Benefits blitzed?

11:39am Thursday 31st January 2013 in Letters By Reader's letter

THE sheer gall of Coun Ian Cuthbertson is simply breathtaking in suggesting the Government should be immune from criticism over the 20 per cent-plus cuts to working-age claimants of council tax benefit (Letters, January 25).

The Lib Dems have presided over the biggest decimation of welfare since 1945. Tax credits and child benefit have been frozen, the childcare component reduced, working-tax credit hours increased, housing benefit cut from 50 per cent to 30 per cent of private rents and in April the bedroom tax will be introduced. And benefit rates capped at one per cent.

The change to Disability Living Allowance will remove the lower rate care element; not to speak of the halving of disabled children’s benefit. What about the drastic reduction to the social fund to 2005 levels or the abolition of EMA? Perhaps Coun Cuthbertson would like to comment on the trebling of tuition fees?

There are alternatives. The upper earnings limit on NI saves higher-rate taxpayers £11 billion a year, while the lower 45p higher tax rate will cost £3 billion. We can also look at higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions.

RKM Bridge, Holgate Road, York.

Comments(5)

andyjon12 says...
3:40pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Having spoken to someone at the Council, I can confirm that the council tax benefit cuts in York are in fact going to be 30% to each and every council tax claimant. Furthermore, future funding from central government to cover the new council tax support scheme will be reduced year on year, it would have been bad enough if it only increased in line with inflation. However, I'm astonished to learn that future central government funding will not even remain at the current level for 2013/2014. The funding will be reduced each and every year. This represents a double whammy for thousands of unsuspecting York residents. Also, it should be noted that York Council s in the minority in implementing a 30% rise. Finally, I can;t figure out why the Council chose not to cap the rise at 8.5% for each claimant, which would have allowed them to receive more funding from central government from a discretionary fund set up for this purpose?

Report this post »

andyjon12 says...
6:54pm Thu 31 Jan 13

We could also look at a land tax or a mansion tax and not to mention raising corporation tax. These measures would generate billions.

Report this post »

ak7274 says...
8:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Corporation would be unlikely to bring in more revenue as companies would move paper about and register in a lesser tax Country.

Removing the upper limit on NI contributions however would be a good thing as it won't have a large effect on Companies profits.

The way government is attempting to vilify the less fortunate is a disgrace and I condemn them for it.

I am all for naming, shaming and reducing the incomes drastically for the shirkers , but the stereotyping of anyone who needs help as scroungers is shameful.

We must all tighten our belts and that must include the social budget, but slash and burn?..........shame on the Government for doing this.

Report this post »

andyjon12 says...
8:59pm Thu 31 Jan 13

From memory, I think the UK spends slightly less than 200 Billion pounds per year on social security, of which only 3% goes on JSA awards. Also, many JSA claims are contribution based, therefore indicating that the popular discourse which constantly blames jobseekers for bleeding our country dry is wrong!

Also, around 20 Million UK households are net gainers when it comes to social security payments, by my reckoning this probably encompasses approximately 50 Million UK citizens For these 20 Million households the average net gain is about £4,800.00. Consequently, it can be said that the reason for the UK spending around 200 Billion per year on social security is because the safety net is simply too wide. Furthermore, it makes the argument about jobseekers and so called shirkers being to blame for the UK's woes, look very weak indeed. It should also be said that the biggest net gainers are pensioners. These are just a few simple facts about social security which the government and the predominantly right-wing media don't tell people about.

Report this post »

MadHaxMan says...
9:18am Fri 1 Feb 13

Andyjon makes some good points, but I grew a little uneasy when he got onto the subject of pensioners. I am not yet at state- pension age, but I am increasingly aware of what seems like a growing campaign in Government to "demonise" pensioners, as "having it soft" when everybody else is suffering. All governments love to divide and conquer. Scapegoats have been useful tools throughout history.
Comments are made as if pensioners are suddenly parachuted to earth at age 60+, having paid nothing to benefit society. To become a pensioner usually means decades of tax paying, and being a significant nett-contributer. In my modest career I calculate that I have already paid well over £200,000 in Income tax and NI, to say nothing of the despicable VAT (a tax on what is left after they have already taxed you twice with Income Tax and NI.) I am staggered at the plethora of benefits listed by Andyjon. I suppose I have been fortunate in never needing to know of their existence, but it does make me wonder what reward there is in making your own way in life to then be scapegoated as some sort of sponger.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree