The utter bastards*.
*The inclusion of the Carer's allowance tipped the scales for me.
Last edited:
Tory cuts
- Thread starter commandlinegamer
- Start date
The utter bastards*.
*The inclusion of the Carer's allowance tipped the scales for me.
Aaaand the task of finding out how much the benefits are falls to the local authority! I wonder why I am not surprised? And so you might get nothing for rent at all if your needs are great. Amazing. I wonder what all those people who make their living from renting out property are going to think about that?
Where is Rachman when you need him......Oh, hello Mr Rachman
Where is Rachman when you need him......Oh, hello Mr Rachman
I think the BBC have broken that link; it now goes to a story headlined "George Osborne to defend cuts and promote aspiration", which doesn't have anything about limits, but a link entitled "Family benefit claims face limit" from another page goes to the same story.
ETA: Never mind, it seems to be fixed now.
Has anyone found any figure about what the change will save? If it is, as the BBC states 50,000 households, and it is only the amount above £26000 or £500 a week, I can't see how it is going to save a lot of money so it appears that this is as I thought e.g. ideology/politics not pragmatism.
American billion or european billion?
Have you done the arithmetic ? Even if it is american billions that comes out at £20,000 cut for every one of those 50,000 households. Even assuming they imagine some of that comes from sacking the staff who used to pay that out why is this not causing mass hilarity?
They have said it is 1.2 million households who will lose it, though. That is a much lesser figure: £833 pounds a year from each household: £16 a week. (european billions are 10 times that)
It is funny that they can lose that amount, though: when you propose taking half that from them in income tax they cannot stand it. And tax cuts which give people perhaps £200 a year are touted as being very very generous and we are all supposed to dance in the streets
It is a funny old world..
Have you done the arithmetic ? Even if it is american billions that comes out at £20,000 cut for every one of those 50,000 households. Even assuming they imagine some of that comes from sacking the staff who used to pay that out why is this not causing mass hilarity?
They have said it is 1.2 million households who will lose it, though. That is a much lesser figure: £833 pounds a year from each household: £16 a week. (european billions are 10 times that)
It is funny that they can lose that amount, though: when you propose taking half that from them in income tax they cannot stand it. And tax cuts which give people perhaps £200 a year are touted as being very very generous and we are all supposed to dance in the streets
It is a funny old world..
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
I think the BBC (and the government) tends to treat a billion as being a thousand million.
I don't think anyone uses European billions anymore, certainly not for politics. Is it European or British, anyway?
There are three dots in an ellipsis...
Last edited:
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
There are three dots in an ellipsis...
Not under the new Tory cost-cutting regime there aren't..
Edit. And Colons aren't what they used to be either.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,127
Phillip Hammond, Tory Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on April 27th:
"We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit. If you start means testing it, if you start slicing away at that universality, then people are going to ask where you are going to stop".
Where are they going to stop?
"We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit. If you start means testing it, if you start slicing away at that universality, then people are going to ask where you are going to stop".
Where are they going to stop?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Alturnatively they are planning to take some actions which will result in a significant rise in rent for those on housing benifits and don't want to pay.
The reason you are having flashbacks is that we are going past the Thatcher years and going way beyond anything she even said she wanted to do, they are making Thatcher look centralist!
I suppose I shouldn't grumble I'd been complaining for some time that there was nothing separating the parties... Labour will look left-wing again without moving an inch from their former centralist position!
Scotland and Wales are looking more appealing each passing day.
They are building on what has already been done: it has taken a long time to get us to this state: but having arrived here it will not take so long to go much much further. I notice that one poster on another thread identified the uk as a 52nd state: I would not quite see it like that myself. But if you buy into the idea that there is a european model and an american one it is plain to see which we are choosing, IMO. Apparently it is what a lot of voters want, for reasons which are wholly obscure to me
They already have done - new property building has slowed to a trickle, mind you there is still cheap housing in many areas that keep voting vote Labour and it will become even cheaper soon so they'll just have to move to those areas.
Oh you pessimist - don't you know we are going to see a golden age of new private sector jobs, they are going to be falling from the skies like manna, the only people who will still be on benefits are those who have chosen it as their lifestyle.
Last edited:
So they won't have to move then? I am confused
I am sorry but if you are confused by the Tories contradictory and incoherent
Now they are going to compensate the higher rate payers for the loss of child benefit with tax breaks? Or maybe not? Any idea what this row is about? Lawson seeems to have said it: then said we are not to overreact to what he said. Has anyone heard any more about this: I only heard the headline just now