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

Iain Duncan Smith losing his bottle over cutting benefits Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Iain Duncan Smith give up cutting benefits?
    No- we need more cuts
    26
    56.52%
    Yes- benefits should not be cut anymore
    20
    43.48%

    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Fortunately most people have the moral backbone to not break the law

    Arguably charity could fill the gap more effectively than government ever could
    You mean like before the welfare state and NI was set up when everybody was well fed, there was full employment and noone ever got sick?

    Read much Dickens have you?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    putting children in care costs more than income support
    And then there's the emotional cost of being taken away from your parents and being put into care.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    In what way?
    In every way- I'd hate for the UK to be turned into a leftie paradise like the USSR was
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I won't be surprised if the cost of going to PIP costs much more - in terms of appeals, etc.

    And some may have to give up work too - because the loss of DLA / PIP will mean they lose their car; so can't get to work or pay for other stuff that allows them to work.
    Well yes - and the economic impact that 25% fewer people eligible for motability will have on the new car industry (and used car industry). [the forecasts show a 20% overall reduction in eligibility but 25% reduction in what is currently "Higher Rate Mobility" DLA - the award needed to be eligible for motability]

    DLA paying for a motability car was the only way my OH could afford a car (due to loading of insurance premiums from insurance companies due to his disability and the adaptions to allow him to drive!) to get to work for the 14 years he was well enough. Without motability providing affordable car leasing and insurance (at ~£40pw at the time) he would have ended up giving up work long before he did - which would have cost "taxpayers" much more that £40pw and would have meant all the taxes he paid would have come out the system too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    In every way- I'd hate for the UK to be turned into a leftie paradise like the USSR was
    In what way, specifically?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    And then there's the emotional cost of being taken away from your parents and being put into care.
    Well yes but let's face it - the people in favour of these "reforms" don't have an ounce of compassion

    The financial argument is the only thing they even pretend to listen to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    In what way, specifically?
    Where do I begin?

    The loss of freedom of speech to sustain the government's power

    The lack of growth as the reward for hard/innovative work is removed- why work 60 hours a week creating your own business if the government will tax you so much you might even be better of claiming unemployment benefits!

    The inherent problems with a centrally controlled economy- see North Korea!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Where do I begin?

    The loss of freedom of speech to sustain the government's power

    The lack of growth as the reward for hard/innovative work is removed- why work 60 hours a week creating your own business if the government will tax you so much you might even be better of claiming unemployment benefits!

    The inherent problems with a centrally controlled economy- see North Korea!
    I asked you how UKIP would be better. Can you tell me what they would do that would be better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    You mean like before the welfare state and NI was set up when everybody was well fed, there was full employment and noone ever got sick?

    Read much Dickens have you?
    I don't think the welfare state should be abolished

    It should be reformed and fraud reduced to under 0.1% if we have to effectively use the benefits equivalent of ticket inspectors then so be it

    I think the welfare state should care for the genuinely needy
    We should also have a case by case basis- all benefits should be means tested-including those for elderly people

    After all someone with an income of say 100k+ almost certainly don't need benefits of any sorts from free bus passes to winter fuel payments!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I asked you how UKIP would be better. Can you tell me what they would do that would be better.
    Oh I thought you were asking why the Communist party would be bad for the UK

    Anyhow they would free us from the EU-something all 3 major parties have failed to do

    They might actually have a chance of cutting government waste!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Oh I thought you were asking why the Communist party would be bad for the UK

    Anyhow they would free us from the EU-something all 3 major parties have failed to do

    They might actually have a chance of cutting government waste!
    You think they really would if in power? When major capital interests are pro EU?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You think they really would if in power? When major capital interests are pro EU?
    Well it's more likely under an UKIP government than a Labour, Conservative or Lib-dem government
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddlesnap)
    Get this bloke out, he's got no clue. Someone who has the gall to take the money from the scroungers (specifically those who don't work because they don't want to and not because they can't find jobs) should have his job. This is the same bloke who was offering his corporate chums free labour at the hands of benefit claimants, don't forget.

    Roll on UKIP 2015, that's what I say.
    This is the bit people forget about. How do we distinguish from those who don't want to work and those who do. All we ever see in the papers or on TV is the minority of people who either refuse to work or get ridiculous amounts of money every week. This leads the public to think that they are the norm and begin to demonize EVERYONE on benefits. As someone who's Dad has recently been made redundant and is currently trying to find work again, I simply don't understand how some of these people are entitled to so much money when my Dad has had to use all his savings to pay for bills that benefits just doesn't cover. The system is in need of reform in these cases but people are just struggling so much right now that I don't believe that benefits should be cut any more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    IDS (and Cameron) have no idea what they're doing. As far as IDS is concerned, we're all scroungers. Where are these flipping jobs then? And why would someone give up their £30k a year job to live on £100 a week?

    Contrary to what the media wants people to believe, those of us on benefits don't live this life of luxury.
    Unless you sprout out 4 kids and then your set.
    The huge problem with this is people can't do maths. How many people are on JSA @ ~£55 per week? That does not total £100B by a long shot. Do the same for disability. Again, we're still miles off the total. So where does it go? Oh, paying for little whores to have a 4 bedroom house, all bills paid for, all clothing brand new and paid for, buggies, toys, furniture, you name it - ALL brand new and at your expense.

    It's a bad ****ing joke. No one at the low end of the pay scale has that type of financial flexibility, so why are we giving some slut that privileged lifestyle?






    (Original post by gladders)
    I am completely okay with increasing benefits in a recession. It's called a recession because there are not enough jobs to go around. Yes, there are some gits who abuse it, but they are a tiny minority, and it's just wrong to punish the majority of justified claimants just to get at the violators who will be dealt with eventually by the law anyway.
    Do you know how absurdly cushy benefits are in this country? They need to be cut drastically, and even then people would have it better off than most people on the low end of the pay scale.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Exactly - the backup if you have no income will still fall to the state one way or another

    sending people to prison costs more than income support
    putting children in care costs more than income support
    hospitalising someone or putting them in a care home costs more than ESA/income support.

    Slash and burn social security and you just put people into a crisis situation which will STILL result in the state footing the bill, just a different dept and a higher cost.

    The cuts at the moment are cynical idealistic opportunism that will not save any money short or long term but will put a lot of tax payers money in the pockets of certain private companies.
    So what we need to do is get at the root cause- the lower class....

    -The lower class are the main culprit for crime
    -The lower class are (obviously) the main culprit for high benefits bill

    Get rid of the lower class (dont pay them to have kids) and we'll sort the problem out in 20 years time
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    They have NO idea what they're talking about. There are reports that fraud is less than 1%, tax evasion is much more. So why is nothing being done about that?

    They have no idea what it's like to live on benefits, yet they want to slah them? Contrary to what the media want people to believe, we don't live in luxury. Many of us are struggling financially.
    IDS has been working on welfare for over a decade.

    As he has pointed out just this week, the priority is not to cut benefits, but rather to reallocate them appropriately and to use them to encourage work where many currently discourage it. As for your fraud point, that figure is completely unrepresentative: fraud is defined, for that purpose, extremely narrowly. There are plenty more who are not actually unable to work, yet receive out of work disability benefits: a significant number, in fact.

    So, not only do you lack the experience and understanding he does, it also seems you haven't even taken the time to consider his policies. That's why I said you simply risk looking foolish by taking this line of argument. It is perfectly credible to disagree on political issues, but trying to slur your opponents is not on.

    There are more people out there than jobs.
    I'm not sure what school of economics you take this understanding from, but the number of jobs is far from static. There are numerous jobs that are unfilled, and the more we can fill appropriately, and the more people we can train to take on new positions, the more our economy flourishes.

    Most jobs are nowhere near enough to survive on.
    I don't accept that.

    There are over 2 million unemployed people out there and many more who want a job / better job. I find it hard to believe that these people won't take any job offered to them. My dad is currently trying to find a better job; but there's hardly anything out there.
    It's not about some sort of passive acceptance. No-one's going to hand out jobs on a plate. You have to adapt your skills, proactively apply as widely as possible, ensure that what you are offering is what is required in the job market.

    Many of these people are disabled and have adapted houses. They have NO choice about their spare room. If they move out, they have to pay back the money they got for their house to be adapted. if they stay there, they have to pay bedroom tax.
    Complete nonsense. People in significantly adapted accommodation will be covered by discretionary payments. Local authorities have no wish to rehouse these people: that doesn't make economic sense to anyone.

    The Government decided to administer disability issues though discretionary payments expressly to make them flexible to the needs of the applicant, rather than applying centralised regulations for exemptions. I am sick and tired of politically motivated suggestions that this somehow means people who cannot realistically move due to their disability are somehow going to be shafted by the Government. It is invented, made up, a fabrication - hell, a lie.

    Can you tell me where these smaller houses are?
    I can indeed. There are hundreds of thousands of people in overcrowded social housing. This is why social housing providers offering a swapping system have been so successful.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Unless you sprout out 4 kids and then your set.
    The huge problem with this is people can't do maths. How many people are on JSA @ ~£55 per week? That does not total £100B by a long shot. Do the same for disability. Again, we're still miles off the total. So where does it go?.
    Actually IIRC half the benefits bill goes on state pension and pension credits.

    Disability benefits make up about a quarter as do child benefits and working tax credit (state subsidy for businesses paying less than a living wage).

    About 10% goes on JSA, income support and housing benefit.

    Of the "reforms" coming through Scope estimate £28b taken away from disabled people (but not cut from the bill - redistributed to private business)
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by L i b)

    IDS has been working on welfare for over a decade.

    As he has pointed out just this week, the priority is not to cut benefits, but rather to reallocate them appropriately and to use them to encourage work where many currently discourage it.
    If that is indeed the priority, and I'm to accept that it's not just more political rhetoric, then why is it that WORKING parents stand to see more of a negative impact from the introduction of Universal Credit than the unemployed? And as for job opportunities, have you actually looked at the employment situation across small to medium sized towns in this country? I suspect most of your political ideology here comes from theory, reading and the claims of politicians (who should he expected to twist the facts by default). It's not a case of retraining / learning new skills to make yourself competitive... the jobs market is barren. Completely barren. The few jobs that there are are being mauled over by HUNDREDS of applicants.

    I am in employment - I'm constantly scouring the job market, mainly because I find my job depressing and immoral, but also because there is currently no opportunity for progression. My search area covers two large towns, and dozens of smaller towns. The cost of commuting to the nearest city makes doing so not feasible.

    Anyway - my point is, I'm not an unemployed "scrounger" - I have no real reason to lie about the availability of jobs - these are just the facts. There is not enough employment to go around. And that's not even considering the fact that the vast majority of jobs that are available are part-time hours ... which the government is also trying to crack down on.

    On top of that, have you actually looked at the abysmal "universal jobmatch" system that claimants are now expected to use? If it wasn't so miserable, it would be hilarious. It suggests jobs that require professional qualifications (as in, degree level, it tries to tell you to apply to be a solicitor :/ ) and the bulk of the rest is "self employment opportunity" pyramid schemes such as Herbalife, which are great if you want to make 4 pounds a week, but otherwise are blatantly outright scams. You're expected to explain why you haven't applied for these "vacancies"... in all seriousness.

    As for training / education to improve employment prospects - how, exactly, are people supposednto fund this? In theory I think it's a great idea. I think the govt. should be identifying intelligent, motivated individuals and ENSURING that they have access to education... I think it makes financial sense to pay a little extra to get these individuals out of long term unemployment / underemployment / onto a better wage and off of benefits long yerm. But, no such scheme exists. This is why it's called a "poverty trap". It takes a cash injection to pull oneself out of poverty... ironically.

    But seriously though - I've read many of your posts now and I genuinely get the impression that you believe that because the "theory is sound", these things actually apply in practice. In reality, the academic rhetoric is pretty far removed from the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Encourage work? Oh my aching sides. You don't "encourage work" by immiserating people. You encourage work by getting the economy going, making sure there are jobs, making sure those jobs pay enough to live on, by investing in training and education.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Actually IIRC half the benefits bill goes on state pension and pension credits.

    Disability benefits make up about a quarter as do child benefits and working tax credit (state subsidy for businesses paying less than a living wage).

    About 10% goes on JSA, income support and housing benefit.

    Of the "reforms" coming through Scope estimate £28b taken away from disabled people (but not cut from the bill - redistributed to private business)
    The full benefits bill is £200 B, with £100 B going on pension. £100B goes on wasted benefits. That part should be no more than £50B as child benefits should be stopped, disability utterly reassessed, and working tax credit adjusted.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.