Welfare cuts

[Foogirl]

successive labour governments, and labour governments previously have taken this view too. And we've always had a spent spend spend attitude to getting out of trouble. It doesn't work in my house, so why should it work for my country? The answer to a recession cannot surely be for more people to buy more stuff? The whole point is for the entire country to tighten their belts until we get to a level where our output matches our requirements, with things left over to export. Encouraging people to live within their means seems to be a dirty concept and yet that is what our government is trying to get the economy to do. Falsely inflating our economy by pumping more money in so more people can spend more is not the way to go as it is unsustainable.

Part of the cuts to benefit is actually an adjustment which I would say was long over due, the recession gives the government an excuse to do so without fearing being too unpopular. The same is true of government and council department cutbacks and efficiencies. If these had been done during the boom, we'd be in a better situation now but labour just kept adding spending to the mix without looking at efficiencies. It's always the way of governments and businesses. The company I work for went on an efficiency drive in the three years before the recession and as a result were protected from pay offs for about three years after our competitors had got rid of large numbers of staff and benefits.

The public sector is the biggest employer in the Uk but nobody has really assessed whether they should be. Do we need such a large public sector? The Answer might be yes, but it might well be no. I have to be honest and say when I've been seconded in to public sector organisations it irks me that they seem to have a problem with the cost of my services and yet when you add up the salaries of the three people I'm doing the work of, the hours they work to give the same output as me and throw in their protected pension contribution, I always work out to be the cheaper option. There is generally a public sector mindset and that also extends to contractors providing outsourced services (I'm thinking of construction projects here) that there is a bottomless pit of money.

I think generally attitudes have to change in our country, right across the board. Too many just want to concentrate on "what are YOU doing" to "What can I do". Again this was something our company chairman was keen to instill into our company and the change in culture has been immense.

 

[Natsku]

The point of increasing/not-decreasing benefits is not so people can buy more stuff but so that people still have enough money to live on. The poorest cannot tighten their belts any further.

How large is the public sector? Whether a big public sector is good or not is not something I've really thought about. Hmm should have a think about that.

 

[hayz_baby]

But if you look at what has happened to rail since it became privatised is IMO made us worse off. Not enough investment into rails and trains, excessive profits, and a rise in train fares 6/7 yrs by 8% higher than inflation ten fold. There's no real competition to change.

 

[Foogirl]

The public sector in scotland accounts for around 65% of employment. It is lower in the UK but still accounts for over 50% of the workforce. I'm certain it could be smaller.

I agree some of the privatised services may not be as effective as they could be but I would disagree they are worse than when they were under public ownership. I remember trains in the 80s and they were not a good experience. But just like with many other things I wouldn't blame the mechanism for the problems we are seeing. I think privatisation can work very well but there aren't enough checks and balances in place. My preferred option would be a not for profit private organisation run by business specialists rather than civil servants. Where profits were pumped back in to the business and subsidies are managed and tracked better against targets.

But I think the problem in the public sector is with administration rather than with services. Taking the NHS as an example it is unweildy and not fit for purpose back of house, which makes delivering the services very difficult for front end staff. Again this comes down to the administration being done by people who have no real experience in how to run a business.

I think "the poorest" represent a really small number. And "the poorest" are pretty much shielded from most of the cuts and in fact have been given additional tax breaks. Of course there are people living right on the breadline, but there are many more who are living a life they can't afford and that shouldn't be subsidised by a benefits system on a long term basis. The government are trying to make benefits a hand up rather than a hand out. Can anyone seriously defend someone claiming benefits of 26k a year when many working people don't earn anywhere near that? And that 26k is the cap. Prior to that the figure was much higher.

 

[Natsku]

Where did you find those figures? When I tried looking it up I got numbers varying between 19% and 24%.

The child poverty rate is pretty high in the UK, that suggests to me that the poorest aren't that small a minority.

What are the reasons for people claiming benefits that high though? Too high rents? Too high childcare costs? I don't agree with people on benefits making more money than people working a full time job but that answer is to make sure working people are better off not to make sure people in need are in even more need. Fix the root of the problem instead of making the victims suffer.

 

[Foogirl]

Where did you find those figures? When I tried looking it up I got numbers varying between 19% and 24%.

The child poverty rate is pretty high in the UK, that suggests to me that the poorest aren't that small a minority.

What are the reasons for people claiming benefits that high though? Too high rents? Too high childcare costs? I don't agree with people on benefits making more money than people working a full time job but that answer is to make sure working people are better off not to make sure people in need are in even more need. Fix the root of the problem instead of making the victims suffer.

The figures were given by the SNP when talking about independence. I think it can depend on how you view the figures e.g contracted out services are not counted in "employment" figures and represent a large number of workers. For example our bin men are considered to be employed in the private sector rather than the public sector. But these are still people providing public services.

I have no idea why anyone is claiming 26k in benefits. Bear in mind this figure is a reduction and previously its possible to claim much more than that, even during the times when jobs were plentiful. If you need 26k to live then you need to get a job, or move somewhere cheaper, its that simple IMO.

I totally agree that finding jobs for people and getting them in to work is a better solution. That's why I say increasing childcare subsidies is an investment where benefits are not. Much of the last budget was about putting money where it helps with job creation.

This whole thread is really bothering me now as I look as if I am defending the tories! I'm really not and I'm not a fan of our prime minister, I just think what they are doing is better than the alternative that Labour are proposing - but to be honest, we're in the shit for a few years no matter which way it is done.

 

[Natsku]

I think the figures to go by should be the ones that measure just the people employed by the public sector as contracts put out to the private sector are definitely private sector even though they are providing a public service.

How are people supposed to move if they are on benefits? You need to have money for deposits and moving costs and most people on benefits wouldn't be able to afford that. Unless you're saying they should move in with parents/family?

Yeah its going to be shit for a few years everywhere I expect, just the way it is after a recession. I'm wondering now what Finland did when it had the recession in the early 90s (was a really bad one because of the collapse of the SU) because it came back pretty good. I shall have to look that up.

 

[Foogirl]

I think the figures to go by should be the ones that measure just the people employed by the public sector as contracts put out to the private sector are definitely private sector even though they are providing a public service.

How are people supposed to move if they are on benefits? You need to have money for deposits and moving costs and most people on benefits wouldn't be able to afford that. Unless you're saying they should move in with parents/family?

Yeah its going to be shit for a few years everywhere I expect, just the way it is after a recession. I'm wondering now what Finland did when it had the recession in the early 90s (was a really bad one because of the collapse of the SU) because it came back pretty good. I shall have to look that up.

I disagree because the public sector is paying companies for those services and I think it gives a skewed impression of what the public sector needs to operate efficiently. Dinner ladies, education assistants, hospital cleaners and auxiliaries, bin men these are all public sector jobs, paid for by the public sector, no matter how they are paid. If you take them out of the equation, and lets say the council then decides to outsource everything, as does the NHS, then you'd be saying nobody is employed in the public sector. I would take your point if these services were paid for directly by the end users to the company who provides the service, but when a council hands money to that company, those jobs are public sector.

People can always afford to move somewhere. People who earn less than 26k move all the time. It doesn't have to cost a fortune. I've moved dozens of times in my life and most of those have been on a shoestring budget. And why the hell not move in with friends or family, I've had to do that in my lifetime and would do so again in the future if I run out of money. As I said, it is a change of attitudes and mindsets that is required. Sure some people might genuinely have no option, but that number would be very low and it irritates me that people will always come up with excuse after excuse as to why the welfare system should subsidise their own lifestyle whilst most of us have to change our circumstances when finances dictate it.

 

[Natsku]

You've got a point there about outsourcing, I didn't think of it that way.

Thats not true, people can't always afford to move, some people literally do not have anything left after basic living needs. I agree that moving in with family or friends should be considered a viable option but not everyone has family or friends that they can move in with. Just because you managed to do the things you did does not mean that everyone can. When it comes to affording to live then it doesn't matter how small the minority is - no one should have to choose between vital living expenses and moving for better prospects.

 

[Foogirl]

You've got a point there about outsourcing, I didn't think of it that way.

Thats not true, people can't always afford to move, some people literally do not have anything left after basic living needs. I agree that moving in with family or friends should be considered a viable option but not everyone has family or friends that they can move in with. Just because you managed to do the things you did does not mean that everyone can. When it comes to affording to live then it doesn't matter how small the minority is - no one should have to choose between vital living expenses and moving for better prospects.

Yes but those people are not the ones being affected by these cuts. And those people will be able to access other services which can help. There are crisis loans, there are grants, there are charities. Most housing associations, and councils have a system where they will pay deposits directly to landlords when tenants are to be on housing benefits. I see no point in enabling many to live this subsidised life with no effort on there part, to protect the few. I also see no point in simply throwing benefits at those people because what will that solve in the long term? A family living hand to mouth on 26k need help to manage better and need to be given a prospect of coming off those benefits.

I'm aware that not everyone has the same life I have, but i do think many, many more people can help themselves and I don't believe the benefits system should stop them from doing so.

 

[Natsku]

Charities should never be considered an alternative to welfare.

We agree on what is needed (that people that can, should be coming off benefits) but we just disagree on the method. As long as the method works without harming people then I think its all good. I also think that there will always be a small percentage of people that do not want to and never will work a legal job and society has the option of providing them with benefits or providing them with a prison cell - which one will cost us more?

 

[Foogirl]

Charities are very often considered an alternative to welfare in the UK and many of them receive government funding because of it. Quite a few of the disability services we receive are charitable, one which specifically is funded by the government to provide specialised care. It's just another form of privatisation. The government contracts out services to these charities.

I also don't think the choice should be welfare or prison. If someone is at that stage then we've failed them long before now.

 

[Natsku]

I don't think that charities should be considered an alternative. I really think that welfare is something that absolutely should not be privatised as it increases the chances of someone falling through the cracks.

Well that is true, they have been failed long ago, whether by their parents or society but how do we fix that? Real equality in education (no more big differences in quality of schools), in starting out in life (not sure how that can be achieved, more help for people at risk of unemployment maybe?) would be a help but even then I think there will still be those people.

 

[hayz_baby]

An education in budgeting may help? For some people they just "don't get it" and there is often a too heavily reliance on expecting the bank to budget for you. When it should b u your money, you bank account your responsibility. I work in and have work in other banks to see this happen to often many people will spend and spend and then when they go over blame the bank. You spent it not us. Some people will see £100 and not think of the direct debit coming out in a few days. Or get into a spiral of charges where they get charged then spend all their money the another charge comes out taking them under and so on. Accept the loss and budget for it. Knowing what is in your acc and in today's world of app banking it's so easy.i check our accounts everyday, we never even go into our overdraft. I know I have bills set on certain days and budget accordingly (my Internet comes out like the day before pay day and the dd can't b changed) I always ensure I have the money for that.

 

[Foogirl]

The introduction of financial education to schools should help with that.

 

[Natsku]

That should help.

 

[kit10grl]

The introduction of financial education to schools should help with that.

That's actually a really good idea. I know I'm not particularly good at that although much better now. This would have really prepared me for my first flat aged 18 straight out of school

 

[pinkpolkadot]

The introduction of financial education to schools should help with that.

I do agree with this