One thing that the Guardian highlighted that makes eminent sense is the difficulty of being on benefits and having full time training. You can't do both apparently which seems ludicrous to me.
Surely one of the best ways of getting a job is re-skilling in a market where there are jobs.
Are you saying that we just have to live with a few philpotts so that genuinely poor families don;t suffer?
Obviously. If we accept that there should be a safety net that makes it possible to exist, then there simply is no alternative I'm afraid. (Though we know benefit fraud is very rare, luckily)
Of course there are loads of changes that could make the welfare system more efficient.
-More tapered / generous benefits on return to work to ease the expensive (sometimes prohibitively so) transition back to work.
-More work-incentivised childcare for parents.
-Better incentivised training / education, especially for the young. Proper training too, not these rancid private sector target-driven cowboys like A4E.
-'Supply side' efforts to make work pay, like a living wage, more meaningful apprenticeships.
Of course, the Tories are interested in none of this.
In fact, the Right have nothing intelligent to say on welfare at all. It's all cuts, Daily Mail headlines, scaremongering, myths, and more cuts. Dumb, nasty and counter-productive.
If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need. Cutting benefits to the genuinely poor whilst protecting pensions for the rich might go down well in Tory circles but this it is not a serious attempt at reducing costs or creating a fairer benefit system.
If we accept that there should be a safety net that makes it possible to exist, then there simply is no alternative I'm afraid. (Though we know benefit fraud is very rare, luckily)
OK that's fair enough, why doesn't Ed Milliband just come out and say he's not prepared to penalise the children of workless families for the sake of hitting a few philpotts. The system stays the same.
Philpott wasn't a fraudster. He gained his benefits entirely legitimately,
Which is why an overall cap makes sense as an approach.
Osborne had the option of limiting child benefit by number or age of children. He chose his "all in this together" grand gesture instead, with 70% marginal rates
Still don't understand why he didn't just make it taxable income. Would have been far simpler (especially if taxable at source).
There are many unexploded PR disasters sitting around Farage. The n word mentioned recently is just one of many.
The n word one was made up by a man that does not get on with Farage and has utterly no other evidence. People are scraping the barrell to try to bring UKIP down.
'If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need.'
Any idea how much it would cost to pay back years of NI contributions to millions of people that would no longer be eligible for the state pension?
Osborne had the option of limiting child benefit by number or age of children. He chose his "all in this together" grand gesture instead, with 70% marginal rates
So had he done so, I sometimes suspect you would have been the first one screaming blue murder and screaming how the fairest method would be to cap it for higher tax earners...
Of course, the Tories are interested in none of this.
Except that they are bringing in a new single tapered system and they are trying to implement better childcare for working parents.
This compared to Labour, who didn't do any of the things you wanted after being in power for 13 years.
But let's not let facts get in the way.
Yes, IDS talked some sense on tapering when he was coming up with his Universal Credit. Unfortunately, that has long gone, and we're left with the same old Tory cuts.
The childcare proposals are pathetic I'm afraid. We need parents on benefits to have far better access to childcare than they do.
Labour didn't really do any of the things I talked about, but what's your point? The Tories are in Government now, and as I said, have little intelligent to add to the debate on welfare. Which is why we see Osborne wading into the stinking cesspit of Rightwing rhetoric surrounding Philpot.
Actually I think the Philpott type family (if such a thing exists) will be very difficult to stop the spending on.
When the government rewards the workless for having ever more children, how can you withdraw that reward? Its the children who will suffer, not the parents.
This is the eternal problem though its always 'think of the children'. It is this kind of emotive argument that is always put forward, but would Philpott's kids have really been worse off if he'd had less cash ?
The left wing of the Liberal Democrats may not like it, and James Kelly would certainly object, but what do the majority of us think about sterilisation as an alternative or addition to the benefits cap?
Surely this is a low cost policy which is easy to implement and would provide a long term social benefit? It may even boost state revenues if the NHS could find a way to charge for the service.
I can't help but think that that the deaths of the Philpott children would have been avoided had this policy been available to the benefits office early in the family's claiming history.
Human Rights campaigners could be easily appeased by requiring a judicial order for involuntary participation in the scheme.
'If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need.'
Any idea how much it would cost to pay back years of NI contributions to millions of people that would no longer be eligible for the state pension?
Is it proposed to repay NI contributions to those whose housing benefit or council tax benefit is being cut? So why should pensioners be different?
'If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need.'
Any idea how much it would cost to pay back years of NI contributions to millions of people that would no longer be eligible for the state pension?
Legal minefield. A better solution would be to push the pension up to 75 or 85 ASAP. People are living longer now and as Mick Pork's chart shows unemployment benefit is pretty cheap. Of course neither party will do this as it will 1) Make the unemployment stats look bad and 2) Lose the vital OAP vote, even though it could well make sense economically.
'If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need.'
Any idea how much it would cost to pay back years of NI contributions to millions of people that would no longer be eligible for the state pension?
Legal minefield. A better solution would be to push the pension up to 75 or 85 ASAP. People are living longer now and as Mick Pork's chart shows unemployment benefit is pretty cheap. Of course neither party will do this as it will 1) Make the unemployment stats look bad and 2) Lose the vital OAP vote, even though it could well make sense economically.
You could just move the state pension from starting at a certain age to starting after you have completed, say, 40 years of work. I'm sure caveats and exceptions would be needed, but I think it has the bones of a good policy idea.
"What happened to Labour’s view that we should be tough on the causes of crime?"
" I’m surprised that the Labour Party hasn’t made more of the housing dimension in this sad case; but, then again, that would necessitate a more intelligent/honest approach to unused capacity in social housing.
Watching the welfare debate, it seems that the Labour party has forgotten all about Tony Blair – both his politics and his winning opportunism. It’s not stretching the imagination to think that the party might pay for its forgetfulness."
Avery...very much in the style of 'A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.....'
Of course, the Tories are interested in none of this.
Except that they are bringing in a new single tapered system and they are trying to implement better childcare for working parents.
This compared to Labour, who didn't do any of the things you wanted after being in power for 13 years.
But let's not let facts get in the way.
Yes, IDS talked some sense on tapering when he was coming up with his Universal Credit. Unfortunately, that has long gone, and we're left with the same old Tory cuts.
The childcare proposals are pathetic I'm afraid. We need parents on benefits to have far better access to childcare than they do.
Labour didn't really do any of the things I talked about, but what's your point? The Tories are in Government now, and as I said, have little intelligent to add to the debate on welfare. Which is why we see Osborne wading into the stinking cesspit of Rightwing rhetoric surrounding Philpot.
You miss the basic fact that we are all responsible for the loss of those 6 children.
Yes, Phillpot was a vile line of the specie. Yes he learnt and developed unsavoury habits. Yes he would have remained a foul possessive domineering bully without the benefit system.
However, if we had a sensible benefit system, he would not have had payments that enabled him to attain his position of control, power and monetary comfort that probably led to his insatiable greed. In his world view he had his rights to his childrens 'income' (provided to the state), and his rights were regardless of any responsibility.
Because he could do as he wished, he considered himself powerful, untouchable, and his actions that resulted in the loss of 6 lives indicate his unerring self belief. He had circumnavigated social workers, police, convictions and morality and was Lord of his own life. He believed in himself, as he was the centre, the focus and the purpose of his world.
It is all of us that allowed this to happen. It is us that allowed him to have 17 children, and therefore it is us that are responsible for the death of 6 children.
There is no way he is a typical benefits claimant, I don't think anyone with an iota of sense is suggesting that he is. He is an extreme example of how the system needs controls and rules that prevent the flagrant breech of the intention of the benefit system.
There is no right wing sewer (except in your mind). There is a legitimate discussion to have to prevent the abuse of the system by anyone who is on the Phillpot wing of humanity. It is the social responsibility of us all to acknowledge that we were wrong to allow the system to run out of control and create the support mechanism that allowed a criminal like Phillpot to put himself in his self deluded position of power and economic comfort. It is the social responsibility of us all to see that the resources of the state are spent on those who need it most, not on those who want to evade responsibility.
You and I are indeed responsible for failing those 6 children by our silence, apathy and willingness to accept the obvious wrongs that the system allowed to manifest in this case.
Any politician worth his or her salt would stand up and say there are failings highlighted by this case and strive to change them.
A pension after forty years of work? You mean you want to lower the pension age? Maybe you made a typo, but for sure with life expectancy inexorably rising and private pension-saving collapsing the pension age has to be increased faster than currently planned. That will probably be electoral suicide for which ever government does it but it has to happen.
I posted this last night after everyone except tim had gone to bed.
Per The Times Budget tables:
Single person - Salary £10,000 - Net income £10,861
Single person with 2 children - Salary £10,000 - Net income £20,568
So having 2 children nets you an extra £9,707. Just £1,752 of that is Child Benefit. The remaining £7,955 is Child Tax Credits etc.
The figures are absolutely breathtaking. Why on earth should someone with two children get an extra £9,707? That's £187 per week. Does it cost £187 per week to feed and clothe two children?
The other aspect is that anyone with 2 children has almost no incentive at all to work unless they can earn a very high salary.
Single person with 2 children - Salary £30,000 - Net income £25,968
So earning an extra £20,000 gross salary (ie £30k instead of £10k) nets them an extra £5,400. So their tax rate from £10k to £30k is 73%.
tim's answer was that my argument was reasonable except it would reduce the birth rate and therefore require more immigration.
Surely we need clarity from politicians on this. Are we really just paying such generous benefits to keep the birth rate up?
Or do politicians really think you should get an extra £187 per week for having 2 children?
Does the public also think the right level of benefit for 2 children is £187 per week?
A better solution would be to push the pension up to 75 or 85 ASAP.
People who identify pensions as 'welfare' are looking at the problem the wrong way, and I reckon will pay a big political price.
Pensions are paid to people who are overwhelmingly law abiding and tax paying. They have paid into the system all their lives on the clear understanding they would receive something in return at the end.
Yes there is a political point to keeping pensioners happy. But there is surely a moral point too.
MikeL - truly unbelievable figures. Sooner tax credits are phased out the better - but at those levels that will cause a lot of squealing. Will have to be frozen and inflationed out.
'Is it proposed to repay NI contributions to those whose housing benefit or council tax benefit is being cut? So why should pensioners be different?'
They are still receiving the benefit and no government (not even under Ed) would promise,that whatever the circumstances, to increase benefits at a fixed rate or in-line with inflation.
Pensioners have been forced by law to pay NI based on the promise that they will receive a state pension,if they have been paying under false pretenses then legally they would need to be repaid their contributions.
tim - that looks like an old site to me - it's in a completely different font etc.
I'm sorry but the link I have provided is unarguable - it doesn't require a whole pile of form filling - everyone can see it with their own eyes - it says nothing about disabled children and it reconciles very closely to The Times tables (within £1,000).
Sky News have just shown a lengthy interview with one of the brothers who tried to save the lives of the six children in Derby. The guy was clearly traumatised, though he was obviously very keen to get his views across on camera. It was incredibly uncomfortable viewing, and Sky News should do some soul-searching about whether it should ever have been broadcast.
tim - that looks like an old site to me - it's in a completely different font etc.
I'm sorry but the link I have provided is unarguable - it doesn't require a whole pile of form filling - everyone can see it with their own eyes - it says nothing about disabled children and it reconciles very closely to The Times tables (within £1,000).
I used the entitledto website and got figures of £3218 working tax credit plus £5993 child tax credit - £9212 annually for a salary of £10k, couple with 2 non-disabled children. Plus child benefit of £1752.
Mr. Antifrank, I haven't seen that particular interview, but I often feel that way about TV interviews (on both Sky and the BBC). The journalists seem quite happy to thrust a microphone and camera into the face of traumatised people, even young teenagers. I don't like it. It's intrusive, voyeuristic and unnecessary.
Sion Simon has been shortlisted to be one of the MEP candidates for West Midlands. A woman must be at the top in WM but Labour should aim at 2 seats in the region.
The NEC will retify Euro Labour shortlists next week. So expect to have all full names at some point.
A pension after forty years of work? You mean you want to lower the pension age? Maybe you made a typo, but for sure with life expectancy inexorably rising and private pension-saving collapsing the pension age has to be increased faster than currently planned. That will probably be electoral suicide for which ever government does it but it has to happen.
Was indeed a typo: I actually meant to type 50. The number doesn't matter so much as the principle. I think it's pretty tough that manual workers who don't go to university have to work more years to be entitled to a pension relative to graduates like myself.
Whilst I agree my original link implies maximum amounts it doesn't say anything about disabled children and I would be amazed if HMRC were publishing what would be an incredibly misleading table.
Lucy is getting figures in line with the original table.
Looks like the figures are indeed of an amount even you thought was unbelievable.
If my least favourite Tory in the cabinet, Osborne, could win the voters support over this welfare issue he will have enacted a remarkable comeback. If I was considering a bet I would usually bet against him. But this time he may have actually made the right call. Shock. If not then he will truly be toxic (as tim and his scottish mates label him).
We could be in one of those sea change moments where we either see the polls shift or a new CotE.
Well tim I've gone in and I get £50.02 - same as you!
But that appears to be the amount for 2 DAYS! - It says it is for 04/04/2013 until 05/04/2013.
Must confess it looks odd but that is what it says!
50.02 *7/2 = £175.07 per week = £9,104.
Are you sure it's £50.02 per week? It doesn't say so!!!!
I did this too and got just the same result, which struck me as being incorrect based on what I understand some of my acquaintances receive. But look more closely at the paragraph headed "Results" on the intro page:
"This calculator will give you an idea of how much you could get, based on the information you give. The figure you see will be the total amount you could get between today's date and 5 April 2013."
It seems the £9200/year figure is the correct one.
Based on EXACTLY what the calculator says it is £50.02 for TWO DAYS.
So I (and much more importantly HMRC) were right all along.
I hope your posts were in good faith tim (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but not surprisingly we have confirmation that the original HMRC link I posted was correct.
Just to remind everyone:
Annual income £10,000, 2 children, Tax credits = £9,125.
Which leaves us pondering- if even tim finds the amounts unbelievable then how on earth can they be justified?
Out of interest, I looked up the figures for a imaginary single parent of six working full-time for £10k. Total tax credits would come to £20103, plus child benefit of £4539 - i.e. an extra £25k net. Then there would be council tax benefit and possibly housing benefit and childcare allowance - I didn't bother including claims for these elements.
We often see tables showing household incomes. I would like to see tables showing household incomes net of income tax & and NI but adding in all benefits including CB, HB, tax credits etc. My guess is that it would show that "poverty" hardly exists in this country.
Because George Osborne has used the deaths of six children to play politics.
Don't be silly, Southam. This is what he said (in response to a specific question about the case, I believe):
Mr Osborne, who this week has been defending cuts to housing benefit and other welfare changes, said: "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
Is there anyone who could possibly call that 'playing politics the deaths of six children' with a straight face?
Why are Labour (a) blundering in with this ludicrous charge, and (b) not only that, but blundering in to defend the indefensible? Apart from the moral aspect, it is completely barmy politics. Do they really want to be seen to be on the side of the argument which says we shouldn't enquire how on earth we ended up with a system which has clearly been an absolute disaster in this case?
Labour's response is incomprehensible. Why not simply agree with both bits of what Osborne says?
@tim If you look at page 19 of your own link, you will see the figure of £9130 tax credits (i.e. working tax credit plus child tax credits) for a 2-child family with an income of £10k in the 12/13 tax year.
Regarding the calculator you used : "This calculator will give you an idea of how much you could get, based on the information you give. The figure you see will be the total amount you could get between today's date and 5 April 2013."
Just to sum up in case anyone is still wondering we have 3 separate sources all giving the same answer:
1) Main HMRC website table 2) HMRC calculator 3) The Times Budget tax / benefit tables
Whilst your figures are the correct ones , someone with no children earning £ 10,000 would receive £ 1,245 if single or £ 3,200 with a partner so the correct allowance for 2 children is the difference between £ 9,125 and whichever above sum applies .
Someone working fulltime and earning £10k per year would be earning £4.81 per hour for a 40 hour week! The HMRC site gives the minimum wage as the main adult rate (for workers 21 and over) as £6.19 an hour and for 18-20 year olds £4.98 an hour.
Clearly our example on £10k hasn't got a full time job!
Someone on minimum wage working 40 hours per week would be getting £12875. Would their wage be made up to £19k under circumstances quoted? Or more?
He used the amount the ghastly man was allowed to squeeze out of the state to carry on with his lifestyle.. No-one was asking any questions.. He just got his money into his bank account.. That has to change...it is a legitimate question to ask how this money was disbursed and what checks the state were making. Why did no-one check how much money he was getting?
Of course George is playing politics - he's a politician, as is Ed Balls and all those whining about it. It's about the only thing they're good at.
If the subject were on Labour's territory, they would be shroud-waving with a vengeance. As it is, they are now being hypocrites. Once you complain about somebody doing what we know you would do in the same circumstances, you've lost the argument.
The figures as quoted on CH4 News are a surprise. If a family of eleven without any visible means of support can earn £53,000 it explains something which has been puzzling me for some time. There are many religious families whose members run well into double figures who manage to live reasonably well without any visible bread winner. I always thought the welfare state only supported the first tree children.
I do think this is a gift for the Tories and I do wonder how this was ever allowed to get so out of hand. (Unless of course I'm missing something)
Because George Osborne has used the deaths of six children to play politics.
Don't be silly, Southam. This is what he said (in response to a specific question about the case, I believe):
Mr Osborne, who this week has been defending cuts to housing benefit and other welfare changes, said: "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
Is there anyone who could possibly call that 'playing politics the deaths of six children' with a straight face?
Why are Labour (a) blundering in with this ludicrous charge, and (b) not only that, but blundering in to defend the indefensible? Apart from the moral aspect, it is completely barmy politics. Do they really want to be seen to be on the side of the argument which says we shouldn't enquire how on earth we ended up with a system which has clearly been an absolute disaster in this case?
Labour's response is incomprehensible. Why not simply agree with both bits of what Osborne says?
Balls is not talking to dyed-in-the-wool Tories who will excuse anything that Osborne says and does. He is talking to other voters who believe there is a legitmate discussion to be had about welfare payments, but that it should not be conducted around the actions of a childkiller.
These figures essentially show why the country is bankrupt. When Tim points out for the next 100 times that the majority of those affected by housing benefit changes are "working" remember what this means.
What it means in many cases is that they are working more than 16 hours a week, that they pay little or no income tax and that their wage is then more than doubled by the tax payer. Put bluntly this "work" costs us a fortune.
Is it a price worth paying? That is more difficult. On balance it is better that people do something for their benefits, even if they are then much better remunerated than they would be for doing nothing. It is a better example for their children too and improves markedly their odds of contributing to society.
In an ideal world incentivising work in this way, even low value, part time, minimum wage work, is a good thing. The question we need to ask is how much of this good thing can we afford? A lot less than we have been paying is the obvious answer.
Roger, the figures are a shock. The burdens from housing, working tax credit & other benefits are growing to be a massive burden.
It would be good for the country if the 3 main parties actually had a joint task force into the principle of capping claims at 2, 3 or 4 children, without touching those born before the starting date of the task force.
These figures essentially show why the country is bankrupt. When Tim points out for the next 100 times that the majority of those affected by housing benefit changes are "working" remember what this means.
What it means in many cases is that they are working more than 16 hours a week, that they pay little or no income tax and that their wage is then more than doubled by the tax payer. Put bluntly this "work" costs us a fortune.
Is it a price worth paying? That is more difficult. On balance it is better that people do something for their benefits, even if they are then much better remunerated than they would be for doing nothing. It is a better example for their children too and improves markedly their odds of contributing to society.
In an ideal world incentivising work in this way, even low value, part time, minimum wage work, is a good thing. The question we need to ask is how much of this good thing can we afford? A lot less than we have been paying is the obvious answer.
Indeed - the scandal is that someone would work full-time but be paid just £10,000 a year. Welcome to the Living Wage.
Because George Osborne has used the deaths of six children to play politics.
Don't be silly, Southam. This is what he said (in response to a specific question about the case, I believe):
Mr Osborne, who this week has been defending cuts to housing benefit and other welfare changes, said: "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
Is there anyone who could possibly call that 'playing politics the deaths of six children' with a straight face?
Why are Labour (a) blundering in with this ludicrous charge, and (b) not only that, but blundering in to defend the indefensible? Apart from the moral aspect, it is completely barmy politics. Do they really want to be seen to be on the side of the argument which says we shouldn't enquire how on earth we ended up with a system which has clearly been an absolute disaster in this case?
Labour's response is incomprehensible. Why not simply agree with both bits of what Osborne says?
Balls is not talking to dyed-in-the-wool Tories who will excuse anything that Osborne says and does. He is talking to other voters who believe there is a legitmate discussion to be had about welfare payments, but that it should not be conducted around the actions of a childkiller.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
I suppose the unanswered question is why we, as "the rest" are subsidising cheap-skate employers? Who, if they are large, and therefore probably off-shore based, companies, are probably not paying much in the way of corporation tax.
He is talking to other voters who believe there is a legitmate discussion to be had about welfare payments, but that it should not be conducted around the actions of a childkiller.
Which is PRECISELY what Osborne said.
It's a pity it's too late to do a test before you'd seen Osborne's words - we could have attributed them to a Labour politician, and asked for your reaction. I am 100% certain you'd have thought them prefectly measured and reasonable, for the very good reason that it is undeniable that they are perfectly measured and reasonable.
The two are intertwined. The welfare system / payments enabled him to get into the position to commit the crime.
So, we abolish welfare because one evil childkiller abused the system, is that it? Or is a more reasoned response to say we need to get much, much tougher on those who abuse the system without penalising the vast majority who do not?
But they don't work full time SO. The table applies to couples who work 16 or more hours between them. One of Tim's valid points, also shown by the HMRC table, is that they suffer marginal tax rates of 70% until the benefit is withdrawn so, as MikeL says, increasing their salary by £20K makes them only about £5K better off. It is a valid point but it is also inevitable when people are really living on benefits, not on what they earn.
The incentive to work full time is therefore missing under the present system. That is certainly one of the areas that needs attention. The tax credits need to be less generous and then less severely tapered so there is a greater incentive for the recipient to earn more either by working longer or getting a better paying job.
He is talking to other voters who believe there is a legitmate discussion to be had about welfare payments, but that it should not be conducted around the actions of a childkiller.
Which is PRECISELY what Osborne said.
It's a pity it's too late to do a test before you'd seen Osborne's words - we could have attributed them to a Labour politician, and asked for your reaction. I am 100% certain you'd have thought them prefectly measured and reasonable, for the very good reason that it is undeniable that they are perfectly measured and reasonable.
Nope - I would have found any attempt to discuss this country's welfare system using the actions of a childkiller as a hook to be utterly offensive - even more offensive than attempts to manipulate statistics on those claiming disability benefit to imply that over 800,000 had decided to stop claiming because fitness tests had been introduced.
Comments
Gawd. Put the Daily Mail down and step away from the keyboard.
How about in future limiting child benefit to the first two children?
One thing that the Guardian highlighted that makes eminent sense is the difficulty of being on benefits and having full time training. You can't do both apparently which seems ludicrous to me.
Surely one of the best ways of getting a job is re-skilling in a market where there are jobs.
This compared to Labour, who didn't do any of the things you wanted after being in power for 13 years.
But let's not let facts get in the way.
"I understand from the man who knows best we've been lumbered with an utter bitch who is Marta Mk 2."
http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/ukips-annabelle-fuller-on-diane-james.html
There are many unexploded PR disasters sitting around Farage. The n word mentioned recently is just one of many.
"We are very clear that if you are an EDL supporter then you are not welcome in Ukip."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/453603/20130404/edl-ukip-elections.htm
So the smears by association won't work.
'If the Tories were serious about cutting the cost of benefits they would start with old age pensions because they are the biggest single cost to the DWP budget and quite a lot of them are paid to people who are not in financial need.'
Any idea how much it would cost to pay back years of NI contributions to millions of people that would no longer be eligible for the state pension?
£0.
A 1% rise is a cut - in real terms.
The childcare proposals are pathetic I'm afraid. We need parents on benefits to have far better access to childcare than they do.
Labour didn't really do any of the things I talked about, but what's your point? The Tories are in Government now, and as I said, have little intelligent to add to the debate on welfare. Which is why we see Osborne wading into the stinking cesspit of Rightwing rhetoric surrounding Philpot.
Surely this is a low cost policy which is easy to implement and would provide a long term social benefit? It may even boost state revenues if the NHS could find a way to charge for the service.
I can't help but think that that the deaths of the Philpott children would have been avoided had this policy been available to the benefits office early in the family's claiming history.
Human Rights campaigners could be easily appeased by requiring a judicial order for involuntary participation in the scheme.
What do other PBers think?
I have a long standing idea to package up said persons in batches of sub prime labour units to be leased pro bono to the Saudis on a 50yr term.
A one off transportation cost and ongoing savings.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/what-happened-to-labours-view-that-we-should-be-tough-on-the-causes-of-crime/
"What happened to Labour’s view that we should be tough on the causes of crime?"
" I’m surprised that the Labour Party hasn’t made more of the housing dimension in this sad case; but, then again, that would necessitate a more intelligent/honest approach to unused capacity in social housing.
Watching the welfare debate, it seems that the Labour party has forgotten all about Tony Blair – both his politics and his winning opportunism. It’s not stretching the imagination to think that the party might pay for its forgetfulness."
Maybe that's what Labour need. A Dean Swift.
Yes, Phillpot was a vile line of the specie. Yes he learnt and developed unsavoury habits. Yes he would have remained a foul possessive domineering bully without the benefit system.
However, if we had a sensible benefit system, he would not have had payments that enabled him to attain his position of control, power and monetary comfort that probably led to his insatiable greed. In his world view he had his rights to his childrens 'income' (provided to the state), and his rights were regardless of any responsibility.
Because he could do as he wished, he considered himself powerful, untouchable, and his actions that resulted in the loss of 6 lives indicate his unerring self belief. He had circumnavigated social workers, police, convictions and morality and was Lord of his own life. He believed in himself, as he was the centre, the focus and the purpose of his world.
It is all of us that allowed this to happen. It is us that allowed him to have 17 children, and therefore it is us that are responsible for the death of 6 children.
There is no way he is a typical benefits claimant, I don't think anyone with an iota of sense is suggesting that he is. He is an extreme example of how the system needs controls and rules that prevent the flagrant breech of the intention of the benefit system.
There is no right wing sewer (except in your mind). There is a legitimate discussion to have to prevent the abuse of the system by anyone who is on the Phillpot wing of humanity. It is the social responsibility of us all to acknowledge that we were wrong to allow the system to run out of control and create the support mechanism that allowed a criminal like Phillpot to put himself in his self deluded position of power and economic comfort. It is the social responsibility of us all to see that the resources of the state are spent on those who need it most, not on those who want to evade responsibility.
You and I are indeed responsible for failing those 6 children by our silence, apathy and willingness to accept the obvious wrongs that the system allowed to manifest in this case.
Any politician worth his or her salt would stand up and say there are failings highlighted by this case and strive to change them.
Never mind about legal minefields, Pulpy - Helium just floated home at Taunton! :-)
A pension after forty years of work? You mean you want to lower the pension age? Maybe you made a typo, but for sure with life expectancy inexorably rising and private pension-saving collapsing the pension age has to be increased faster than currently planned. That will probably be electoral suicide for which ever government does it but it has to happen.
Per The Times Budget tables:
Single person - Salary £10,000 - Net income £10,861
Single person with 2 children - Salary £10,000 - Net income £20,568
So having 2 children nets you an extra £9,707. Just £1,752 of that is Child Benefit. The remaining £7,955 is Child Tax Credits etc.
The figures are absolutely breathtaking. Why on earth should someone with two children get an extra £9,707? That's £187 per week. Does it cost £187 per week to feed and clothe two children?
The other aspect is that anyone with 2 children has almost no incentive at all to work unless they can earn a very high salary.
Single person with 2 children - Salary £30,000 - Net income £25,968
So earning an extra £20,000 gross salary (ie £30k instead of £10k) nets them an extra £5,400. So their tax rate from £10k to £30k is 73%.
tim's answer was that my argument was reasonable except it would reduce the birth rate and therefore require more immigration.
Surely we need clarity from politicians on this. Are we really just paying such generous benefits to keep the birth rate up?
Or do politicians really think you should get an extra £187 per week for having 2 children?
Does the public also think the right level of benefit for 2 children is £187 per week?
People who identify pensions as 'welfare' are looking at the problem the wrong way, and I reckon will pay a big political price.
Pensions are paid to people who are overwhelmingly law abiding and tax paying. They have paid into the system all their lives on the clear understanding they would receive something in return at the end.
Yes there is a political point to keeping pensioners happy. But there is surely a moral point too.
'Is it proposed to repay NI contributions to those whose housing benefit or council tax benefit is being cut? So why should pensioners be different?'
They are still receiving the benefit and no government (not even under Ed) would promise,that whatever the circumstances, to increase benefits at a fixed rate or in-line with inflation.
Pensioners have been forced by law to pay NI based on the promise that they will receive a state pension,if they have been paying under false pretenses then legally they would need to be repaid their contributions.
No! We are not all responsible, the person/people who set the fire are responsible, nobody else.
Here's the link - at salary of £10,000 you get £9,125 for 2 children!!!
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-no-childcosts.htm
Shows how careful you have to be doesn't it!!!!!
And you get even more if you have childcare costs!
"Insured persons should not feel the income for idleness...comes from a bottomless purse," he wrote.
Let us make benefits contingent upon the degree to which people have contributed. This is done in some other EC countries.
It is unarguable.
Annual income £10k - Tax credits = £9,125
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-no-childcosts.htm
Now I suspect there are issues of definition - some of that £9,125 may be a different type of Tax credit.
But bottom line is you get £9,125.
Baby eating would be a step too far for the Tories.
A twenty first century Dean Swift may help Ed fill his blank sheet of paper though.
The figures I posted were the net income you get if you have salary £10,000 and 2 children.
The link clearly shows you get tax credits of £9,125 and that does not include child benefit.
Here it is again.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-no-childcosts.htm
I am still awaiting your apology.
Sounds like my sub prime labour units to Saudi idea !
Glad to see you got on.
You lose all credibility if you don't have the guts to admit right now you've got this wrong.
HMRC website:
Income £10,000, two children, Tax credits = £9,125.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-no-childcosts.htm
TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNARGUABLE. OPEN THE LINK.
I'm sorry but the link I have provided is unarguable - it doesn't require a whole pile of form filling - everyone can see it with their own eyes - it says nothing about disabled children and it reconciles very closely to The Times tables (within £1,000).
But that appears to be the amount for 2 DAYS! - It says it is for 04/04/2013 until 05/04/2013.
Must confess it looks odd but that is what it says!
50.02 *7/2 = £175.07 per week = £9,104.
Are you sure it's £50.02 per week? It doesn't say so!!!!
The NEC will retify Euro Labour shortlists next week. So expect to have all full names at some point.
Well tim, what do you have to say?
Whilst I agree my original link implies maximum amounts it doesn't say anything about disabled children and I would be amazed if HMRC were publishing what would be an incredibly misleading table.
Lucy is getting figures in line with the original table.
Looks like the figures are indeed of an amount even you thought was unbelievable.
We could be in one of those sea change moments where we either see the polls shift or a new CotE.
"This calculator will give you an idea of how much you could get, based on the information you give.
The figure you see will be the total amount you could get between today's date and 5 April 2013."
It seems the £9200/year figure is the correct one.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/work-and-child/work-pay-childcare.htm
Sorry tim - you've tried to brush this off and I don't think the vast majority of people will believe you.
Lucy gets the figures I posted and the HMRC table says nothing about disabled children.
The vast majority of children are not disabled and it is not credible that the main table on HMRC website would assume disabled children.
The onus is on you to explain the HMRC figures. Lucy has confirmed them - for non-disabled children.
Based on EXACTLY what the calculator says it is £50.02 for TWO DAYS.
So I (and much more importantly HMRC) were right all along.
I hope your posts were in good faith tim (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but not surprisingly we have confirmation that the original HMRC link I posted was correct.
Just to remind everyone:
Annual income £10,000, 2 children, Tax credits = £9,125.
Which leaves us pondering- if even tim finds the amounts unbelievable then how on earth can they be justified?
Why would that be?
1) Main HMRC website table
2) HMRC calculator
3) The Times Budget tax / benefit tables
Then there would be council tax benefit and possibly housing benefit and childcare allowance - I didn't bother including claims for these elements.
Mr Osborne, who this week has been defending cuts to housing benefit and other welfare changes, said: "Philpott is responsible for these absolutely horrendous crimes and these are crimes that have shocked the nation; the courts are responsible for sentencing him.
"But I think there is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035
Is there anyone who could possibly call that 'playing politics the deaths of six children' with a straight face?
Why are Labour (a) blundering in with this ludicrous charge, and (b) not only that, but blundering in to defend the indefensible? Apart from the moral aspect, it is completely barmy politics. Do they really want to be seen to be on the side of the argument which says we shouldn't enquire how on earth we ended up with a system which has clearly been an absolute disaster in this case?
Labour's response is incomprehensible. Why not simply agree with both bits of what Osborne says?
If you look at page 19 of your own link, you will see the figure of £9130 tax credits (i.e. working tax credit plus child tax credits) for a 2-child family with an income of £10k in the 12/13 tax year.
Regarding the calculator you used : "This calculator will give you an idea of how much you could get, based on the information you give.
The figure you see will be the total amount you could get between today's date and 5 April 2013."
We have the same answer from 3 separate sources, Lucy has verified them and that is good enough for me and I'm sure 90% of people reading this.
You know the figures are breathtaking and that's why you are desperate to throw doubt on them.
As I say, 90% of people, at least, won't fall for this smokescreen.
The Tories are just like North Korea. All this rhetoric and no action.
The average claim is £3k because the "credits" are awarded on a slding scale, according to household income.
And no, it's not for disabled children.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/wtc2.pdf
Clearly our example on £10k hasn't got a full time job!
Someone on minimum wage working 40 hours per week would be getting £12875. Would their wage be made up to £19k under circumstances quoted? Or more?
He used the amount the ghastly man was allowed to squeeze out of the state to carry on with his lifestyle.. No-one was asking any questions.. He just got his money into his bank account.. That has to change...it is a legitimate question to ask how this money was disbursed and what checks the state were making.
Why did no-one check how much money he was getting?
Of course George is playing politics - he's a politician, as is Ed Balls and all those whining about it. It's about the only thing they're good at.
If the subject were on Labour's territory, they would be shroud-waving with a vengeance. As it is, they are now being hypocrites. Once you complain about somebody doing what we know you would do in the same circumstances, you've lost the argument.
Happy now tim?
Mark - please note the figures do not include Child Benefit which also needs to be allowed for.
My original post at 5.46pm makes this clear, ie
Single person (no children) - Salary £10,000 - Net income £10,861
ie Benefits of £1,245 less Tax / NI gives £861.
I do think this is a gift for the Tories and I do wonder how this was ever allowed to get so out of hand. (Unless of course I'm missing something)
What it means in many cases is that they are working more than 16 hours a week, that they pay little or no income tax and that their wage is then more than doubled by the tax payer. Put bluntly this "work" costs us a fortune.
Is it a price worth paying? That is more difficult. On balance it is better that people do something for their benefits, even if they are then much better remunerated than they would be for doing nothing. It is a better example for their children too and improves markedly their odds of contributing to society.
In an ideal world incentivising work in this way, even low value, part time, minimum wage work, is a good thing. The question we need to ask is how much of this good thing can we afford? A lot less than we have been paying is the obvious answer.
But remember it's not £19k - we were at £21k because you also need to allow for Child Benefit of £1,752 (which is in addition to Tax Credits).
It would be good for the country if the 3 main parties actually had a joint task force into the principle of capping claims at 2, 3 or 4 children, without touching those born before the starting date of the task force.
Cameron and IDS need to get on the TV and go through these figures I have posted this afternoon - over and over and over again.
They need to make sure everyone knows just how astonishingly generous these Tax Credits are.
It's a pity it's too late to do a test before you'd seen Osborne's words - we could have attributed them to a Labour politician, and asked for your reaction. I am 100% certain you'd have thought them prefectly measured and reasonable, for the very good reason that it is undeniable that they are perfectly measured and reasonable.
So, we abolish welfare because one evil childkiller abused the system, is that it? Or is a more reasoned response to say we need to get much, much tougher on those who abuse the system without penalising the vast majority who do not?
But they don't work full time SO. The table applies to couples who work 16 or more hours between them. One of Tim's valid points, also shown by the HMRC table, is that they suffer marginal tax rates of 70% until the benefit is withdrawn so, as MikeL says, increasing their salary by £20K makes them only about £5K better off. It is a valid point but it is also inevitable when people are really living on benefits, not on what they earn.
The incentive to work full time is therefore missing under the present system. That is certainly one of the areas that needs attention. The tax credits need to be less generous and then less severely tapered so there is a greater incentive for the recipient to earn more either by working longer or getting a better paying job.
What Cameron must do is say repeatedly how generous tax credits are.
Remember - I suggested the benefit cap on this website way, way before the Government announced it. Let's hope Dave is reading my advice again!!!