From the BBC:

 

Ed Miliband has promised to cap spending on benefits as he unveiled his party's new approach to welfare.

 

A future Labour government would introduce a three-year cap on structural spending, including housing benefits, from 2015-6, its leader said.

 

He also said those in work for under five years may not be eligible for some jobless benefits while those who had worked for longer should get more help.

 

The Conservatives said the "vacuous" plan would not bring down costs.

 

In a speech in east London, Mr Miliband announced a series of changes to Labour policy:

 

- A three-year cap on spending on structural benefits - including housing benefit and other non-cyclical costs - will be introduced in 2015-6

- Contribution-based unemployment benefits such as jobseekers allowance (JSA), will be reviewed

- Priority will be given to those who have worked and paid tax for longer while eligibility for the top-up contributory JSA may be extended from two to five years in work

- Councils will be given power to negotiate rents with landlords to help reduce housing benefits bills

- Child benefit for families with one person earning over £50,000 will not be reinstated

- More help for disabled people to take up work opportunities

 

The Labour leader said the government's "short-term" approach was failing and history showed that cutting individual benefits alone would not reduce the overall cost of social security.

 

Instead, Labour would tackle the "underlying causes" of rising welfare costs, such as unemployment, low pay and high rents.

Continue reading the main story

 

"The next Labour government will have less money to spend. If we are going to turn our economy around, protect our NHS, and build a stronger country we will have to be laser focused on how we spend every single pound.

 

"Social security spending, vital as it is, cannot be exempt from that discipline."

 

He said Labour, if elected, would introduce a cap on "structural spending" - such as housing benefit and disability allowances - for three years from 2015-16 to deal with the long-term pressures on welfare budgets.

 

Thoughts?

If someone from a relationship already works and earns a decent wage, would the other half still have to work as well?

I read today that Ed was planning to increase JSA to £100 a week from £71 a week for those with more than 5 years NI contributions

 

HAS HE GONE NUTS?

 

The modest gap between minimum wage work and benefits is already deterring large numbers of unemployed people with families from taking minimum wage jobs so increasing JSA is hardly going to spur the jobless into taking mimimum wage jobs, over 3/4 of mimimum wage jobs are taken by immigrants, mostly from Eastern Europe.

 

The important thing for any government should be making sure that people are much better off in work.

 

I would make JSA payable at full rate for 2 years, after that it is cut by 25% after 3 years, 50% after 4 years and stopped altogether after 5 years.

 

I don't think the unemployed should be demonised but at the same time benefits are too generous and discourage minimum wage work.

 

I read today that Ed was planning to increase JSA to £100 a week from £71 a week for those with more than 5 years NI contributions

 

HAS HE GONE NUTS?

 

The modest gap between minimum wage work and benefits is already deterring large numbers of unemployed people with families from taking minimum wage jobs so increasing JSA is hardly going to spur the jobless into taking mimimum wage jobs, over 3/4 of mimimum wage jobs are taken by immigrants, mostly from Eastern Europe.

 

The important thing for any government should be making sure that people are much better off in work.

 

I would make JSA payable at full rate for 2 years, after that it is cut by 25% after 3 years, 50% after 4 years and stopped altogether after 5 years.

 

I don't think the unemployed should be demonised but at the same time benefits are too generous and discourage minimum wage work.

No, the important thing for any government is making sure its citizens don't die because of their policies - the coalition hasn't done a particularly good job on that one.

No, the important thing for any government is making sure its citizens don't die because of their policies - the coalition hasn't done a particularly good job on that one.

 

How many actually are though?

 

Yes we read in Mirror and Guardian of people committing suicide after ATOS find them fit for work but there is no evidence any of the suicides were as a result of the decision, more likely a case of they had other issues in their lives and this was the final straw, if had not been that with a depressed/suicidal person it would have been something else.

 

We all want to see an efficient NHS, we all want to see a robust education system, but these things cost money so to fund these things we need more people paying tax, so getting people into work is of very high importance.

 

Upping JSA to over £100 a week will not encourage people back into work.

Incentivising work when there's work available is one thing, enforcing what is in effect slave labour and cutting benefits for people who can't find a job because of a crisis of the market is next to murder.

There's already an incentive to work. Something called wages. Perhaps if they were high enough for people to actually live on without having to be topped up by various tax credits they wouldn't need more incentives.

There's already an incentive to work. Something called wages. Perhaps if they were high enough for people to actually live on without having to be topped up by various tax credits they wouldn't need more incentives.

Precisely. It is beyond a scandal that large, profitable employers can get away with paying their staff so little that their pay needs to be topped up by tax credits. It is those employers - and their shareholders happily pocketing their dividends - who are the real benefit scroungers.

 

It's all very well telling people to go out and get a job. However, how do you prevent employers binning CVs from people who are over-qualified for a job or have been out of work for a while? Most jobs attract a large number of applications so employers will use various - often arbitrary - methods to reduce the number of CVs they read in any detail. Perhaps Duncan Smith and Miliband would like to address those issues rather than trying to outdo each other in their bid to reduce the social security bill.

Precisely. It is beyond a scandal that large, profitable employers can get away with paying their staff so little that their pay needs to be topped up by tax credits. It is those employers - and their shareholders happily pocketing their dividends - who are the real benefit scroungers.

 

That is all the well and good but if companies were forced to pay a 'living wage' that requires no top up with tax credits who do you think will foot the bill?

 

It would lead to costs being passed onto the consumer via higher prices which in turn will fuel inflation which would cause far more damage to the economy.

 

Sure Tesco's and Starbucks and Amazon can afford a 'living wage' but what about the hairdresser starting out on her own and expanding the business by taking on another hairdresser? can they afford to pay a 'living wage'? it would stifle enterprise.

 

Most new jobs in this country aren't being created by multinationals or the Tesco's of this world but by start ups and small businesses.

 

 

Well, I said in a thread a few weeks ago that I thought Labour would still win the next election, but like this they're not going to. I don't know if there's ever been a left-wing party who ever won an election promising spending cuts.

Edited June 6, 201312 yr by Danny

It just gives me an impression that all political parties are the same. Surely they would focus on growth rather than cuts?

It just gives me an impression that all political parties are the same. Surely they would focus on growth rather than cuts?

That's a ridiculously simplistic attitude to take. Growth and cuts aren't mutually exclusive. Although one widely held view (in my opinion, the strongest) is that growth can only be achieved via additional short-term borrowing, as opposed to cuts, the fact remains that we can't simply keep spending money we don't have, and clearly if a certain portion of the huge annual welfare bill is cut (be it by taking a harder approach with "benefit scroungers" (ugh) or reducing the amount a family on a way-above average income can claim for childcare, for example) then that has to be done. I don't think there is a politican out there who believes that welfare reforms aren't necessary. The difficult thing is coming to a consensus on which areas to make the cuts in, because wherever they're made there will be people left out of pocket. It's about making sure those people are not from the most disadvanted sectors of society.

 

That is all the well and good but if companies were forced to pay a 'living wage' that requires no top up with tax credits who do you think will foot the bill?

 

It would lead to costs being passed onto the consumer via higher prices which in turn will fuel inflation which would cause far more damage to the economy.

 

Sure Tesco's and Starbucks and Amazon can afford a 'living wage' but what about the hairdresser starting out on her own and expanding the business by taking on another hairdresser? can they afford to pay a 'living wage'? it would stifle enterprise.

 

Most new jobs in this country aren't being created by multinationals or the Tesco's of this world but by start ups and small businesses.

It's very simple. HMRC have the data to calculate how much is paid to employees of each company. Therefore, they can send them a bill for, say, 90% of the cost. They can easily set a minimum amount so that small employers will not have to pay anything.

 

Of course they may well put up prices to cover part of the cost but at least we'd have some sort of honesty in the economy. It might even help some of the smaller local businesses who struggle to compete against the big supermarkets. How can you possibly justify a situation whereby the government is effectively subsidising large employers?

As someone who has been on JSA very recently I can say with certainty it is not £71 a bloody week. It's currently £56/wk. (23, no kids)

 

 

The benefits bill in this country can be reformed coming within a million miles of the crap Craig is sprouting about more people on the dole.

 

For a start, child benefit should have a means tested cap on it of household income below £40k/£45k. If both parents work and the household income is below £75k they should qualify for help with childcare costs. This can range from 100% for a single parent who desperately wants to work but can't afford to with the cost of childcare to a 10% contribution for some higher earners to help with after school care up until the child is legally old enough to take care of themselves (16). Most tax credits should be means tested to benefit those on the lowest wages and in work. There should be incentives too find work, but not by cutting the dole. The sad reality is there are many people who try very hard to find work but they just can't get hired right now. The economy is in the toilet barely avoiding a triple-dip recession. The reality is that there are many people who have been laid off from blue collar jobs and are finding that their whole industry is haemorrhaging positions and they are then having to fight with people who are better suited for the remaining jobs.

 

Instead of cutting benefits there should be a lot of encouragement for unemployed people to gain qualifications. They should be sent to college to gain new qualifications in an area that will help them gain employment at no cost. Once they gain employment they can start to pay back the fee's slowly with an interest rate of 0.25% at most. We should be arming people with the tools they need to get jobs, not vilifying them.

 

However, those that barely make an effort to apply for jobs and aren't interested in going to college should be put on a more structured programme including placements at companies and having their benefits stopped in the worst cases and being handed a box of food each week by the government. Tesco Value shite, some milk, some veg, loaf of bread... Basically all they need to provide nutrition to themselves an their family.

It's very simple. HMRC have the data to calculate how much is paid to employees of each company. Therefore, they can send them a bill for, say, 90% of the cost. They can easily set a minimum amount so that small employers will not have to pay anything.

 

Of course they may well put up prices to cover part of the cost but at least we'd have some sort of honesty in the economy. It might even help some of the smaller local businesses who struggle to compete against the big supermarkets. How can you possibly justify a situation whereby the government is effectively subsidising large employers?

 

Sounds a very complex system, any savings from tax credits would be wiped out by extra costs at HMRC and lost hours with red tape.

 

Nor would I trust HMRC to get it right, they let Vodafone off billions, turn a blind eye to Google, Starbucks and Amazon yet harrass cricket clubs and private members clubs like vultures.

 

The current system is not ideal, tax credits cost an absolute fortune but with the economy slowly but surely recovering I am unconvinced that there is a workable solution that wont damage the recovery.

As someone who has been on JSA very recently I can say with certainty it is not £71 a bloody week. It's currently £56/wk. (23, no kids)

The benefits bill in this country can be reformed coming within a million miles of the crap Craig is sprouting about more people on the dole.

 

For a start, child benefit should have a means tested cap on it of household income below £40k/£45k. If both parents work and the household income is below £75k they should qualify for help with childcare costs. This can range from 100% for a single parent who desperately wants to work but can't afford to with the cost of childcare to a 10% contribution for some higher earners to help with after school care up until the child is legally old enough to take care of themselves (16). Most tax credits should be means tested to benefit those on the lowest wages and in work. There should be incentives too find work, but not by cutting the dole. The sad reality is there are many people who try very hard to find work but they just can't get hired right now. The economy is in the toilet barely avoiding a triple-dip recession. The reality is that there are many people who have been laid off from blue collar jobs and are finding that their whole industry is haemorrhaging positions and they are then having to fight with people who are better suited for the remaining jobs.

 

Instead of cutting benefits there should be a lot of encouragement for unemployed people to gain qualifications. They should be sent to college to gain new qualifications in an area that will help them gain employment at no cost. Once they gain employment they can start to pay back the fee's slowly with an interest rate of 0.25% at most. We should be arming people with the tools they need to get jobs, not vilifying them.

 

However, those that barely make an effort to apply for jobs and aren't interested in going to college should be put on a more structured programme including placements at companies and having their benefits stopped in the worst cases and being handed a box of food each week by the government. Tesco Value shite, some milk, some veg, loaf of bread... Basically all they need to provide nutrition to themselves an their family.

 

Over 3/4 of jobs are going to immigrants Phil, why is that happening? why can someone fly over from Bucharest or Warsaw on a Friday and have a job by Wednesday?

 

Is it because Brits are lazy and don't want to work? sure many are like that but most unemployed people want a job, but benefits are the reason why immigrants are taking all the jobs, not JSA as such but housing benefit, council tax benefit, childcare costs etc, is it really a big incentive for a bloke to go from doing zero hours a week to doing 40 hours a week and being a tenner better off? no

 

So either wages have to shoot up massively to have clear blue water between benefits and work or benefits have to be pegged to encourage people to take these minimum wage jobs.

 

The current system is not any use at all as the Poles and Romanians etc are taking 3/4 of the jobs, I want to see Brits taking 3/4 of the jobs but its just not viable for them to atm

I don't think the unemployed should be demonised but at the same time benefits are too generous and discourage minimum wage work.

 

Benefits too generous? :rolleyes: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read online. Have you ever tried to live on benefits? :rolleyes:

 

I'm constantly juggling finances and am often overdrawn at the end of the month and am now facing a review of my sickness benefits that I've been claiming nearly 30 years so may have them cut off completely. :angry: :angry: It's a disgrace how they're picking on the sick and disabled. :(

Edited June 6, 201312 yr by Common Sense

Benefits too generous? :rolleyes: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read online. Have you ever tried to live on benefits? :rolleyes:

 

I'm constantly juggling finances and am often overdrawn at the end of the month and am now facing a review of my sickness benefits that I've been claiming nearly 30 years so may have them cut off completely. :angry: :angry: It's a disgrace how they're picking on the sick and disabled. :(

 

You were declared unfit to work Chris so why do you think I am talking about you? you are not looking for work so nothing I said in my post affects you in the slightest or refers to you.

 

I still maintain that someone on benefits who is getting housing benefit/JSA/council tax benefit is only going to be 10-20 a week better off doing a full time job on minimum wage, in many cases worse off, that is wrong on so many levels as it discourages taking work in many cases.

 

 

You're not sick or disabled....

Poles and Romanians etc are taking 3/4 of the jobs

Yes, of course they are.