The Truth Behind The Deficit.?

Germany and France to my knowledge, dont have in work "means tested" benefits, they receive something called wages, and they are a renting culture, something we British tend to look down on. They also pay higher income tax and higher contributions than we do, and another vital factor is that the European State plays a vital role in investment and subsidy.

I recently found out that Germany dont have a minimum wage in manufacturing and industry, wage deals are negotiated between bosses and Unions based on productivity.

When it comes to pensioners, State pensions in Europe are funded via 12 per cent of their GNP, the UK's State pension is funded via 5 per cent GNP, plus an excessively costly means test system behind it. It is a fact that the UK's State pension is virtually the lowest in Europe.

Since Thatcher began rolling back the State in the 1980's and continued by New Labour under Blair and Brown, with Cameron now finishing it off, we have more and more people caught up in our means test system than ever before, simply because of the lack of social council housing, decent minimum wages, and a decent State pension.

Single parents in Britain are stigmatized, because people are lead to believe they are a burden on the State on the tax payer.

Britain's pensioners are also stigmatized because people are being lead to believe that old age is now a burden on the tax payers..

Even homeless people and disabled people are stigmatized because of Tory propaganda and the right wing press.

In many ways Britain has turned into a Nazi State due to some people's attitudes to the vulnerable, subtle it maybe, but it's there alright.

And some people on this site are in my view, living in their own little bubbles, judging. Im not religious but I agree with this saying,- judge, and be judged

Nit picking as usual durj. I can't see how any family where at least one parent works can claim more than £20,000 in benefits on top of their earnings unless they have about 20 children.

You are therefore implying that there are people who stay at home and expect the state to give them £20,000, which is what I said you said. Stop twisting my words.

Of course working people can claim benefits. I do not know if they can get more than £23,000. It depends on how much they earn. It depends on how many hours they work. You can go on the tax credit system if you want to and find out.

About half the families that will be hit tomorrow will be working families. So much for the party of hard working families.

'But can shift bales of hay to her horse's stable no problem'

Shouldn't type when I'm cross!

There are many people who work the system and have no intention of getting work and expect the state to hand over money for staying at home.

To my eternal shame I know some of them and one is a close relative. One has a 'bad back' but have shift bales of hay to get horse's stable no problem.
Need I go on....?

I meant (obviously) that she would never expect to stay at home living on benefits as she is fit and able to work. What's so hard to understand about that?

Perhaps you'd like to answer my question now.

What did you mean, Ana, by saying she would never expect the state to give her £20,000 to stay at home?

It's also worth remembering that there are a huge number of people who simply can't work, and aren't expected to, due to disability, illness or other factors. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, there is no exemption for these people, so they are just as likely to suffer the consequences of the government's back-of-a-fag-packet benefit changes as anyone else. In fact, they are probably even more likely to be hit by the benefit cap if they are in receipt of additional benefits due to their condition / mobility problems.

It says nothing of the sort. Don't twist the meaning of my words, durhamjen, and don't make assumptions, as you so often do.

Are you saying that working people can actually claim more than £23,000 in benefits? And that it would be so terribly unfair to cap the amount at £20,000?

"And she would never expect the state to give her £20,000 for staying at home..."

Your words, Ana. That says that you assume those claiming housing benefit and universal credit stay at home. They are the ones affected by the benefit cap. Who do you think expects the state to give them £20,000 for staying at home?

"Tomorrow, we’ll probably hear more about the government’s plan to lower the maximum amount of benefits that an out of work family can claim, from £26,000 a year to £23,000."
*http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/05/the-benefit-cap-who-and-where/

This seems to confirm that the benefit cap is intended to affect only out of work households. What also seems to be true is that, as MamaCaz explained the changes to housing benefit may affect low waged households in a way that doesn't seem to have been made clear so far by the government.

I think Osborne is making it up, MamaCaz. He has no idea about how the majority live, and plucks figures out of the air.

Notice there's a £10,000 difference in pay for London weighting, but only a £3000 difference in the benefit cap.

Do you think there will be anything new tomorrow? There appears to have been a lot of information put out so far. There cannot be much left to tell us.

Now we are being told that George Osborne plans to make "high earners" (anyone earning over £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside the capital) living in social rented property pay the full market rent on their property.

Sounds reasonable, maybe?

Hmm - as housing consultant Joe Halewood has pointed out: "a couple both earning the alleged “living wage” in the provinces of £7.85 per hour will have to pay some £3640 per year more in alleged social rent".

In other words, the Government is saying that those on the living wage are high earners. You couldn't make it up!

I could tell you, Ana, but I'd have to give you a link which you wouldn't bother reading.

You just don't get it, do you dj? Waste of time trying to discuss this with you.

I don't assume that people stay at home, but to claim £20,000 p.a. in benefits they'd have to be working very few hours.

As I said, my DD works full time and does claim some benefits, but nowhere near £20,000.

Who are all these people who are working but will be drastically affected if benefits are capped at £20,000?

I presume your daughter gets a benefit for her children. Child tax credit? That would take her income up.

Why not Ana if everybody else does?

The benefits cap is not just for people who stay at home. Working people get caught by it, anybody who claims housing benefit can be caught by it. Why do you assume that people stay at home?

A net income of £20,000 would be £26,000 before tax.

Much more than my single-parent DD with two children earns, working full time. And she would never expect the state to give her £20,000 for staying at home...

"If the benefit cap is reduced to £23,000 a year, small families in more unexpected areas also get caught by the cap. Families with two children may find it hard to avoid in areas including Basingstoke, Southampton and Harlow.

The other change is that very small families may now see their benefits capped too. Couples or single parents with just one child may find it hard to avoid having their benefits capped in certain areas. And these aren’t just traditionally exclusive areas in the West of London but areas like Catford and Tottenham.

While the rhetoric may be all about large, workless families in expensive locations, the reality is that lowering the benefit cap would hit smaller families, in average size homes, in less expensive areas."

Eloethan, this is from the Shelter link I gave earlier. That was when the cap was going to be £23,000 for a family. It will be far worse when it is £20,000.
The implication that it's only large families that will be caught is so wrong.

I prefer using the word benefit to welfare, which seems to be prevalent now. Welfare smacks of the workhouse.

Gill57 I imagine Parliament100 is using the term "benefit" to describe pensions because pensions form part of the official "benefit" figures. It is very misleading because, as you say, people have contributed to their pensions but it is important that people realise that pensions form by far the largest part of the "benefit" bill.

As to the point about people having "umpteen numbers" of children, the figures do not show this to be a significant issue. In 2013 the Telegraph reported that one-child families have increased over the last 16 years to 47% and the average family has 1.7 children. The figure for families with 3 children or more is 14%.

In the Netherlands (which has a reasonably good standard of living), 3+ children families are 19%. Conversely, 3+ children families in Greece are only 4%.

In 2011 the Guardian reported that figures showed that just 130 families with 10 children or more were claiming out-of-work benefits and only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children.

This is from Shelter and was written before Osborne said those outside London would be capped to £20000.

blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/05/the-benefit-cap-who-and-where/

When benefits are capped, all the money is taken from housing benefit.

Parliament100, you might be interested in reading this.

theconversationuk.cmail2.com/t/r-l-akjjhdl-iudkikukhu-u/

Godwin's Law ". . . an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”