HAVE YOUR SAY: Welfare budget faces £10billion cut (From Thisisdorset)

Back to days of old no child allowance for the first child.

''We are united in our determination to deliver Universal Credit"

Does that mean that any one in the universe can continue to get benefits from the British tax payers whether they have paid a penny into the system or not?

I wont to know what Mr Osborne will do for us ???/
I care for my 92 year old dad and my 19 year old granddaughter with Mental Health Problems 24/7, I only can claim for my dad so I'm saving the Goverment Thousands!!
I am about to move in a private rented Bungalow which is £950 per month, yes I get help with part of the rent, but have to pay nearly £200 out of our pockets.
At this rate we will be sleeping on park benchs, yet I'm saving then money by doing what I do to care for people I love!
I honestly dont Know what we are meant to live on these days with other bills going up.
Mr Osborne should come and live with us and see how he copes, trips to Hospital and everything else that my days bring!

There are families in the second or third generation of unemployed and claiming benefit. It will continue as long as we are prepared to pay people for not working . In most cases it is more profitable to work, even if employment can be found.
Why should benefit claimants have increases when they have more children, I'm sure your employer would oblige if you asked for a pay rise because you have another child !!!
I know of claimants who deliberately have another child so they don't have to seek employment. How can this be right ??

djd wrote:
There are families in the second or third generation of unemployed and claiming benefit. It will continue as long as we are prepared to pay people for not working . In most cases it is more profitable to work, even if employment can be found.
Why should benefit claimants have increases when they have more children, I'm sure your employer would oblige if you asked for a pay rise because you have another child !!!
I know of claimants who deliberately have another child so they don't have to seek employment. How can this be right ??

Sorry, should have read ' it's more profitable NOT to work'

Tax revenue on petrol has reduced by millions because Osborne has priced fuel out of the reach of ordinary people because of his extortionate tax on fuel, drop fuel tax and earn more revenue to save cutting back on the most vulnerable.

My sister is a multi millionaire living in the South East of England and yet she still get's benefits for example, cold weather payments.Surely, these are the type of people that this so called coalition need to be targetting.Of course there are scrounger's and there always will be.Cut the benefit and they make their own economy.

But look at the wider picture, the soldier who has lost his leg,being denied DLA.It's happening.

And if the country is in dire straits why are we giving aid to other countries? do they need it.?

There will be those in favor and those against but remember, no job is for life and you need benefits and then you'll find that if you play by the rules of the benefit system how hard it is.

djd I take it that you are on benefits then? How else would you know that people are better off not working?(unless you are just repeating the mantra from the Sun and the Daily Mail) It may come as a surprise but a multimillionaire also gets child benefit for each child they have! If Vodafone etc paid the tax they owe the we would suddenly have a pot of tens of billions PER YEAR.

I thought it would be better to sort out the tax dodgers first. Look at tesco's all ownership of their property is based in the Cayman Islands thus saving millions in tax each year which we all pay for by subsidising their tax bill. All the non doms need to be sorted no UK passport if you don't pay UK tax. What about the bankers receiving billions in bailouts and QE and still paying massive bonuses of which they are not taxed on correctly 9% is nothing. I still cant believe with all the fraud that went on in the banking system that no one has gone to prison yet. By all means sort out the benefits system but don't pick on the week first. BAE are about to be taken over by a european company and the government stands by and is letting it happen how many skilled jobs will be lost? No I'm afraid the current government are the worst in history and that is saying some thing as history now shows us the Thatcher government held that record.

Too many people have been allowed to abuse the benefits system and the people who really need help often slip through the net.
.
It simply can't be right that people receiving benefits can be better off than people who work hard and pay the taxes that finance state handouts.
.
There are certain parts of Bournemouth where you can see people on benefits who spend their days in the pub smoking and drinking whilst the people who are paying taxes to pay their benefits are at work struggling to make ends meet.
.
A few years back I was out of work for about a year. Because my partner had a modestly paid job and we had worked hard to be able to build up a nest egg after six months my job seekers allowance stopped. David Cameron says that people should be rewarded for "doing the right thing". We did the "right thing" and were basically told your on your own.
.
The message is clear take no responsibility for your own life, don't save spend, play the victim and the state will pay your bills and take care of you. That can't be right

djd wrote:
There are families in the second or third generation of unemployed and claiming benefit. It will continue as long as we are prepared to pay people for not working . In most cases it is more profitable to work, even if employment can be found.
Why should benefit claimants have increases when they have more children, I'm sure your employer would oblige if you asked for a pay rise because you have another child !!!
I know of claimants who deliberately have another child so they don't have to seek employment. How can this be right ??

You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Perhaps you should stop reading the Daily Mail?

politicaltrainspotte
r wrote:
My sister is a multi millionaire living in the South East of England and yet she still get's benefits for example, cold weather payments.Surely, these are the type of people that this so called coalition need to be targetting.Of course there are scrounger's and there always will be.Cut the benefit and they make their own economy.

But look at the wider picture, the soldier who has lost his leg,being denied DLA.It's happening.

And if the country is in dire straits why are we giving aid to other countries? do they need it.?

There will be those in favor and those against but remember, no job is for life and you need benefits and then you'll find that if you play by the rules of the benefit system how hard it is.

But how much does your sister pay in taxation, so it must be fair shares for all

Benefits should be capped at a maximum of 2 children, housing benefit should be capped at the cost of a 2 bed property in the cheapest area of town irrespective of how many children are in a family.

Working people do not get a wage increase when they have a baby so why on earth should benefit claimaints? It's utterly ridiculous. I was talking to an ex neighbour of mine a few weeks back, she has never worked - neither has her partner - and she was saying how they were planning another child to add to the 3 they already have, WTF!

I can think of nothing more irresponsible than bringing a child into the world knowing full well that the government (us taxpayers) will foot the bill. If people can't afford children they shouldn't have them, and any additional children they give birth to while on benefits should be adopted by people who can actually afford to give them a decent upbringing. Bring it on Osbourne and IDS!

The Liberal wrote:

djd wrote:
There are families in the second or third generation of unemployed and claiming benefit. It will continue as long as we are prepared to pay people for not working . In most cases it is more profitable to work, even if employment can be found.
Why should benefit claimants have increases when they have more children, I'm sure your employer would oblige if you asked for a pay rise because you have another child !!!
I know of claimants who deliberately have another child so they don't have to seek employment. How can this be right ??

You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Perhaps you should stop reading the Daily Mail?

Spot on Mr/Mrs L.

Azphreal wrote:
djd I take it that you are on benefits then? How else would you know that people are better off not working?(unless you are just repeating the mantra from the Sun and the Daily Mail) It may come as a surprise but a multimillionaire also gets child benefit for each child they have! If Vodafone etc paid the tax they owe the we would suddenly have a pot of tens of billions PER YEAR.

Don't have to read the Sun or Daily Mail, just look around at some of the accessories that people on benefits have acquired since claiming handouts.

I think the housing benefit proposals are great. Typical Tories however avoiding the mansion tax.

good! also they need to stop the people that work on the side, i know of someone who spends his days coning old people doing jobs hes not qualified for whilst him and his wife claim everything under the sun. These people have i pads, a newish car, constantly going on days out etc etc. I also know of a couple who have a child and the husband was in a traffic accident and lives hardly able to move and gets hardly any help!

They need to look very closely at peoples circumstances.

My view is that if you are young single parent then your parents should help pay for your help, as i have a friend who has to sell the family home to pay for the care of his mum in a care home!

As stated - child benefit should only be available for the first two children.

We should stop this silly nonsense of sending 'cold weather' payments to people who live abroad e.g. Spain.

Another silly anomaly in elderly nursing care funding is this; If your elderly relative is a harm to themselves - such as thrashing about/refusing food , they may get free nursing costs. IF a relative has become bed ridden, unable to move or communicate e.g. in the latter stages of dementia, they are not automatically entitled to free nursing care as they are not a 'threat' to themselves . Crazy .

As a carer trying to deal with a loved one 'fading away' , your biggest battle will be with the uncaring , unsympathetic , cold , callous 'little' people given power at the council to determine who gets what . If your relative paid tax for 40 years of their working life, saved hard - then forget about automatically receiving council funding. You will made to feel guilty for asking!

i wouldn't worry about it,

they have plans to depopulate and unless you wake up,

you deserve whats coming (very soon)

fuzzy wuzzie wrote:
I thought it would be better to sort out the tax dodgers first. Look at tesco's all ownership of their property is based in the Cayman Islands thus saving millions in tax each year which we all pay for by subsidising their tax bill. All the non doms need to be sorted no UK passport if you don't pay UK tax. What about the bankers receiving billions in bailouts and QE and still paying massive bonuses of which they are not taxed on correctly 9% is nothing. I still cant believe with all the fraud that went on in the banking system that no one has gone to prison yet. By all means sort out the benefits system but don't pick on the week first. BAE are about to be taken over by a european company and the government stands by and is letting it happen how many skilled jobs will be lost? No I'm afraid the current government are the worst in history and that is saying some thing as history now shows us the Thatcher government held that record.

There is so much that is completely wrong in this post. First of all Tesco do not save tax by using Cayman Island Companies - though it is true that they may save some stamp duty on property transactions by doing so. The Guardian was forced to print an apology to Tesco for claiming Tesco were avoiding tax using such a scheme.

Secondly non-doms do pay plenty of UK tax. What they avoid (fairly in my opinion) is paying capital gains tax on overseas property and business transactions. They still pay tax on all money brought into the UK and all salary earned while living here.

Thirdly, the reason we have to bale out the banks is nothing to do with fraud: just some very unwise decisions were made: for example the acquisition of ABN Amro by RBS Group. There is still every chance the government will sell the shares it owns in the bailed out banks at a profit.

Fourthly, nearly all bankers bonuses are taxed at 50% (none are ever taxed at 9%) and many have not even been paid recently. It is sometimes possible to avoid national insurance if bonuses are paid in shares rather than cash, but income tax cannot be avoided.

Fifthly, BAE is not being taken over - this is a merger and the government has stated that it will use its golden share to force the French and German government to sell some of their shares so that their influence is diluted.

United Nations/NWO plan to Depopulate the Earth
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=NOyHEVkdT
nQ&feature=related

Socialism means total control. Now your fate is dependent on degenerat crooks in power. Do what they want or you'll be in the street. Why do you think the Fabian societies crest is a wolf in Sheeps clothing?
Hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. These mafiosa in power have secondary homes paid for by the tax-payer TAX FREE and yet are targeting the jobless and underage claiming its to 'tighten the belt.'

Just to answer some of the responses to my post.
No, I am not on benefits. I have worked for thirty years, paid into a pension scheme and now reaping the rewards of that.
I do not read the Mail, Sun, Express or whatever newspaper you allude to.
I know for a fact there are people who won't work because they get more money on benefits and some are only too ready to tell you so.
Yes, I do despair about the society we leave for our children and our grandchildren.

It's worth remembering that there are shortages in some highly skilled professions. For example there are not enough doctors which is why the NHS have been accused of using European doctors who cannot speak English well enough. In the past, we have brought engineers over from India as there are not enough skilled people available.

It's not like there are not highly paid jobs out there so is there anything we can do to help those from poorer backgrounds to rise up and aim high. I really don't believe they are all incapable, but there is something about the education system that means that people rarely rise above their parents. It should not be the case that several generations spend their lives on benefits.

Wesoblind wrote:
good! also they need to stop the people that work on the side, i know of someone who spends his days coning old people doing jobs hes not qualified for whilst him and his wife claim everything under the sun. These people have i pads, a newish car, constantly going on days out etc etc. I also know of a couple who have a child and the husband was in a traffic accident and lives hardly able to move and gets hardly any help!

They need to look very closely at peoples circumstances.

My view is that if you are young single parent then your parents should help pay for your help, as i have a friend who has to sell the family home to pay for the care of his mum in a care home!

If you know of someone who's moonlighting, why don't you report him? Anyhow, this debate isn't about benefit fraud but rather the levels of benefit for genuine claimants.

BournemouthMum wrote:
Benefits should be capped at a maximum of 2 children, housing benefit should be capped at the cost of a 2 bed property in the cheapest area of town irrespective of how many children are in a family.

Working people do not get a wage increase when they have a baby so why on earth should benefit claimaints? It's utterly ridiculous. I was talking to an ex neighbour of mine a few weeks back, she has never worked - neither has her partner - and she was saying how they were planning another child to add to the 3 they already have, WTF!

I can think of nothing more irresponsible than bringing a child into the world knowing full well that the government (us taxpayers) will foot the bill. If people can't afford children they shouldn't have them, and any additional children they give birth to while on benefits should be adopted by people who can actually afford to give them a decent upbringing. Bring it on Osbourne and IDS!

Don't be fooled by the Tories’ 'divide and rule' tactics. They continually try to set one group of the public against another (eg young people, pensioners, single parents, unemployed people) while they privatise everything under the sun to benefit their super-rich mates (whom they also allow to avoid tax, by not closing loopholes).
 
Oh, and please try getting your news from a source other than the Mail/Sun/Sky. You might learn something.

My neighbour has never worked but parties most weekends. She can afford to smoke and run a car. I work full time but can't afford to do this. How can this be right.

justsayithowitis wrote:
My neighbour has never worked but parties most weekends. She can afford to smoke and run a car. I work full time but can't afford to do this. How can this be right.

I keep hearing these stories. But then, if life on benefits is so easy, why is there so much abject poverty in this country? People living hand to mouth, in appalling accommodation or even on the streets. Something doesn't add up there, does it?

The Liberal wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:
Benefits should be capped at a maximum of 2 children, housing benefit should be capped at the cost of a 2 bed property in the cheapest area of town irrespective of how many children are in a family.

Working people do not get a wage increase when they have a baby so why on earth should benefit claimaints? It's utterly ridiculous. I was talking to an ex neighbour of mine a few weeks back, she has never worked - neither has her partner - and she was saying how they were planning another child to add to the 3 they already have, WTF!

I can think of nothing more irresponsible than bringing a child into the world knowing full well that the government (us taxpayers) will foot the bill. If people can't afford children they shouldn't have them, and any additional children they give birth to while on benefits should be adopted by people who can actually afford to give them a decent upbringing. Bring it on Osbourne and IDS!

Don't be fooled by the Tories’ 'divide and rule' tactics. They continually try to set one group of the public against another (eg young people, pensioners, single parents, unemployed people) while they privatise everything under the sun to benefit their super-rich mates (whom they also allow to avoid tax, by not closing loopholes).
 
Oh, and please try getting your news from a source other than the Mail/Sun/Sky. You might learn something.

Well firstly I am no fool and I obtain news from various sources thank you, including the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and yes, the Daily Mail. I look at facts and statistics and certainly do not fall for the political bias of the Right Wing or Left Wing media - unlike you of course.

BournemouthMum wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:
Benefits should be capped at a maximum of 2 children, housing benefit should be capped at the cost of a 2 bed property in the cheapest area of town irrespective of how many children are in a family.

Working people do not get a wage increase when they have a baby so why on earth should benefit claimaints? It's utterly ridiculous. I was talking to an ex neighbour of mine a few weeks back, she has never worked - neither has her partner - and she was saying how they were planning another child to add to the 3 they already have, WTF!

I can think of nothing more irresponsible than bringing a child into the world knowing full well that the government (us taxpayers) will foot the bill. If people can't afford children they shouldn't have them, and any additional children they give birth to while on benefits should be adopted by people who can actually afford to give them a decent upbringing. Bring it on Osbourne and IDS!

Don't be fooled by the Tories’ 'divide and rule' tactics. They continually try to set one group of the public against another (eg young people, pensioners, single parents, unemployed people) while they privatise everything under the sun to benefit their super-rich mates (whom they also allow to avoid tax, by not closing loopholes).
 
Oh, and please try getting your news from a source other than the Mail/Sun/Sky. You might learn something.

Well firstly I am no fool and I obtain news from various sources thank you, including the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and yes, the Daily Mail. I look at facts and statistics and certainly do not fall for the political bias of the Right Wing or Left Wing media - unlike you of course.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Couple things here it is always ok to knock benefit recipients till it is your self or a familiy member who has lost their job. So hipplecrit comes to mind. Second all these benefit changes will NOT make one iota of differance to the hardened scrounger they know how to play the system. Three will it cut the cost of housing benefits paid?NO. Why because all the private landlord will do is make smaller units for same benefit so making more benefit claiments possible per property. Universal benefit sounds fine don't it till you really look at it. Who in thier right mind would support a benefit where those who have never ever paid into the system will get the same as those that have. No truth is this government is thrashing about in the dark trying populist ideas but solving nothing of the crisis we are in. Truth is they have neither got the bottle or the power or expereance to do any of it. That is the fault of successive governing parties right back maggi thatchers time who ruled with a iron rod but didnot work as team players. Leaving a massive gulf in politicians capable of understanding and running this country. Biggest mistake putting housing and every thing associated with everyday living into the private sector. Second biggest having an open door policy to EU citizens. Third not sorting out immigration entitlement. Hundreds of thousands of so called asyslum seekers are in limbo being kept by this country for years when they could either be shipped back to the last country of origin or brought into the mainstream working economy if geniune asyslum seekers. No more black market workers undercutting the real work force.

The Liberal wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:
My neighbour has never worked but parties most weekends. She can afford to smoke and run a car. I work full time but can't afford to do this. How can this be right.

I keep hearing these stories. But then, if life on benefits is so easy, why is there so much abject poverty in this country? People living hand to mouth, in appalling accommodation or even on the streets. Something doesn't add up there, does it?

The poverty comes in this country is nothing to do with people on benefits. It is the people who work for minimum wage and don't get any help who are in abject poverty.

It is the people who work for minimum wage and don't get any help who are in abject poverty

Like nearly all the Polish people working here you mean?

Adrian XX wrote:

It is the people who work for minimum wage and don't get any help who are in abject poverty

Like nearly all the Polish people working here you mean?

No. Lots of English people are on the minimum wage and don't receive any help. This is far less than the average wage which is what the cap on benefits will be set at.