Osborne to give the poorest yet another good kicking

[joe_bloggs*]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/29/george-osborne-benefits-tax-credits-conservative?com...

he announced that a re-elected Tory government would hit 10m households with a two-year freeze on benefits and tax credits.
Same old tories

[lambsy_uk]

---

@astrologica wrote:
Yes...I agree that there are variations in circumstances, but I suspect that a large part of this benefits bill goes to irresponsible parents. As Two helmets said in post 5, practising birth control would be a big help for some, and then maybe they wouldn't need so many benefits. How often do we hear women, and girls, say 'I 'fell' pregnant..as if something came out of the sky and knocked them down, and when they got up they were pregnant? No one should be having children that they cannot afford to keep themselves.
There will always be some families who hit hard times and need a helping hand temporarily, and no-one should say that they shouldn't be helped. But there are also some people who make it a 'career' choice to keep having children and never work. Irresponsibilty is a big problem in society today, and some people bring their problems on themselves.

---

And it's those that fall temporarily on hard times that get the least help; because of some small amount of money in the bank and/or the amount they've earned in the household over the past year. When I've been made redundant I've been entitiled to nothing other than JSA; wife couldn't claim any Income Support and we couldn't even get a Council Tax reduction. Like many others who have been in that position I don't have someone jump in and pay for the roof over my head either!

There may be plenty who would not choose to be on benefits but there are far too many having their housing paid for and income supplimented as a matter of course rather than last resort!

As for having children; too many see children as a right rather than a responsibility! The idea is that you have children because you can support those children and then if unfortunate circumstances are thrust upon you, you have welfare as a safety net. But of course it is then not much of a safety net due to circumstances mentioned above; they won't pay your mortgage etc! So it ends up that the only people welfare has any significant benefit for is those on it long-term and yet some wonder why it needs reforming!!!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

Its not that benefits are too high,its that wages are too low,The biggest benefit recipients are landlords and companies paying poverty wages that have to be topped up by tax payers money.The tories have always hated the poor,as has been said they probaly don't vote for them,The wealthier pensioners are the tories core voters,they couldn't win without them as well as some of the "I'm alright jack" brigade who think of themselves as somehow different and better than those with less than themselves,Let them try to survive on £72 JSA and come back and report on living the life of Riley,This whole attack on the poorest has nothing to do with reducing the defecit,if it had they wouldn't have reduced the tax on millionaires,as one tory said "The poor? something you step over when leaving the opera"

---

Yes the poor are something you step over when leaving the opera because the homeless truly are poor! Those on long term benefits are not poor! The Tories don't hate the poor; if anything they hate the long term unemployed!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

Hence, it seems a bit misleading to imply "the poor" are to blame for "bankrupting the country".

---

The poor are not to blame; the Labour government that were in office for 13 years are to blame!!!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

Tories have never liked social security spending .Tories want you in a position to work for next to nothing or starve,

---

NO, they just want you to work; doesn't matter for how much or how little just work!!!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@twohelmets wrote:

I'll give you cool, real life and one of many, many tales I could tell you.........

Guy I know has been unemployed for years, his wife working in the black. One day, on the birth of his third (State sponsored) child, a midwife comes around to check all is well. While she was there, she notices that six year old Harry (not real name) is playing football with a slightly odd gait.

To cut a long story short, Harry was diagnosed with extremely mild Cerebral Palsy.

Me and ay wife, working all hours to meet our mortgage (yes, he has his rent paid) were managing to just about maintain a a very old Datsun. Some weeks later he turns up in a brand new car, something beyond our wildest dreams. Yup. he had a massive leap up the benefits ladder via motability.

A short while later he was caught fiddling the dole via his wife working in the black, let of with a warning due to having the terrible strain of a "disabled" son to look after.

Now, years later, after paying a FORTUNE in taxes but having become moderately sucessful despite that, people like him clamour about how unfair it all is because I have a nice car and how they deserve more and how I should be pretty much hung out to dry to pay for his idleness, breeding, his house, his fags.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no getting away from the fact that benefit spending under labour went through the roof, and so did taxes. Result? More people seeing the benefit of benfits and less wanting to work. You can try and divert from this massively increased spending on giving all you like, but it's not going away.

---

I know of a woman in her late 20s, became a single mother at 22, got herself a council house with rent and council tax paid for of course. Had a partner move in, undeclared of course, he works full time (which is a good thing) but the rent and council tax is still being paid for. They have a child and are together for a few years. During this time she realises she can claim a Motorbility allowance for her disabled mother who struggles with walking, so the allowance is claimed and she has a brand new 5 door car which is swapped for a newer one every few years. How often does her mother use the car?, now and then!

The partner has moved out and she's on her own with 2 children in a bigger council house, having swapped twice with neighbours in the local area, and she earns money on the side cleaning. Still no rent to pay or council tax, welfare cheques being paid regularly.

This is the kind of welfare lifestyle choice that irks people, not typical of all on welfare of course but all too common! 

[lambsy_uk]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:
Pensioners need and deserve support, 

---

Not all of them!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

the government’s own figures show they have spectacularly failed and are set to overshoot their own plans for spending on social security this Parliament by a staggering £13 billion.

Maybe thats what you mean by going through the roof,or maybe not

---

£13 billion is not staggering! You may want to tell people it's shocking but those with a brain can see through it. Guess that's why Ed Balls wanted to appeal to the Labour core; those he can count on who can't think for themselves!!!

[tommy.irene]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27554069 They should do this to the Bankers..

[lambsy_uk]

---

@0125arwen wrote:

If you want more people in work enforce the minimum wage for everyone,

stop letting foreign workers force british workers out of a job,

put a stop to zero hours contracts.

Oh and stop advertising hundreds of thousands of jobs that don't even exist, in jobcentres.

---

So, how will the ceasing of advertising jobs, whether they exist or not, get more people into work?!

Whether of British origin or not, those living in this country contribute to employment/unemployment figures, so if you kicked a foreigner out of a job and gave it to a Brit, surely the number of people in work would remain unchanged! How would this get more people in work?!

Lots of people work on zero hours contracts; they are not unemployed on zero hours they are employed; so how would stopping such contracts result in more people in work?!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

---

If you check the facts you will in fact find the benefits bil has ROCKETED under the tories and their politically incorrect war on the poor

---

If there is a war on the poor then why has this led to a rocketing benefits bill?

[lambsy_uk]

---

@al**bear wrote:

We are all supposed to be in this together, but anyone earning over say  £22k a year and a homeowner have hardly been touched by this recession, compared to the less well off. Any loss on Savings interest, has been easily offset by having their Mortgage rate static, in fact loads have remortgaged to cheaper ones.

You talk of homeowners earning over £22k as if that som=mehow makes them wealthy! What it makes them is vulnerable! Homeowners do find themselves out of work too, and they don't have a raft of benefits to fall back on! If they don't get a job they are not home owners much longer! You speak of home owners as if they are some kind of scurge and yet they are just people trying to get on and raise families and make a positive contribution to society, same as most people! But if they fall on hard times they suffer plenty!!!

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

As for the benefit cap of £500 a week for families,this has been vastly overstated by the Tories and has saved a fraction of what they said it would. Trouble is most of this is made up of housing costs and so it is in the SE with their ridiculous rent costs that were causing the problem, also, it wasn't even the Claiment who got this money but their landlords

Capping is not all about saving money it's about being fair also; fair to those who pay the welfare bill, the taxpayers! It may not save much but every little helps and it's fair!

---

[joamur_gosof]

Got to laugh at ''long term employed should have it hard rah rah rah'' ,so many people with ignorant opinions on others is what makes gov officials get away with the simple system of always have less work than people.

One answer 'CREATE JOBS' ...see its simples

Footnote..Politicians are also tax scroungers so they should also have it hard 🙂

Footnote 2 ,if everyone is employed ,what are the 154,000 workers employed to get people work going to do as there wont be any jobs as they are all taken by the scroungers,also all the 20000000 civil servants who help themselves to tax pot via ''getting Britain back to work'' campaign ?

[twohelmets]

Oh, it has to be a "war". It's all in the language used. It's "savage" and it's "draconian" to limit benefits rises, it could never be responsible and necessary curbing of excessive public spending that if allowed to continue to rise will bankrupt the flaming country.

If you want to see savage and draconian, take a look at my taxes!

On the subject of working people being the recipients of these benefits, it looks to me like most get them in the form of tax credits. Now I don't really know how that works, but I have a lot of time for the arguments of those who suggest lower paid workers need to be taken out of the tax system altogether.

It's very silly to be taxing these people and then giving back via a variety of (presumably costly to administer) benefits.

[joe_bloggs*]

The rocketing benefits bill is due to low paid workers needing their income topped up just to survive,and also due to a soaring housing benefits bill whereby people on low wages don't earn enough to even cover their rent costs

[joamur_gosof]

Very silly indeed twohelmets but it keeps the unemployed figs down by giving civil servants some tax poy dosh

Great self logic by one poster on this thread  ''it should be hard for long term employed but it's not'' followed by ''homeless have it hard'' so therefore making long term employed homeless would be an ideal next step for the ''tories dont hate the poor'' coalition 🙂

[joe_bloggs*]

Perhaps you should delve a little further into this "single mothers" finances if you think she doesn't pay any council tax and I think you will find that she does and someone has been feeding you duff info,also if it irks you that much phone the fraud hotline.If as you say it's all too common do you have any figures to hand so we can see where you're coming from ?

[ianseymoursalvage]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

Tories have never liked social security spending .Tories want you in a position to work for next to nothing or starve,

---

NO, they just want you to work; doesn't matter for how much or how little just work!!!

---

I know some people have a major misconception regarding benefits for instance

A family getting say £275 a week on benefits,and the father gets offered a job on £300 a week.

He will say "im not working for £25 a week!!!!"

Which is wrong,the benefits should be there as a safety net not a way of life!!!!!!!!!! Hes actually going to be "working" for £300 a week but unfortunatly many claimants dont see it like that!!!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:
The rocketing benefits bill is due to low paid workers needing their income topped up just to survive,and also due to a soaring housing benefits bill whereby people on low wages don't earn enough to even cover their rent costs

---

Then it can not be a 'war on the poor' if we are supporting them!!!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:
Perhaps you should delve a little further into this "single mothers" finances if you think she doesn't pay any council tax and I think you will find that she does and someone has been feeding you duff info,also if it irks you that much phone the fraud hotline.If as you say it's all too common do you have any figures to hand so we can see where you're coming from ?

---

I said it wasn't typical but a few cases is too many and therefore too common! She has no earned income to pay council tax! Also I didn't say it irks me that much I said it irks people!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@ianseymoursalvage wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

Tories have never liked social security spending .Tories want you in a position to work for next to nothing or starve,

---

NO, they just want you to work; doesn't matter for how much or how little just work!!!

---

I know some people have a major misconception regarding benefits for instance

A family getting say £275 a week on benefits,and the father gets offered a job on £300 a week.

He will say "im not working for £25 a week!!!!"

Which is wrong,the benefits should be there as a safety net not a way of life!!!!!!!!!! Hes actually going to be "working" for £300 a week but unfortunatly many claimants dont see it like that!!!

---

They also seem to foget that we are paying for their benifits, they are living off our hand-outs!