[Closed] More trauma for the non working classes

They should be bloody grateful for what they get etc...

we* are all lazy parasitic scum and caused this economic recession (along with everything else bad) according to the tories.it's the least we deserve 😡

* i am on benefit myself (have been unemployed for a while).

They should be bloody grateful for what they get etc...

Its going to cause huge social breakdown in families and on estates, dwellings,as families move to cheaper parts, then theres the kids education as kids move schools and a huge knock on effect for landlords who suddenly find they have no tennants, and no way of paying the remortgaged bills.

Also to get 500 quid a week you need to earn 13 quid an hour over 39 hours.Wonder where those jobs are.

so this will impact 40,000 people. seems like a lot, but is it? what is that as a proportion of people on benefits?

I kind of agree with the cuts but dread the day i might have to sign on 🙁

It's the end of the world as we know it.

knock on effect for landlords who suddenly find they have no tennants, and no way of paying the remortgaged bills.

Doesn't bother me. The buy-to-let industry has artificially forced up house prices beyond the grasp of most first time buyers.

Good, I appreciate that not everyone who is jobless is a lazy gett but the ones who are just spending it on booze, Fags, and have 50 inch tv's and sky should have it cut. I have a half decent wage but some people work 60 hours a week and get less than the 350 quid benefit cap per week. As bad as it sounds it should be food vouchers a bus pass and small amount of cash for emergencies.

I used to have 80 a week for food and petrol after all my bills when I lived with my ex.

Flaperon - Member
knock on effect for landlords who suddenly find they have no tennants, and no way of paying the remortgaged bills.

Doesn't bother me. The buy-to-let industry has artificially forced up house prices beyond the grasp of most first time buyers.

+1 The sooner we can rename 'housing benefit' to 'landlord subsidy' the better.

So the cuts are going to REDUCE benefits to a maximum equivalent to a pre tax salary of £35,500 a year. Note reduce, I.e. come down from some where north if that.

And this is a problem how?

All this to save £110m?

geetee1972 - Member

So the cuts are going to REDUCE benefits to a maximum equivalent to a pre tax salary of £35,500 a year

Per couple + offspring, not per person. And remember that includes benefits which working people could also be entitled to- child benefit, housing support, etc.

as stated on the other thread if a certain person hadnt sold off all the council houses there'd be no need to channel all this cash via benefits to all these private landlords

Also to get 500 quid a week you need to earn 13 quid an hour over 39 hours.Wonder where those jobs are.

Full of hard working people providing for their families?

£500 a week in 2011 would put you at the 63rd percentile of household incomes in the UK

Seems stupid. If the amounts for each individual benefit are more than is needed, then reduce them as appropriate. If the amounts from individual benefits are appropriate then the households who are getting over this arbitrary limit obviously need that much money.

it depends how you define 'need' I guess.
need because that's how much it costs, or need because that's what the life they're to accustomed costs.

brakes - Member

£500 a week in 2011 would put you at the 63rd percentile of household incomes in the UK

According to the Children's Society, the average working household income is £31,500. Obviously you can choose different stat sets, got sauce?

lazy of me, but it was the first one that appeared on a search.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/datablog/2012/jun/22/household-incomes-compare ]Guardian article base on data from the institute of fiscal studies[/url]
I looked at the data spreadsheet that is attached to the article.

From ONS survey 2011

Key findings
In April 2011 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £501, up 0.4 per cent from £499 in 2010.
For men, full-time earnings were £539, up 0.2 per cent, compared with £445 for women, up 1.4 per cent.
Median gross weekly earnings for all employees were £404, the same as in 2010.
Median gross annual earnings for full-time employees (including those whose pay was affected by absence) were £26,200, an increase of 1.4 per cent from 2010.
Median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were highest in London at £651 and lowest in Northern Ireland at £451.
Between 2010 and 2011 the hourly earnings, excluding overtime, for full-time employees of the bottom decile grew by 0.1 per cent to £7.01 per hour, compared with growth of 1.8 per cent in the top decile to £26.75 per hour.

It's a nice calculator that- see what happens when you tell it you have kids?

The cap is said to be affecting 67000 households and 220000 kids. So, arbitrarily let's say an average of 3 kids, with 2 under 14 and one over, and spin that wheel again- you are now in the lower 22% and living on the edge of poverty (if you spin it again with 3 overr-14s, you are bottom 14% and officially In Poverty)

Course, it's all a wee bit meaningless due to geographical impact.

it depends how you define 'need' I guess.
need because that's how much it costs, or need because that's what the life they're to accustomed costs.

Well you set the individual benefits to whatever a person needs if they qualify (what it costs). Then you know that if a person/household qualifies for benefits that total more than the £26,000, then they need those benefits. This avoids having a stupid arbitrary cap, which in turn avoids potentially forcing a number (however small) of people into poverty just to please a few daily mail readers.

What surprised me is the size of the saving being talked of. Some say £110m, some say £51m over 3 years, but nobody is coming up with a massive number. That's only 11 Thatcher Funerals 😉

So, if it's not to save a stack of money, it must be to "help people work". Because there's no shortage of jobs, and everyone who isn't working, doesn't want to, and there's definitely not 23 applications for every single job on average.

it's an easy thing to do though isn't it? putting a limit on benefits is easy because you don't have to assess individual needs just do some research into what everyone else has and mark a line in the sand. simple to apply and simple to sell to the public. quick win.

actually are the government trying to sell this as a big thing? or did the opposition and press pick it up as a stick to beat them with.

Nicely put northwind. Why don't they save a few quid by scrapping working tax credit and forcing huge profit making companies like tesco that are subsidised by our taxes to make up for useless poorly waged contracts to make up a minimum wage. I work in a supermarket on a 33hr contract. It took ages to get to that. I keep asking for full time contract but never get. Meanwhile they keep bringing in new staff on shitter hrs thsn me! Made up for in tax credits. Load of crap. These companies can easily afford to give full time contracts. Acas says they could do zero hr contracts if they chose. Is this the choice you have if unskilled unemployed? Well great! I can see how benefits would be an alternative choice. These big companies can surely afford a living wage

I work in a supermarket on a 33hr contract. It took ages to get to that. I keep asking for full time contract but never get.

Get a proper job then. They are there if you look for them. How about this one ?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/15/trinity-mirror-simon-fox-pay ]Trinity Mirror boss Simon Fox awarded £1.2m in less than four months[/url]

I bet he won't be worrying about the bedroom tax, 'cause he's got a proper job - see ?

And with a job like that you get "golden hellos", and well as "golden handshakes", I'm not joking.
You also get a "golden how do you fancy a nice fat bonus this year" regularly too.

And you don't even need to be successful in business, failure is handsomely rewarded in the UK.

It sounds like a good idea to me.

Oh peasant - hoist by your own petard (or is that tailfeathers? whoops no, that's pheasant)........so if you 'agree with the cuts' but 'dread the day (you) might have to sign on', doesn't that just lead you to re-evaluate your support for the cuts then? Or is this masochism corner? I love right wingers - 'not in my back yard' etc.

doesn't that just lead you to re-evaluate your support for the cuts then? Or is this masochism corner?

It's a pretty standard attitude among those who willingly swallow right-wing rhetoric. Thatcher relied heavily on the "this will hurt but it's for my own good and I probably don't deserve better" attitude, throughout her premiership.

Also to get 500 quid a week you need to earn 13 quid an hour over 39 hours.Wonder where those jobs are.

Full of hard working people providing for their families?

And I wholeheartedly agree with Biscuit and flaperon, the only way I will ever be able to think of being able to afford a house is if a massive reduction in housing benefit forces BTL landlords to reduce the rent or sell up and starts to bring the price of FTB-type houses down. Housing benefit merely keeps the rental market high, beneifting landlords and no-one else. And these ludicrous schemes the government comes up with to 'help' FTBs with deposits an guarantees etc are totally counter-productive, they are keeping house prices high, which is exactly what FTBs don't want.

Many BTL's would probably sell but not at a loss, there is no way any government will actively try and reduce house prices despite any long term benefit as so many people in the middle/floating voter sector have too much invested in it.

More integrated social housing would be a start rather than whole estates so say if you want to be part of government schemes to help building 20% must be social housing available at cost to the local authority/housing associations.

As the single person income cap is set at £350/week which would take someone on the minimum wage 50-70 hrs to earn depending on how you are taxed. It's still fairly generous compared to working these days.

Flame me but, times are hard and those working have to support those that don't. Many working people have had salary sacrifices and many are working with less colleagues and there fore an increased workload.

In my very simplistic terms;

There's less money being made by the workers and so less being paid in taxes

Simple economics says that the government has to make cuts somewhere and it's seems appropriate that, if the workers of the country are feeling the pinch, so must the non workers.

People have always moved to seek work, now they may have to move to maintain their benefits lifestyle from a dear are to a cheaper one. Only like me moving to Kent from Liverpool for work when I was 23 and then to Lancashire when I was 29.

Not my choices, i did it because I had to if I wanted to work.

Not arsed about BTL landlords losing out, they took their chances and business is a risk.

Simple economics says that the government has to make cuts somewhere and it's seems appropriate that, if the workers of the country are feeling the pinch, so must the non workers.

This is about persecuting the poor rather than saving money. If they really cared about balancing the books they'd focus on corporate and individual tax avoidance from their milionaire chums....

according to the wealth of HMRC figures on the topic, the top 1% of all income taxpayers contributed a whopping 27% of all income tax that year.

By contrast, the bottom 50% of income taxpayers paid just over 11% of income tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17397199

There is undoubtably more to it.

Can't see why this is a problem. People whining that there's no work in their area? Bloody well move somewhere there is work then rather than sit on your arses complaining. That's what I've had to do on numerous occasions to get the right job and it hasn't killed me.

Or how about make your own work? Something like valeting cars or gardening is not rocket science. We struggled for years to find a reliable gardener who turned up when he said he would. The less easy it is to sit on benefits for these people the better. That way more benefits can be given to people who really need them like the disabled for example.

Although there may not be many of them, they have incomes which are so fantastically large, running into millions of pounds a year, that their individual income tax bills are huge too.

I think many people don't realise just how wealthy the super rich are. The 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, are now worth a combined £395.8 billion, equivalent to more than a third of the national debt.

It is quite unbelievable that during these difficult economic times just 1000 individuals, out of a population of over £60 million, should own the equivalent of more than a third of the national debt - it's the sort of inequality which you might have expected in the middle ages. It is however true.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8498759/Sunday-Times-Rich-List-2011-Fortunes-of-super-rich-soar.html ]The richest people in Britain have seen their fortunes soar by a fifth in the past year even as much of the UK is struggling to recover from the recession. [/url]

It is quite unbelievable that during these difficult economic times just 1000 individuals, out of a population of over £60 million, should own the equivalent of more than a third of the national debt - it's the sort of inequality which you might have expected in the middle ages. It is however true.

What you planning Ernie? Smash n grab raid, instant and random 50% tax on saving/worth? For a lot of those up there on the list the wealth will be on paper with things like Property, Art etc if you want to cash it in you need someone to buy it. Can't seem many in the market for a Rembrant these days especially if they will have to sell it to pay their tax bill.

For a lot of those up there on the list the wealth will be on paper with things like Property, Art etc if you want to cash it in you need someone to buy it. Can't seem many in the market for a Rembrant these days especially if they will have to sell it to pay their tax bill.

Yes of course. A stern letter to the Daily Telegraph pointing this out seems in order.

How dare they mislead their readers in such a way, eh ?

Separate issue, there are changes a foot to make super rich tax dodgers like say T Blair pay there share. That doesn't detract from this bill being the right thing to do.

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever, wouldn't expect it to go down well in some quarters of studentuniontrack world.

That doesn't detract from this bill being the right thing to do.

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever, wouldn't expect it to go down well in some quarters of studentuniontrack world.

Firstly it's not a bill, and secondly support for it is overwhelmingly based on uninformed opinion - the government and their friends in the Daily Mail, etc, have kept the public deliberately ignorant of the actual facts.

For example most people think that the benefit cap will mainly effect people who haven't got jobs, when it is pointed out that the majority of those affected are in work, then more oppose it than support it.

Deliberately misleading people on matters such as benefit system by papers like the Daily Mail is nothing new. If some quarters of "studentuniontrack world", as you like to call it, reject this misinformation, then it suggests that they are better informed.

It's amazing what a bit of debate and discussion can do, rather than relying on a newspaper to do your thinking for you.

IanW - Member

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever,

hussar! for the sun and daily mail readers!!!!!!!

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever,
hussar! for the sun and daily mail readers!!!!!!!

the not very bright ones

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever

Source?

I'm apparently a fluffy purple dragon called Colin. Fun, this.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]
It is quite unbelievable that [s]during these difficult economic times [/s] just 1000 individuals, out of a population of over £60 million, should own the equivalent of more than a third of the national debt -
FTFY

"It's apparently the most popular proposal ever"

Source?

To be fair he doesn't specify. He might have meant it is the most popular proposal ever at his local Conservative Association.

The sooner we can get all these scroungers into minimum wage, zero-hours contract jobs, the better.

Except the vast majority of the housing benefit bill is already being paid to exactly those people, not to ****less single mothers with huge tellies who are out on the razz every night. Still... capitalism dictates that as a society we need to subsidise both companies like Tesco not to pay a living wage, and those who own property. As a reward for owning property. Hurray for you. Well done!! 🙄

IanW - Member

It's apparently the most popular proposal ever,

Yes... with utter morons! Who like to be foaming-at-the-mouth with moral outrage at something that has absolutely no basis in fact

I think peoples attitudes may change somewhat when they see the actual reality of it, as opposed by the Shock Horror, politically motivated, tabloid fairy stories.

I think many people don't realise just how wealthy the super rich are. The 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, are now worth a combined £395.8 billion, equivalent to more than a third of the national debt.

And...? Who cares and what difference does it make? It has zero impact on the rest of us. Well OK not exactly zero since a lot of those wealth creators are creating jobs.

But other than that, I really couldn't care less, it's never stopped me from being happy or prosperous.

As for advocating cuts and then worrying about having to sign on, been there, seen it done it, twice now and the second time three months before the birth of my first child.

I'd still advocate limiting benefits.

I never for one moment saw JSA as anything other than a bonus. I have always made provision for the eventuality of being made redundant because it can happen to anyone. When you consider that the cost of that insurance was only the price of a monthly Sky subscription or a couple of hundred fags I wonder why more people don't have it.

rebel12 - Member

Can't see why this is a problem. People whining that there's no work in their area? Bloody well move somewhere there is work then

Yup, because it's dead easy to sell a house just now too. That's the best thing about recessions.

When you consider that the cost of that insurance was only the price of a monthly Sky subscription or a couple of hundred fags I wonder why more people don't have it.

So, do you think that earning minimum wage (£6.31 per hour, £5.03 per hour for the under 21's) would offer you ample opportunity to put something aside for a rainy day? Once you've paid all your bills?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you were earning a little bit more than that

Plus you can't get insurance if you're self employed or cover for existing medical conditions.....

You've fallen for the Conservatives strategy: Turn the middle classes against the poor so they don't notice that they're being ripped off subsidising the rich.

The cap is a good idea. Affording a tiny bedsit in many parts of central London is eye-watering for many workers. For multiple-bed rental on housing benefits the cost can be extortinate due to market forces etc.

Can these councils with high social costs really afford to subsidise big families?

They say it'll affect 600 families. Might not seem alot but I imagine in housing benefits alone (before the other benefits) the cost will be massive. We struggle to afford bills/mortgage/etc etc with ONE child. Not a chance we could even afford to live in central London.

As a society (and government) we have become too appeasing/willing to be seen to help/do the right thing when in reality there should be a balance. There isn't something for nothing. You have to work for it.

Thats my only post on the subject.

Of course, had Thatcher not sold off all the council houses, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place......

Thats my only post on the subject.

Do you promise?

[img] [/img]

£350/week?

Can someone please explain why it's even that high?
I worked for 24-25 years constantly yet when I was made redundant all I was entitled to was £71/wk for 6 months.

Northwind - Member

rebel12 - Member

Can't see why this is a problem. People whining that there's no work in their area? Bloody well move somewhere there is work then

Yup, because it's dead easy to sell a house just now too. That's the best thing about recessions.

The vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?

Can someone please explain why it's even that high?

There are lots of different allowances, allocated based on need eg number of dependant children etc. So the amount varies case by case....

The vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?

Yet, somewhat ironically, the housing benefit cap is forcing people out of London which - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - the vast majority of the jobs are. The benefits bill, as has been repeatedly stated here, is not going to the unemployed. It is going to make up the living costs of the low paid through tax credits and housing benefit. Why are you failing to grasp this?

This is a complex problem, for which the government is offering populist, simplistic, ideologically motivated tabloid-headline solutions. The other irony is that in conjunction with the bedroom tax, this is actually going to increase the housing benefit bill, by driving people out of (relatively cheap) council housing and into the far more expensive private rented sector. Which still has to be paid for by housing benefit

Landlords are going to make a killing though. And it'll re-inflate the buy-to-let market. Which is where the real motivation for these policies lies

[img] [/img]

The title:

More trauma for the non working classes

Ironic. The hardworking, honest grafter wouldn't be living willingly on benefits with a large family.

Binners are you saying you'd happily support a non-working family on benefits longterm to the tunes of thousands a month whilst you scrape by working fulltime? Would you be happy if your own council tax went up due to the extra burden on your councils finances?

Now... what did you say? You promised, now!

[img] [/img]

Binners are you saying you'd happily support a non-working family on benefits longterm to the tunes of thousands a month whilst you scrape by working fulltime? Would you be happy if your own council tax went up due to the extra burden on your councils finances?

Thats where the government wants you to think the benefits bill is going. And the tabloids have convinced the terminally incurious and gullible that this is the case. Its isn't. The benefits bill is going to the low paid (through housing benefit and tax credits) so they can then pay their rents to private landlords. Its basically a subsidy to property owners. Make no mistake. It is not the ****less unemployed that will be hit by this policy. Its the low paid. Who will be forced further into poverty. While saving us eff all money at all. But as stated... some people are about to make a killing

after a quick google PP it seems the majority of it is housing benefit and youd only get that if you and your parner are out of work and renting, i think you may get help paying the interest on your mortgage
*

so yup most of it seems to go to the landlords created by the thatcherite sell off and housing boom

* Im also currently out of work for the 1st time in 20 years and just getting my 70 quid a week

[i]Can someone please explain why it's even that high?
I worked for 24-25 years constantly yet when I was made redundant all I was entitled to was £71/wk for 6 months. [/i]

I'd stab a guess that your OH works.

Don't confuse these (headline) numbers, and now imagine that your OH didn't work and you lost your job. How much would you need to pay the basic bills (mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities, food etc) - this is where the £500/350 comes from (and includes CHB).

at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.

savings have to made everywhere costs have to rise.

some difficult bullets have to be bitten.. benifits is one and introducing a cap is reasonable.. equally the bedroom tax isnt unreasonable.. for sure there will be much publicised pain at the start as we re adjust our expectations. council housing was never intended to be for life and as the new system becomes part of the norm the way social housing is used will change to make it more accesable for those in need rather than union leaders and labour mps 'bed blocking'

as a tory voter im a little let down by call me dave. its shameful that the top rate of income tax has been put down, its bull that the opportunity to reduce mp numbers was fudged / ignored, and criminal that a fairer system of council tax based on the value at the most recent sale price was not implemented.

[i]at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.[/i]

Hmm, a bit like where my wife works - they have no money but spend billions...

Until I see them really hitting the problem - ie housing costs, its all fiddling with the margins.

at the end of the day the labour party cabinet minister best summed it up.. we have no money.

We can afford £10 million for a funeral though 😉

osbornes last budgets only discernable measure for growth was gambling on another housing boom, by offering state backed mortgages!!!!!! not excluding 2nd homes was a clear sign that they just want house sales regardless of the implications

edit
oh yeah he also cut corp. tax too

it worked well for ireland............

There's no actual economic growth, so Gideon is using taxpayers money to re-inflate the housing bubble to make it look like there is. When what the housing market desperately needs is a massive re-adjustment to what property is [i]actually [/i] worth

Hmmmmmmm.... making cheap credit readily available for [s]people who can't afford mortgages[/s] potential homeowners to buy property at the top of an overheated market? I'm not sure where, but I'm sure something similar has been done before. Was it in America? Does anyone know how it went?

Binners - you are correct to warn of the dangers of the tabloid press. But I would also extend this to the broadsheets. So on 1 April the Guardian leads with

[b]The day Britain changes[/b]: welfare reforms and coalition cuts take effect
A new world heaves into view this week with [b]sweeping changes in the fields of welfare, justice, health and tax[/b]

Now I assume that this was not an April Fool's joke as the subject is too serious. So Britain changed? Sweeping changes introduced? Hmmmm...

At least The Economist reported the same events with a little less drama and hyperbole ("Welfare Reform- [b]Chipping Away[/b]")

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21575778-sweeping-changes-welfare-system-many-them-loudly-opposed-are-less-radical-they

But its efforts are less revolutionary than billed. [b]They neither change the principles by which the welfare state operates nor the means by which it is funded. [/b]In many ways, Britain’s welfare system will carry on much the same, just with some nips and tucks....And the gains from the overhaul may be more modest than the hard-hearted rhetoric about prodding people off the sofa implies. Ministers are quietly edging away from the claim that their reforms will save money. Iain Duncan Smith, the welfare secretary, has conceded that the aim is merely to manage the rate of increase.

Honestly, those bl**dy Tories are evil. How dare they [s]cut[/s], sorry slow down the rate of increase in welfare. Good job they are not really radical like the Danes and the Germans.

binners - Member
When what the housing market desperately needs is a massive re-adjustment to what property is actually worth

Do you think the Tories should introduce a free-market solution? 😉

Per couple + offspring, not per person. And remember that includes benefits which working people could also be entitled to- child benefit, housing support, etc.

Housing support (never heard of it by that name) on £35k a year? When did this come in and how to I apply?

They know the current bubble house prices are the enormous elephant in the room but don't want to touch the subject as they know that falling house prices or even intimating that you think it would be beneficial, is guaranteed electoral poison.

As I read elsewhere, this government's housing policy can be best described as 'attempting to bring down the cost of housing, without affecting house prices'

Agreed thm. There's no real cost savings being made here. They know that. Witness the continuing revisions of the expected 'savings'. Down to zero eventually. I think its a safe bet that housing benefit bill will sky-rocket as a result of these policies

In the end, its just more of what the Tories always do. The redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. We're basically paying a subsidy to property owners

The shrewd investor would presently be buying really poor quality housing in the very worst areas, for peanuts. Ready for all these people driven out of the (now unaffordable) cities or any desirable area, and those looking for smaller properties because of the bedroom tax

We're about to see the re-emergence of the Slum Landlord in grand style. I'm sure the industrial-scale ones will show their gratitude with a suitable donation to party funds 😉

there will be a huge crash soon-- the quantative easing trick is coming home to roost-- inflation will take off-- leaving millions unable to pay their mortgage-- oh fun times ahead...

And when those people can't afford to pay the mortgages any longer, thanks to Gideons latest wheeze, the taxpayer will be directly on the hook for the losses, as [s]they[/s] [i]we[/i] will have funded the deposits

Once again, as with the banking crisis, the profits will remain in private hands, while the debt risk has been socialised and made the responsibility of the taxpayer

What could possibly go wrong?

binners - Member
And when those people can't afford to pay the mortgages any longer, thanks to Gideons latest wheeze, the taxpayer will be directly on the hook for the losses, as they we will have funded the deposits

Once again, as with the banking crisis, the profits will remain in private hands, while the debt risk has been socialised and made the responsibility of the taxpayer

What could possibly go wrong?

[Dave&George]Who cares, by then we'll be out and into the bank roles in the city that are waiting for us and it'll be somebody else's problem![/Dave&George]

Rudebwoy - dont you like QE? What does it do? It takes money away from those who have it (savers) and gives it to those who do not (debtors). It just hides the fact nicely, to make better headlines. And binners, surely this is taking money out of private hands (the savers) to pay down the debtors (mainly the government). Thats the whole point of financial repression.

So setting aside pensions for the moment - Which CMD and Gideon won't touch - the two biggest benefit cost are tax credits and housing benefits.

Tax Credits are basically a subsidy to the profits of businesses who can't or won't pay a living wage.

Housing Benefit is basically a subsidy to private landlords which actually makes the problem worse by artificially inflating the rental market and pushing up property prices for everyone.

So rather than deal with any of this the government would rather just attack the poor some more. Politically its a pretty shrewd move, the people they are targeting are hardly natural tory voters anyway and the Daily Mail brigade love a good attack on anybody weaker than themselves.

Morally its completely reprehensible, but I've not come to expect anything else form this government.

I dunno really thm. But sinking £120 billion of taxpayers money into something that looks dangerously similar to the whole Sub-prime debacle?

The government intends to lend to people whom the banks won't? Which will then drive property prices up again? In a market that still hasn't had a much needed readjustment? Should that not be setting alarm bells off all over the place? Have we really learned absolutely nothing?

thnm- printing money is going to do what exactly-- give an illusion of wealth-- you are right in the effect, but its only going to add to the pain that all those who can't liquidise their assets are going to suffer-- it will be presented as a worldwide problem , therefore absolving the govt of blame--

Good post richmtb.