Oreo
Doodledog there may be a few posters as you describe but the vast majority here are shocked that a Labour government are doing this.I think and hope that this government will put some really good policies in place but this one, WFA cut is a very bad move.
I don't disagree, Oreo. As I've said many times, in RR's place I wouldn't have done it. I believe in universal benefits that recognise that there are different times in life when people need help - maternity, having young children, retirement being amongst them.
I think that if we all paid in enough there would be money to have those things, but I am shouted down by people saying that (eg) mothers of school age children should be able to stay at home, pay no tax, get free NI contributions and if the 'family income' qualifies as a result of their not working get the CB that is denied to two earner families. People baulk at paying higher tax, too, saying they will protect their assets from being used to fund other people, they have paid in for years (as though the rest of us haven't) resent being expected to give more, and that many of us live in houses worth over a million pounds. A few will, obviously, but the law of averages says that most of us won't, and many people can't afford a house at all, particularly younger generations.
We can't have it all ways. If people don't want to insist that we all pay in, then how can we all get out? The only way is to means-test, which as I tire of saying is invidious.
I don't support the withdrawal of the WFA, however much I am accused of doing so. I think there are a lot of anomalies in the complaints, though. It's not long ago that people were saying that there is no money tree, so we can't keep giving to benefit claimants, people with more than two children and the disabled.