Is Politics Devoid Of ANY Humanity?

I don't know, but I think it started in the 1980s

Didn’t you start a thread about people going into workhouses yesterday? Are you content for people capable of work to live on benefits?

mae13 How would you finance the huge growth in the cost of sickness benefits were nothing done?

Please do not roll out the tax the wealthy argument unless you can define what wealthy means and how much tax your suggestion would raise.

I doubt mae will respond MOnica. Her MO seems to be light blue touch paper with goady post, then retreat.

M0nica

mae13 How would you finance the huge growth in the cost of sickness benefits were nothing done?

Please do not roll out the tax the wealthy argument unless you can define what wealthy means and how much tax your suggestion would raise.

I have linked several times to this paper, MOnics, written by an expert, founder of the Tax Justice Campaign. He’s done the work, made the analyses and proposed many areas in which ‘wealth’ could be taxed. There has never been a sniff of a reaction, favourable or unfavourable, from anyone on this forum. Perhaps you’d like to do a critique?

Or is it more fun to demand that complete amateurs must come up with solutions that satisfy you?

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

So cross that I forgot to post the link…

That was harsh and unnecessary MOnica. Not like you.

I'm not sure the government is slashing into the disabled. I think they are cutting back on those who claim benefits and could work- those with severe disabilities who cannot work won't be affected.

Can I suggest that you read the thread at www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1346497--The-Welfare-Benefit-changes Mae to see just what is proposed? You might be less angry if you read the facts inctead of the yellow press version.

It's a conundrum, though, isn't it.

Ms Kendall:
the Government also wanted to tackle the "perverse financial incentives" that the Conservatives "created, which actively encourage people into welfare dependency".

There will also always be a social security system “there for people in genuine need”, she insisted.

The number of people in England and Wales claiming either sickness or disability benefit has soared from 2.8 million in 2019 to about 4 million today.

Conservatives the party of welfare and Labour the party which wants to cut the welfare bill?
Politics seems to have been turned on its head.

Neither party wants people capable of work to be supported by those who do work and have no choice but to pay taxes. It is unfair, it fuels resentment and means that cuts to things like WFA have to be made, and the pension age keeps creeping up.

If everyone worked who could do so, there would be more generous benefits for those who need them, and more to spend on pensions, the NHS and so on. We have an aging society and the number of 'economically inactive' is increasing across the age range. Those claiming sickness benefits has increased exponentially since Covid, which is not true of other countries.

From what I have seen of the proposed cuts, they seem fair, and designed to help people into work, rather than to punish the unemployed. I am concerned about the under-22 year olds who might lose out, but I do understand that the point is to cut down the number of people going straight from education onto benefits. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is. Care leavers and vulnerable young people need a lot more support, but IMO we need to move more towards benefits being contributions-based for those who are capable of work.

The Green paper produced has the details of support to be offered - info is on The Welfare Benefits thread.

Labour the party which wants to cut the welfare bill?

Labour wants to get people working. The clue is in the name. We don’t get economic growth unless people work.

I’ve just spent 90 minutes reading the Green Paper and think it’s an excellent blueprint as a start to tackling a problem that has been growing for the last ten years or so.

I suggest people read it rather than post the kind of hysterical response we see in the opening post and what we shall see in the press over the coming weeks.

For example, why would anyone want to throw young people on the scrapheap at 16 and not want to support and encourage them into work, helping them to overcome the challenges they face or perceive?

It’s been discussed before but these are salient passages from the Green Paper:

One in every 10 working-age people in Britain is now claiming at least one type of health or disability benefit. One in every 8 young people (aged 16 to 24) isn’t currently in work, education or training.

246. As of December 2024, an estimated 987,000 (1 in 8) 16 to 24 year olds in the UK were not in education, employment or training (NEET), with around 595,000 of them being economically inactive (meaning they were not looking for work). This (987,000) is a rise of an estimated 241,000 since September 2022.

247. A key factor driving this is an increasing number of young people citing sickness as a barrier to work. In England, in 2023, 27% of 16 to 24-year-olds who were NEET cited long-term or temporary sickness as a barrier to joining the labour market, compared to 10% in 2012. This includes mental health conditions, which there is a 25% predicted probability of being NEET amongst those with mental health conditions.

248. Our future depends on young people being able to achieve their full potential. The period when young people transition from full-time education to building their careers is critical in shaping their professional future. Being out of work may leave a lasting negative impact on employment outcomes, and this may be particularly important for younger people. Being out of work is also damaging to a person’s health. Every young person deserves the opportunity for sustained employment and the chance to develop their knowledge and skills so they can build a successful career. However, right now too many of them are being left behind, unable to access the educational and career opportunities they need to build their futures.

That's just one demographic but it's the right place to start before too many young people consign themselves to a life of dependency on welfare.

This is the actual Green Paper Silverbrooks has quoted from

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper

This is the thread without the goady start

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1346497--The-Welfare-Benefit-changes

I was hoping we could discuss the changes and contents for those interested without a goady start but being straightforward ...

(It definitely is worth reading the whole of the Green Paper before commenting and comparing different government approaches as you have to look at not just the cash offered but aspects like training and support opportunities and how much is being put into them).

Thank you Wyllow

MaizieD

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

So cross that I forgot to post the link…

Thank you for this MaizieD I am delighted that you are the person who has at last provided a researched solution to this problem.

It is quite a read and will need some time to read and digest - and I am just about to go out.

keepingquiet

I'm not sure the government is slashing into the disabled. I think they are cutting back on those who claim benefits and could work- those with severe disabilities who cannot work won't be affected.

Yes, and I agree with this.

Doodledog

Neither party wants people capable of work to be supported by those who do work and have no choice but to pay taxes. It is unfair, it fuels resentment and means that cuts to things like WFA have to be made, and the pension age keeps creeping up.

If everyone worked who could do so, there would be more generous benefits for those who need them, and more to spend on pensions, the NHS and so on. We have an aging society and the number of 'economically inactive' is increasing across the age range. Those claiming sickness benefits has increased exponentially since Covid, which is not true of other countries.

From what I have seen of the proposed cuts, they seem fair, and designed to help people into work, rather than to punish the unemployed. I am concerned about the under-22 year olds who might lose out, but I do understand that the point is to cut down the number of people going straight from education onto benefits. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is. Care leavers and vulnerable young people need a lot more support, but IMO we need to move more towards benefits being contributions-based for those who are capable of work.

Yes, yes, yes!

M0nica

MaizieD

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

So cross that I forgot to post the link…

Thank you for this MaizieD I am delighted that you are the person who has at last provided a researched solution to this problem.

It is quite a read and will need some time to read and digest - and I am just about to go out.

That was the 'short' version, too, MOnica😆

I'd be pleased to hear what you think of it.

Barleyfields

I doubt mae will respond MOnica. Her MO seems to be light blue touch paper with goady post, then retreat.

Indeed it does. Whilst she’s perfectly entitled to her beliefs, it’s so annoying when OPs never return to their own posts!

Doodledog

Neither party wants people capable of work to be supported by those who do work and have no choice but to pay taxes. It is unfair, it fuels resentment and means that cuts to things like WFA have to be made, and the pension age keeps creeping up.

If everyone worked who could do so, there would be more generous benefits for those who need them, and more to spend on pensions, the NHS and so on. We have an aging society and the number of 'economically inactive' is increasing across the age range. Those claiming sickness benefits has increased exponentially since Covid, which is not true of other countries.

From what I have seen of the proposed cuts, they seem fair, and designed to help people into work, rather than to punish the unemployed. I am concerned about the under-22 year olds who might lose out, but I do understand that the point is to cut down the number of people going straight from education onto benefits. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is. Care leavers and vulnerable young people need a lot more support, but IMO we need to move more towards benefits being contributions-based for those who are capable of work.

I do agree, btw, I just find it ironic.

MaizieD

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

So cross that I forgot to post the link…

Thank you for posting this link.

I despair!

I clicked on your link MaizieD just now. I thought ‘I’ve got 20 minutes before I have to leave for school pick up”.

However I was dismayed to see it’s 250 pages long! Yikes.
Thank you anyway.

I’m sure it’s worthy …