Am I Missing Something?

From a BBC magazine article

Job-hunting IT worker Christian Romane, 53, lives in a bedsit in leafy Earl's Court, west London, with £125 a week in housing benefits
"At the moment I spend 40 hours a week looking for work, but if these changes go through that would stop.
To make up the shortfall in rent I'd have to cancel my broadband so it would be harder to search for jobs and keep up my IT skills. I have no other spare funds - as it is I get by on one meal a day right now.
I could move further out of London, but most of the work I'm looking for is in the city and the increased transport costs mean I'd be no better off.
I've lived here for 20 years, this is my home. It doesn't seem fair that I could be thrown out because of a political decision."

Now, I may be missing something vital about the policy, so feel free to weigh in - but the lowest cap is £290 for a flat

He's getting less than half that...why would it be cut? He's getting £6,500 a year to live in a bedsit

Maybe I am missing something obvious - but nowhere in that article does it point out why a person getting this modest amount would be hit - the only change mentioned is the cap, as always - as far as I'm aware he's well under it and shouldn't be affected, the BBC should explain the reason here

On Yer Bike

What is so wrong with the concept of 'on yer bike' (Tebbitt never actually said it)

The broad idea is that if there isn't work where you live, go and look for it - this has in IDS' terms become related to fairly simple commuting to nearby towns, not even upping sticks

Jeremy Vine is currently talking about Welsh people from Swansea or the famously deprived Methyr Tydfil getting, shock horror, a 50 minute bus ride to Cardiff

The irony strikes me that the poor must have jobs on their doorsteps, but no one bats an eyelid that the 'wealthy' in the south east have to sit on the M25 for an hour or catch a 7.05 train to London

I happen to live by the busiest commuter line in the country (Cambridge-London), it carries thousands every morning into King's Cross and Liverpool St, and if you've ever been on one of these trains you would know that you will not get a seat 9 times out of 10 - people in business suits crammed in reading their iphones while standing, some sit on the floor in their suits - it is not a pleasant experience

I admit the pay accommodates this, we're not talking min wage, but most of these people are not paid masses (check the slightly later trains for them), and train fares are thousands a year, so much that my commuter friends have loans for them - these people are getting on their bikes every day, and my other friends have either moved into London, or commute to nearby big towns - none work where they live or grew up, and nor do they all work in offices being paid well (some do), I refuse to be a commuter and in turn am paid worse - every day workers are expected to get on their metaphorical bikes, but the unemployed can't?

Job Centres even pay for travel to interviews this sort of distance - so why are they so loathe to move? They say low wages don't make up for the transport (a bus ride is probably an hour's pay of each day at most), but welcome to the real world - thousands of pounds a year to commute either by train or car will see you lose masses of your salary, let alone taxation, people don't want to pay this - but they have to!

Most people do not think it is right to claim benefit and do not weigh their benefits against employment - if I could claim more on benefit than my salary I would still work, because I had a job and that's my money, benefits are not another form of income

And what is so wrong with moving? As I've said, I have friends who moved to London for fairly humble work, I even used to have a teacher from Methyr who railed against those who refused to leave, I know fairly well to do people who became very hard up - they moved, in a period of less than five years, down to Dorset, then to Sussex and finally to Suffolk chasing whatever jobs they could find - Polish immigrants are, fairly obviously, moving from their homes in search of work, we were doing it centuries ago, as the poor rural workers headed to the cities for work, and we still do - there is simply a small group who refuse to accept this notion (I admit that local government may hinder this, and it should be reformed)

This issue about it being more profitable to not work should not even come about - it's wrong, and clearly people don't appreciate that, having grown up on it probably, so the government should cut benefit to non-workers - it should always be better to work than sit on your arse, people seem to forget that those who work are putting themselves through hardship, paying for everything themselves, waking up at 7am, maybe getting home after 6pm after spending the whole day at a desk, or whatever, and they have to pay for everything themselves, probably about a fifth of their earnings on getting there in the first place!

Meanwhile people who do nothing to get their own money whinge when it is cut - not realising that they get to stay at home all day, which workers would love to be able to do - see the kids more, do the housework, cook more etc

I don't mind state support - but it is not a lifestyle choice, so I think it is right that the government want to cap benefits, and I also agree with 'on yer bike' - we all bloody do it! Do not provide free houses to non-workers, do not give them unlimited pay cheques, but limit it to a year or two and then on reduce it to a very basic level - use the savings made for other incentives, subsidise transport, subsidise rent and pay benefits to those on minimum wage, who truly are the ones suffering - do not pay people to stay unemployed, who say it costs more to work!

*This was meant to be a short and concise rant...oops

Best BBC Graph Ever

This is the 'savage' spending cuts in relative terms

As reported on the BBC ten o'clock news, by Stephanie Flanders

This is the truth, note the rise into a almost vertical incline after 2000, when Labour abandoned the previous Tory government's spending model and pumped huge amounts into the public sector, much of it the NHS

Does that look sustainable to you? Does it even look sensible? No - every post-war government, even the two Labour ones, has had to keep the constant rise in spending in line with economic growth - as shown by the broad trend, that rule was absolutely demolished in the past decade - to claw spending back to 2006/07 levels is moderate, even tame

I've known this for a long time, as these figures have been all over the right-wing blogosphere, I am no economist but people like Guido, the Taxpayers Alliance and others have all made the point that these are barely spending cuts, but reigning in the rise in spending, depending on inflation

This is the first time I've seen this graphic interpretation on any major broadcaster, and frankly it's about time - we can talk about the impact of the cuts, but this is the actual reason for them, and it really helps to show why we need them, and this rather dents the anti-BBC lot's case

The real issue is - why is essentially a clawing back of roughly 4% to the expenditure level of three years ago so bloody destructive? We're talking about a snip of money that simply wasn't there four years ago, and yet we're losing 25,000 MoD staff and god knows how many more public sector workers*

Not that I'm against reigning in the public sector, but it seems rather a lot for what is a relatively small cut - I know some is about future spending commitments, and it's over five years, but I can't help feeling it's a bit... inefficient, and it's the waste that's most important to cut, and I also can't help thinking that ring-fencing the NHS was a costly political manoeuvre

*though I may be underestimating the rise in the public sector workforce

What Cuts?

I keep seeing (sob) stories on the news, and newsnight, various other articles about how this and that will suffer from 'cuts'

Exactly what cuts are these? As far as I'm aware, the spending review is still days away, people are assuming everything is going to lose funding, including healthcare (Newsnight participant), and it's all the good stuff the police do, 'how I need my benefits' yadda yadda

All very well - but I don't see why good programmes need to be cut - the government spending plan will not even be cutting expenditure, as highlighted by Guido, among others, merely reduce the rise in spending to nearly zero with inflation adjusted (even Thatcher only 'cut' in real term spending in one year) and for years we have been going on about waste and inefficiency - as soon as they announce what is effectively a balancing of the books, all spending is good!

Fact is, we have debt, we pay interest on that debt, it is good to not have to use our tax revenue to pay said interest - therefore we are either spending too much, or need to raise more

We need to decide in a grown-up way what we can do without - unfortunately everyone seems to have jumped the gun and believes the welfare state will no longer exist in a few years

This is despite the fact most cuts will come from general budgets - it is up to the budget holders, often the local government, government agency or whatever bureaucratic authority it is, to decide what to spend, what is necessary and what is not - this is common sense for any institution, whether private or public, or indeed personal, when available money shrinks

Cutting everything across the board, and for political gain, is not - it'll just make the situation worse, and for what it's worth the reverse, which is 'ring-fencing' the bloated NHS, which everyone thinks is wasteful, but wants, was a weak, if politically necessary, move

Nobody, except the media and Labour are saying all this will happen...

'Equality'

So apparently Trevor Philips is still about, being paid by the rather frivolous 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' to tell us:

'The commission said that on average women earned 16% less than men, widening to 27% for women aged 40'

An average, widening in the older groups...I'm shocked - does this mean it's narrowing in the young?

'When it came to pay, the report said that the gender pay gap was lowest for the under 30s, rising more than five-fold by the time workers reached 40'

Hang on - five-fold? Does that mean it's roughly equivalent to a measly 5% in young people?

I've said before that to compare older workers is ridiculous when there is nothing you can do about their educational prospects thirty years ago - instead what we have is females being given massive advantages to even out the figures, which does nothing for older 'unequal' women, and creates real, state-sponsored inequality in the education and employment sectors

Among other equality issues, it said that girls of all ethnic backgrounds outperformed boys in education.

Essentially they offset older women being held back by deliberately holding young men back, this is 'equality'

Other gems include: 'while one in five people lived in a household with less than 60% of average income.'

Really - 20% live in households more than 40% away from the average? As streams of people have said before - it's relative! If they earned more the average would in turn be higher! The only way of ever lifting people out of 'relative poverty' is to pay everyone the same

Mr Phillips said: "This review holds up the mirror to fairness in Britain. It is the most complete picture of its kind ever compiled.
"It shows that we are a people who have moved light years in our attitudes to all kinds of human difference, and in our desire to be a truly fair society, but that we are still a country where our achievements haven't yet caught up with our aspirations."

Is that code for: we can't catch up with the inequality of generations past? Or is he just bleating that we still haven't met the targets, and reality be damned

There 70 million of cuts right there (operational costs - £175k per employee, nearly twice that of the NHS)

In other news - people who are (about) my age are idiots, they think that of all cuts benefits Jobseekers' Allowance should be cut, many of whom said by 'a lot' - are they aware how tiny JSA is? It's a pittance, equivalent to less than a day's work a week and is heavily restricted - the real benefit money is in housing and income support, not counting disability

However, they did also support benefit capping (again, showing this cap is actually a good, popular idea, despite the Labour howls), but christ..cut the dole - to what? Zero?

Looking forward to 'the cuts' next week...

Punishing bigger families?

Now, while I can see inherent problems of fairness with the child benefit cut (yawn) - I do not have any issue with capping a family benefits at 26,000, or rather a 'salary' of 35k

What is wrong with this? That's a pretty nice amount to live on for an earner, why should someone on benefits take more when most workers will earn less?

I perfectly agree with helping people at the bottom - I don't people to be trapped in poverty, but I also want work to pay - this principally involves big tax cuts at the bottom and probable tax rises at the top (sorry), not giving massive hand-outs to people who don't, or won't, work, I do agree with benefits, supplements, tax breaks, but not funding a lifestyle that is actually better than the poor saps who work in the worst jobs can afford - that is not 'fair'

So capping benefits at a very reasonable level, seems rather appropriate to me

The only argument against this is that it hits large families, as your benefit won't keep going up as you pop out more dependants

But I'd like someone to explain to me, why it should keep going up with the amount of kids you have? - 35k is a decent amount for a typical family, and they do not get a salary rise with every kid - they budget, if they have nine kids on a salary of 35k that's their own fault...but if they are on benefit and not working, they should have their rising number of kids paid for by the state?

That's both unfair and economic madness - taxpayers do not get paid for children (except CB of course...), but major benefit claimants do - they are not subject to the same restrictions to those who actually work and live within their own means

I have every sympathy for the poor, but I don't see why they apparently have a right to reproduce ad infinitum, when the rest of us don't

Give them a salary and let them stick to it, like we do!

(also: for Diane Abbott's rather tetchy response that it punishes the ones who are already born - just make it a new contract, applies to children born after X date - then it's parents' own fault for their declining standard of living)

83%

Anyone would think the media types somewhat over-represent those top rate tax payers...

Yougov have produced a poll that shows 83% are in favour of this cut (sorry no reliable link)

Roughly 15% pay higher rate tax...

Yet the journalists harp on about it, when any chump could tell you the whingers are actually very few in number, even if they are very vocal on the BBC forums

Clearly, they're overpaying the journalists

I think we all agree it unfair on some level, but it's hard to have sympathy for people who earn enough to have the choice to not work and the unfairness is mostly theoretical - affecting I would bet, a few thousand lucky sods

I've seen the gripes about how these people 'can't afford it' - yes, you can, love, because I've been there and grew up on rather a lot less, and the rest of us do not even have the choice - they can whinge about two earners but the whole point is those two earners need to work, therefore you are better off in the first place!

I'm not saying you're 'rich' - but you're blind to the fact that you have the luxury of choice, which the vast majority of us don't, so welcome to our world!

They are whingeing about a benefit cut to the wealthiest earners in society, while benefits to the poorest (deserving or not) are being cut at the same time - the fact is you cannot cut an expenditure without it hurting someone

I think I've boiled it down to a simple point:

We don't 'need' a universal child benefit, we don't have a sole breadwinner model anymore and the system is not designed to prop up the housewife model (nor does it) - it's a token from a bygone age, the problem people have is that they are losing money - which we all hate, but if you never have it, you can't miss it - a BBC documentary on high earners pointed out that wealthy GPs were living hand to mouth because of their mortgages, cars etc - when we have it, we spend it

doesn't mean we 'need' it

Are you really that pissed off?

The media are having great fun with this child benefit cut

The lefties naturally oppose any cut (despite it being against high earners...) and the Mail who usually rail against benefits, despise the cutting of middle-class benefits - so nobody's happy

But I have to ask - is it really that bad?

The Tories, and many supporters, will admit it's ridiculous to pay the wealthiest people (e.g. David Cameron, who can claim £2,500 if he chooses) benefits - and I point to the decent tax breaks in their stead being a far more sensible option than taxing and repaying the middle classes

So why is twenty quid a week so important? Everyone, including families (particularly at the bottom), will have gained hundreds in tax breaks by 2013, so what if we cut off the top 15% from a fairly minor benefit?

We have a huge welfare bill, and a small chop from those who can probably afford it, seems very reasonable to me

There are some notable problems, I admit - the main one being that a family can earn 35 grand twice and keep it, while a sole earner on 50 cannot, thus penalising stay-at-home-mother families

However, how many are being hit by this 'rough justice' as Philip Hammond put it? As he pointed out - the median earnings for a couple both under 44 grand is only 46, while sole earners were in the seventies

In short, just how many people are at the bottom end of this scale - i.e. sole income families earning around 45k? The stats show that the very few people who do live off one wage these days need a little bit more than the higher rate threshold anyway - you will always find people who do exceedingly well from a situation, and those who get caught out quite badly - that's the Mail's job

But as long as it remains a few this is a rather painless cut to the vast majority of people, and is highly unlikely to put anyone into poverty, if it does, I apologise, but I'll take the risk

I agree it's in principle unfair, and a few will benefit to the detriment of others - but the fact is the PAYE system is much, much easier to base this on than means testing all claimants, and therefore more cost-effective - I challenge you to work out a simple way of cutting an unnecessary benefit while keeping it totally fair

I agree it is against traditional Tory principles, they support stay at home mothers, but that's their problem, not mine, I think that's a more philosophical debate for them, for the rest of us however, it will have a tiny impact on families who can largely afford it

Likewise, the 'universality' line they used in the election is going to come back and bite them, because it is a break - they can claim they didn't win the election but who seriously believes this one was caused by the Liberals? They should be cutting extravagant benefits anyway - get some balls, and don't lie in your manifesto (it's not technically lying if you don't win...)

It's a few grand (tops), to those who are paying higher rate tax - I bloody wish I was paying higher rate tax...

Also, I must take issue with the man in the Newsnight crowd who claimed it went against aspirational values - i.e. people wouldn't aspire to earn 44k because they might lose a benefit of 20 quid a week

Does he not understand maths? If they are aspirational, all they have to aspire to is 47k before they wipe out the perceived loss (dependent on number of kids) and they are back in 'aspiring' territory - do people just get to the threshold and sit there forever more?

With the increase in the tax threshold and allowances we are getting a good deal for losing a bit at the top end - it's unlikely people are going to be worse off in general when you look at the overall picture of taxation, so I think this is a perfectly fair, and rational, decision

In my mind (though I doubt anyone else's), surely the Lib Dems are doing well here - without them we wouldn't have got the big increases in the allowance, and with them this wouldn't have been cut - I doubt anyone will note that they're the ones with the popular policies, however

Also this 'no families on more than 26k of benefits' needs some fleshing out - is that 'every' benefit? And how do you keep tabs on all the various payments made?

I agree it needs doing (and frankly 26k is too high), but it's going to be bloody difficult when you consider housing costs in certain areas (as Nick Robinson points out)

But this is way more fun than the sodding Labour soap opera

Update: The BBC are using 'human' stories from the people to point out the flaws (which are obvious)

'Trisha' from Hertfordshire claimed it was the only income she gets - right, besides the 44k+ that you get from your husband/partner?

Let's break that down - you are 'earning' £20 or £34 (average number of kids is two) a week, this is what? Spending money? That's not even a weekly grocery shop! Meanwhile, post tax your family earns roughly £610 a week minimum - otherwise equivalent to £2,500 a month against £130 (and that's minimum)

In no one's world is this your sole income, it's nice to get money but do you really need it? I am working on highly conservative estimates here, and while all cash is nice it is not an 'income' - it's a small supplement

Is Trisha's hubby getting 45k? Or is he getting more, like, say an MP? (I'd be interested to know where we draw the 'fair' line) And by 2013 will her kids be at school and will she be able to balance her budget so that this two grand a year fall in revenue can be expected, seeing as it's announced nearly three years in advance

Get a grip, people