Forum Topic

Council tax benefit cut

I've just noticed that I cannot see any message on here about the proposed Council tax benefit cuts next April, luckily they will not affect me!

Barbara Dudley ● 4770d19 Comments

Too early to say

George Knox ● 4769d

Personally I wouldn't believe any Tory if they were stood on a pile of Bibles! Do you really think this lot are financially responsible?

Vanessa Smith ● 4769d

I am talking about most of the times when Labour have been in power. Not just the last time.

George Knox ● 4769d

"It is very difficult to trust Labour because they have such a long record of leaving this country in financial trouble"Only if you believe all the cr*p this lot are peddling, we'd have been a damned sight worse off if it hadn't been for Gordon Brown, (who I personally wasn't a fan of) something that has been acknowledged by a lot of financial whizz kids across Europe and the U.S.

Vanessa Smith ● 4769d

VanessaI can’t remember all the excesses the labour party got up to, but I do remember NI going up for the benefit of the NHS. But too much of that went into Doctors pay rather than into giving us better hospitals. And let’s face it doctors in London are paid handsomely and as for specialists doing private work etc. When the NHS pay went up, then other government authorities and local government had to raise salaries to stop staff being poached. And Alistair Darling was not happy about the country living beyond its means.It is very difficult to trust Labour because they have such a long record of leaving this country in financial trouble.However I think the issue mainly here is about the work ethic or lack of it and the issue is not so much about fraudulent benefit claims or working the system and so costing us a fortune. It certainly costs but no one could say that the City slickers are not at it on a far larger financial scale.Our parents and our generation had a work ethic because if you didn’t life was really hard. It’s not so hard now. The approach to the work ethic is what needs to change and I await Ed Milliband’s take on that. And I don’t know of any reasonable minded Socialist who disagrees with me. And some I know who have had a lot of experience with dealing with poor people take a much harsher approach than I do.

George Knox ● 4769d

I couldn't agree more with Phil, while we have rampant excessive salaries/bonuses being paid for pretty pisspoor management - executives - directors, I find it hard to go on a rant about so-called 'benefit scroungers' who, in the main are relatively small in number. Yes, the system is abused - all systems are by the unscrupulous. However many are struggling and when you actually have a government prepared to threaten people in work - doctors and nurses for instance, with lower wages and worse conditions, whilst at the same time paying out £6.2 million of OUR money for more political advisors then I know whose side I'm on. The banks are a laughing stock, fiddling Libor rates, laundering drugs money - for God's sake - G4S taking yet more millions from the public purse for a gigantic balls-up because of said government's ideaological failures yet people begrudge housing benefit payments - the vast majority of which will go to people who need and deserve it. Also remember our leaders are just about to bugger off on a 47 day break whilst lecturing everyone else about working harder! You'd laugh if it wasn't so disgusting, and to cap it all the Olympic games opening ceremony is to be shortened because they now think people won't be able to get home after it on public transport! Jesus wept!

Vanessa Smith ● 4769d

Can I just clarify that the family I was referring to are actually white though I would have the same opinion whatever colour they happened to be.I am a firm believer that there is work out there for those who really want it and although most of it is low paid as employers take full advantage of the current situation the less benefits handed out can only give the unemployed more incentive to find workIn the past I have had to do really dreadful work such as standing on my feet for a 12 hour night shift at a Marks and Spencers distribution centre,road sweeping for an agency in Haringay for £4 an hour and various deadend warehouse work but I would still rather do that then rely on benefits for yearsLuckily I am no longer doing those kinds of work and I would like to think its because I have a good work ethic which shows when I turn up each day

Paul Fisher ● 4769d

Theft is a different matter.  If I understood Paul correctly he was referring to people who work the system rather than those who actually steal from it.Of course the same applies to the rich tax avoiders who, unlike tax evaders, are usually acting within the law.

Phil Andrews ● 4769d

KeithOn your second point, no not armed services, but Civil Community Service.On Phil's point while the really big tax fiddlers should be focused on more extensively since they take much more, these people do work and spend some of their money in the economy.I am more concerned to see the jobless brought to the work ethic than how much some of them fiddle.Needless to say I don't support theft.

George Knox ● 4769d

The problem is that the poorer scroungers are more visible and "in yer face" than the rich ones, even though they actually scrounge far less - both individually and in total.  There won't be many rich bankers out sunbathing where you and I live.

Phil Andrews ● 4769d

Fair point about housing for workers in London George.I think that all of us in the developed world.certainly in Europe,can expect a big hit in our living costs ad strandards in thge next few years as I fear we have been punching above our weight for too long.I believe there may be a case for  youngster who are not in a job,on an apprenticeship or at college to have a stint in the armed forces,although I know thois will not happen.Some would actually enjoy the life I think and would certainly focus their minds and look better on a cv than what a lot of them have on it  now.

Keith Iddon ● 4769d

I am sure the system needs reform at both ends Phil.tax avoidance and benefit fraud and dependancy.I wonder if people would have all these kids if they knew they had to provide for them without state help.Long gone are the days when many working families had to have loads of kids who would be sent out to work in the factory or on the farm and who would provide for the parents in their old age.This may be the case in 3rd world countries still,but not here and now.The welfare state seems to have gone off the rails in some areas benefits the 'undeserving' more than the 'deserving'.

Keith Iddon ● 4769d

KeithThe issue with moving long term unemployed people of working age out is that apart from the fact that the threat will scare people into finding work there are many actually in work who deserve housing because they are contributing to society.Paul, I think, was aiming his comment more, but not exclusively at immigrants who have large families. You may remember that this was an issue before 1997. I think the latest Census figures just out tend but not conclusively to point to this issue. I despair that we have such a bad financial crisis which will long term make this country much poorer long term, but there is currently a baby boom. So we have to be harsher with Benefits so as to drive more people to the work place to pay for the increased services needed for a larger population.I have no time for the category that sit on their backsides, although it must be extremely difficult to define who these people are in general. But those who can work but can’t be bothered should do voluntary work and go to evening school if they wish to retain their level of Benefits.

George Knox ● 4769d

It is obvious that the system needs a major overhaul from top to bottom.  There is absolutely no incentive for a parent with nine children to seek gainful employment unless that employment can offer a quite exceptional wage, and if that parent does not have quite exceptional talents or skills then that is not going to be an option.That having been said I find myself incapable of becoming animated about "benefit scroungers" while we have a system which turns a blind eye to tax avoidance on an enormous scale by the rich, and which seems to think it is okay for bankers and other already high-earning executives to award themselves inflation-busting bonuses and pay increases whether their performance warrants them or not.  And that is without getting onto the subject of the recent tax cut for top earners at a time when we are in a recession which we are allegedly all in together.Neither is it helpful that we are seeing legislation introduced which reduces job security and worsens working conditions for those millions of people who do actually get up in the morning to go out and do an honest day's work.  Whilst I have no doubt there are many who would choose to lounge around regardless, such policies are hardly conducive to creating a back-to-work ethic.There is also the little matter of a certain level of unemployment being considered desirable to weaken the bargaining power of those in work so as to enable bosses to pay their employees less than a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.If we are going to reverse the benefits culture we must surely first create an environment in which everyone really is seen to be pulling together and making genuine sacrifices for the wider benefit of our society.  We would demonstrate more moral authority as a society for coming down hard on abusers at the "poor" end of the scale if we were to show some inclination to address the far bigger problem (in financial terms) of abuse by the greedy rich.Unfortunately the current round of benefit-bashing is not accompanied by any strategy for rewarding hard work.  Which is why the only outcome it will have will be to increase the suffering of the genuinely needy.  The career scroungers will always find a way to beat the system.  The elderly, the homeless and those with long-term needs and disabilities less so.

Phil Andrews ● 4769d

You both make good points.We seem to have a situation where a significantly sized minority of people on benefits choose not to work and have a sense of entitlement which is fostered by a system that encourages some to be indolent.Maybe everyone who is unemployed for over say 5 yrs should have to re-spply and have their circumstances looked at agian.I am a believer that if you are out of work in Londonand you have a strong back that your idleness is largely by choice,though the current recession has skewed that thinking somewhat.I don't know about moving people out of London.Other parts of the country have problems already ,probably moreso than London.Also,if you have been sat at home scratching yourself for 2 or 3 years and shown little get up and go,why would anyone,especially the owner of a small business,want to give you a job?

Keith Iddon ● 4769d

It would be mad for anyone to feel guilty about being fed up with the situation.My own feeling is that people of working age on long term benefits should be moved out of London when you consider that most Councils have housing waiting lists of 10,000.Also I don’t think that immigrants should be given British nationality until they have put something in to the economy. So for those on leave to remain, they should also not be paid the same rate of welfare support. In particular I suspect the reason for the expensive car is the amount of Tax Credits which are paid. That is where I think reductions should continue to be made when the Coalition brings in the next set of welfare cuts which they vaguely allude to. But I am not much in favour of CTB reductions as well as HB reductions. It will be interesting to see how the reductions in HB will impact on the poor in the big cities over the next few years. Again I find some of that difficult to accept because it is more rough and ready rather than hitting in a more focused way where it hurts most.I have not heard of free dental care, but what you missed out was subsidised utility bills.

George Knox ● 4769d

GeorgeIt means I see far too many fit and able people around where I live who are fine humping televisions and fridges about but have never done a days work in years yet despite this continue to have children knowing that others will pick up the tabThose in genuine need of course deserve our help but unfortunately their are far too many who are content to milk the system because quite simply they are allowed to do soA family near to where I live have 9 children between them and in all the time I have known them have never done a days work yet get free rent,no Council tax to pay,benefits,free prescriptions,dental care etc and have a very decent car When we do have decent weather their days consist of sunbathing and yet I am supposed to feel guilty my saying I am fed up with it

Paul Fisher ● 4769d

"I must admit I do not really see what the major issue is as I for one am fed up subsidising so many in our Borough"What is that supposed to mean? What do you think the impact will be in the longer term on the children of such families?And how many of these people will be private tenants who may lose out on some Housing Benefit as well?

George Knox ● 4769d

Here below is the article from the front pageI must admit I do not really see what the major issue is as I for one am fed up subsidising so many in our BoroughHounslow households who rely on council tax benefit will be hit hard by Government proposals to withdraw council tax benefit from April next year.15,281 households across the borough will find themselves on average around £150 per year worse off because of the change. Working age claimants will have to accept a 15 per cent decrease in their benefit, which for most would mean a loss of between £10 and £20 per month. Most of these claimants would never have paid council tax before.One group who will not be affected are the 6,779 pensioner households receiving council tax benefit who will not see a difference in their benefits.Under the proposed changes, the current system will be scrapped and replaced with a direct grant from Government that has been cut by 10 per cent from the existing level of support. This means that the council will have to create a scheme for the borough, which will be called council tax support.From April, the Government won’t provide enough money to help all the borough’s eligible residents – meaning the council has no choice but to pass the costs onto the claimants, leaving them worse off.Cllr Ruth Cadbury, cabinet member for planning and regeneration, said:“There is little doubt that council tax benefit claimants are going to find themselves worse off under this scheme.“The simple fact of the matter is the Government is giving us less money and expecting us to provide a new support scheme.“If we ran the new scheme to the same levels as before, there would have to be cuts from other services to help us pay for it, which we are not prepared to make, or an increase in council tax.“We will soon be launching a consultation on the effects of the scheme and would like to hear from those people affected about how it will impact on them.”The council’s consultation will involve an online survey, with paper questionnaires also available. Leaflets explaining the changes will also be available at the Civic Centre, libraries and other council premises. The council is also planning to arrange a series of meetings so customers can attend to ask any questions they have on the new scheme.July 17, 2012

Paul Fisher ● 4769d