"we're all in this together"

[eFestivals]

So, the richest - those earning over £44k a year (more than twice the median average income) had been hit to the tune of £1Bn a year with child benefit cuts. This cut will affect about 15% of the population.

Meanwhile, over the weekend it leaked out that the disabled are to suffer cuts of £9.2Bn during this parliament - which totals up at over £2Bn a year in cuts for the disabled. This cut will affect about 10% of the population.

So despite being able to afford it the most the richest get the lightest cuts in what's been revealed so far.

But everything is fair about these cuts apparently, and "we're all in this together".

[jump]

I saw my grandparents over the weekend and they are pissed as hell as they're disables benifits are in threat.

Edited October 11, 2010 by jump

[oafc0000]

What more can you cut from the higher rate people ? They pretty much only get CB...

Edited October 11, 2010 by oafc0000

[Snufflebutt]

So, the richest - those earning over £44k a year (more than twice the median average income) had been hit to the tune of £1Bn a year with child benefit cuts. This cut will affect about 15% of the population.

Meanwhile, over the weekend it leaked out that the disabled are to suffer cuts of £9.2Bn during this parliament - which totals up at over £2Bn a year in cuts for the disabled. This cut will affect about 10% of the population.

So despite being able to afford it the most the richest get the lightest cuts in what's been revealed so far.

But everything is fair about these cuts apparently, and "we're all in this together".

[gratedenini]

Aye, on the face of it--it stinks doesn`t it.

But... can I put this in the ring..... "disabled"--when we use this term, it conjures up somebody who is proper incapacitated yeah?

And, for those in that position... they got to have whatever assistance needed..and more afaic.

Howvever, when I was in the car trade for instance... I spent some time on Motorcripilty.

And I`m telling yer... when I used to see people coming in and getting the cars.. the bastards were fitter than me!

End of yer little finger chopped off..new car. Colostomy bag on--new car. One ear...new car.

Honestly... the amount of "disabled" punters who needed the motor adapting becuase of their disablilty were very infrequent.

Also, I know directly of someone who is not really "disabled" as in they live a full life..and on the face of it, there doesn`t seem much wrong with em... but they get a bloody fortune in benefits.

If this is the area that the cuts will come from-- then thats ok by me.

On the other hand.. if we see services for disabled people cut as in these centres etc.. well I say REVOLUTION!!

den

[eFestivals]

What more can you cut from the higher rate people ? They pretty much only get CB...

For a start, kill off all of the 'hidden' (from people in general) things which have the average person on the higher tax rate paying a lower proportion of their income in tax than the lowest paid people.

Then hit the f**kers with a real implementation of higher tax rates, not too disimilar to those that existed at the end of the 70s: there is no god given right to earn shit loads more than people who work no less hard (and often a damned sight harder).

The financial crisis has been caused by tax rates and investment return rates all being screwy from what can be afforded long term. The balance between them all needs adjusting, so that the rich aren't continually getting richer while the poor get poorer - the richest need kneecapping and what they've stolen returned, and once that's been done things need to start again with something far more equitable.

Unless we do all of that, then it's definitely the case that they'll be another robbery by the rich where the poor get screwed again, sooner or later. If govts want to continue as things have been (and nothing looks like it's going to change) then ultimately it will end up with revolutions - yep, even in the UK.

[Josie's Cat]

Agree with Den, there is a lot of unfairness and blatant milking of the system which gets people's backs up and rightly so. If people are genuinely disabled they should continue to get hel and they probably will, but plenty of people just abuse the system and that's what irks a lot of people, and not just the Daily Mail readers.

It's also very emotive to say "the disabled will lose benefits" without quantifying what disabled means. It's not all going to be paralysed children made to work down the mines.

There will be some unfairness though but there is at present.

I think the winter fuel allowance should stay as a universal benefit. Vince Cable saying it was 'odd' that he recieves it - it's because you bloody well claim it.

And although the richest are only getting CB cut, they still do pay 40% or 50% tax, which must count for something?

[eFestivals]

If they are actually disabled, they'll still get incapacity benefit. But if they can work they'll be moved to JSA. Seems fair enough to me, but f**k knows how it will work in practice.

What classes as "actually disabled"? A qualified doctor saying "that person is too disabled to work", perhaps? And that's exactly how they've been classed as disabled.

Labour have already done the same thing - they've told doctors they they're wrong and have to move the goalposts, and now the ConDems are telling them that what Labour told them was wrong was wrong, and nowhere near harsh enough.

A financial basis is not any basis to decide who is disabled or not. Yes, it really is that simple.

[Cardboard Box City]

there is no god given right to earn shit loads more than people who work no less hard

[gratedenini]

A financial basis is not any basis to decide who is disabled or not. Yes, it really is that simple.

Edited October 11, 2010 by gratedenini

[dakyras]

I doubt the 'disabled' are really going to feel the £9.2b cut that hard.

[eFestivals]

Agree with Den, there is a lot of unfairness and blatant milking of the system which gets people's backs up and rightly so.

I don't really doubt this - but there's no way of identifying those people without it also hitting some of the genuine people too. After all, any 'scroungers' and the genuine are both identified as that under the same set of rules.

So how can you get at the 'scroungers' without also hitting the genuine? I can't see how it's possible.

The amount of benefit fraud is far lower than incompetence within the system, yet the idea keeps on getting pushed that people are 'scroungers', on the exact principle that people will react by saying "hit the scroungers" and then not complain when it hits far more.

The very fact that this much greater cut to those who in theory are in desperate need has caused almost no outcry whilst a cut on CB to those who are without doubt already privileged (cos they earn over twice the median average) gets to show how unfairly these "fair" cuts are being considered by the public - and the tories are exploiting this as much as they can.

And although the richest are only getting CB cut, they still do pay 40% or 50% tax, which must count for something?

Myth alert!!!!

1. they only pay tax at that rate on what they earn above £44k (despite that already being over twice the median average wage), not on all of what they earn.

2. in reality, on average, those in the higher tax bracket actually pay LESS of a percentage of their income in tax than those on the standard rate of tax. This is beyond dispute, even by the tories.

[eFestivals]

How do you define "work hard"? Who do you define as "rich" (as in a monetary figure that can be taxed)?

I once went to India. There's less than 1% of people in this country who could work as hard as the people I saw working there. Most wouldn't last even 10 minutes, let alone a day (including me). We've forgotten what hard work is.

Rich can be hard to class, but someone who earns over twice the median average wage of others is certainly rich to over 50% of the total population. So that's certainly every person who is ion the higher tax bracket.

Que oaf, to tell us all what a struggle it is to live on more than twice the amount of what over 50% of this country's population live on.

[eFestivals]

I doubt the 'disabled' are really going to feel the £9.2b cut that hard.

Really? But only last week the whole world was being told how difficult it would be for those who earn over double what 50+% of the population earn from them suffering a cut at a much lower level (about 30% of the cut to the disabled).

[eFestivals]

Apparently the difference between the two benefits is £25 per week.

I suppose the real question is can a disable person live on the same as an unemployed person ?

Should a disabled person receive more than a unemployed person ?

Bear in mind, modifications to someones home is covered by over benefits.

£25 a week! Wow!!! They must be eating takeaways every night and having 15 foriegn holidays a year.

What people forget is that the unemployed have a way out of living on benefits, so their lifetime income will be hugely more. The disabled - many who live on disabled benefits for all of their life - get only those benefits for all of their life, and thru no choice of their own.

[ampersand]

Barry Fish is oaf, right?

[ampersand]

Yup.. I fancied a rebrand

[jump]

did pogo's attempt not make you realise that it would be pointless? only i can pull off a name change

[eFestivals]

I am not really up for reducing disabled peoples benefits... I was just exploring the true impact the cut would have on a "disabled" person who could possibly look for work...

they might be able to look for work, but - in reality - who are their potential employers?

The reality is that very very few find employment outside of the public sector - the same public sector which already has essentially a recruitment freeze as a result of the £23Bn of Labour's cuts, before we get to the mass redundancies they'll be with the coming cuts.

You're an employer oaf, so please tell me how many individuals you've employed over the years. If it's been more than 9, on average you should have employed a disabled person as the tenth. Did you?

I'm not having a go - I'm simply demonstrating how most employers would swerve most disabled people, because it makes financial sense to do so.

[eFestivals]

I think we are side stepping my point here though. How much is this cut going to hurt ? Does a disabled person have a fundamental need for that extra £25 extra week ?

For most who don't have 'special needs' along with their disability, I guess it's probably the case that they could survive on dole-level money as well as someone on the dole could.

But as I've already pointed out, unlike the unemployed its not a scenario that will ever change for them. They won't go out and find a job and then be earning significantly more, they're stuck where they are forever.

Try imagining it this way: think of your very first job and how poorly you were probably paid for it (my first job I got £44 a week [dole was £28 a week at the time]). Then imagine NEVER having a pay rise from that level.

It's not something I'd wish on anyone.

Edited October 11, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It wouldn't cost a fortune to modify most buildings.

i'd guess at around 50% of an employees pay - and so that increases the cost of that employee by 50% for their first year.

So most employers would quite logically chose someone else instead.

[sifi]

Yup.. I fancied a rebrand

[eFestivals]

So the people who can NEVER work again should keep it at the current rate... And the ones who do have an opportunity to work again don't ?

Someone who currently can not stand comfortably for 30 mins gets the disability payment at the moment. But what is the problem with working in a call centre ? It is this sort of thing the ConDems are saying I think.

I don't really see a big problem with it as long as it is done sensibly... (although given the current record they will no doubt f**k it up)...

If each case were properly assessed on an individual basis then it wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

But that can't be done. This is govt, with legislation - which requires a set of arbitary rules that are applied to all people on an equal basis. And that means that for any scenario that's not explicitly written into those rules, it falls under a general rule - and no general rule is going to work for all, and any explicit rules for particular circumstances will be full of holes.

So the outcome will be no less flawed than what we already have, but while forcing many people that do fall under the 'not able to work' category in most right-minded people's minds to be classified as fit for work and everything that will come along with that (so destitution for some).

How many of the 'rich' will be left utterly destitute by having their CB removed?

[Paul ™]

But why Hairy Pish as a name?

[gratedenini]

I don't really doubt this - but there's no way of identifying those people without it also hitting some of the genuine people too. After all, any 'scroungers' and the genuine are both identified as that under the same set of rules.

So how can you get at the 'scroungers' without also hitting the genuine? I can't see how it's possible.

The amount of benefit fraud is far lower than incompetence within the system, yet the idea keeps on getting pushed that people are 'scroungers', on the exact principle that people will react by saying "hit the scroungers" and then not complain when it hits far more.

The very fact that this much greater cut to those who in theory are in desperate need has caused almost no outcry whilst a cut on CB to those who are without doubt already privileged (cos they earn over twice the median average) gets to show how unfairly these "fair" cuts are being considered by the public - and the tories are exploiting this as much as they.