012 budget had £32bn for public order and safety which should include prisons, police and the courts.



    I think everyone wants this but it's like saying the way forward is to get the economy growing and reduce the deficit - you need a plan as to how to achieve it otherwise it's just words. Currently we are in a confusing situation of rising employment levels (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/j...recession.html) but flat growth and, before someone says they are part time jobs, there are about 300k more people in full-time employment than 2 years ago and 200k more people in part-time employment (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publicatio...cm%3A77-222515).
    The point is the trend to scapegoat benefit claimants, not a very nice thing to do, especially as most of them are the young unemployed who are in the catch twenty two situation of, no experience of work, and are driven to take Agency or part time work. If one starts with the premise of sustainable long term employment, it is surely a better option than continually slating whole sections of the country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    If the BNP are left wing, what the **** is a right winger.
    I meant right-wing, my mistake.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trianglehate)
    I meant right-wing, my mistake.
    A mistake indeed loooooooooool
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Elissabeth)
    You haven't answered my question about how you afforded any luxuries?

    And anyway you didn't need a 2-bed house, some families live in a single room in a Bandb or a caravan, why couldn't you have done that?

    And it isn't possible for a single person to live on 3.5K either, but tough!

    15K is hardly a high wage, either!
    You're missing my point entirely; if the better-off in society can enjoy luxuries by standing on the shoulders of working families who have to "live in one bedroom or a caravan", then it's a society gone horribly wrong.

    And I didn't tell you "how we afford luxuries" because we don't afford luxuries. That was sort of the point. The ridiculous stories about families "living it up on benefits" that plague the media are, quite simply, straight up lies. The ones who do, it's because they take money intended to be spent on their children and spend it on luxuries for themselves. That is a problem, but not one that's solved by stripping everything away from everyone in order to stop something done by only a few.

    You're clearly one of the countless deluded people in this country that think already full-time-employed people just "need to work harder and get better jobs" in order to have a comfortable life, though... so, I don't know why I'm really bothering. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if everyone "goes and gets better jobs" our entire economic system - which is supported at the foundations by a minimum wage labour force - collapses around us. I genuinely don't think people actually understand that? Ensuring that a continuing minimum wage labour "stock" if you will is supported to the point of being able to live a passable family life is essential. Deal with it. Even the government understands this, to an extent, which is why they're merely chipping away at that foundation rather than pulling the plug on the entire thing. Personally? I think they're probably going to chip away a little too much, destroy the labour force, destroy consumer confidence, and leave us all with absolutely nothing. Sad times .
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.