George Osborne, Right or Wrong to comment on Benefits? Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Was George Osborne out of order to comment on the fact that Mick Philpott would have had to have been in the top 1% of earners in the UK in order to "earn" his "takehome" pay?

I know this man is a particularly odious piece of humanity and really does not deserve his name even being printed.

From what I understand there are very few families with more than 10 childern (a few hundred) in the UK but there are many tens of thousands with over 5.

What is to be done? The children should not suffer financially but in many cases they would anyway as "some" of the claimants will only be spending the child benefit on beer, fags and drugs in any case and not on the children themselves.

I'm not sure what the answer is? A cap on the number of children you can claim benefits for? Any ideas anyone?

[On the edge]

That or a serious clamp down on multiple breeders like Philpott. He should be contributing himself to ALL the children he has spawned. More rigorous collection from irresponsible fathers would damp some of the enthusiasim. Regrettably, the CPSA had its hands tied by the liberal establishment.

[motormad]

I think he was right.

[GMR]

George Osborne said we need a debate on the subject and he is right. When people were interviewed on the streets (on the news etc) the majority supported him.

[Blake]

I think George was right too. It's only usual suspects of Guardian and Mirror reading pinkos who are up in arms so who cares.

[Andy Capp]

I think he was wrong to make the connection to a child killer. Typical political spite. On this point, Labour are right, the Tories are on a mission to demonise a section of the community that are easy to hit. Having said that, I don't agree with a something for nothing benefit system, but it is up to governments to provide the platform for jobs that enable families to earn a liveable wage.

[GMR]

I think George was right too. It's only usual suspects of Guardian and Mirror reading pinkos who are up in arms so who cares.

Actually somebody made a good point yesterday; if Labour were in Government they would have said what George Osborne had said and the Tories would have said what the Labour party said. Politics is a game.

Another good point was made; the Labour party are taking a risk criticising George Osborne. He has struck a cord with some people and Labour's criticism could back fire. It is not really what the Labour party or Tories say or believe but whether it is supported by the majority of the people and it seems that George Osborne has the strongest support amongst the voting public.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I think he was wrong to make the connection to a child killer. Typical political spite. On this point, Labour are right, the Tories are on a mission to demonise a section of the community that are easy to hit. Having said that, I don't agree with a something for nothing benefit system, but it is up to governments to provide the platform for jobs that enable families to earn a liveable wage.

Andy - What about those that don't want to work but just want to breed and claim? Some (not many) of these people see multiple children as a meal ticket to increased income and larger accomodation. This is where it falls down. I'm all for helping those in need. It's the abuse by a limited number of claimants that has to stop.

[pbonnay]

There are several policies of this Government that I disagree with, but their attempt to tackle the bloated welfare state is something I very much support. George Osborne gave a reasonable answer to a journalist's question.

[dannyboy]

Andy - What about those that don't want to work but just want to breed and claim? Some (not many) of these people see multiple children as a meal ticket to increased income and larger accomodation. This is where it falls down. I'm all for helping those in need. It's the abuse by a limited number of claimants that has to stop.

a handful of people.

Larger accommodation? Wasn't that one of the issues surrounding this awful tragedy?

[Andy Capp]

Andy - What about those that don't want to work but just want to breed and claim? Some (not many) of these people see multiple children as a meal ticket to increased income and larger accomodation. This is where it falls down. I'm all for helping those in need. It's the abuse by a limited number of claimants that has to stop.

I'd like to know what the bill is for that: families with 5 or more kids and parents that won't work. I don't like it either, but I suspect that there is a certain amount of deflection going on by the government too.

In any case, your question was asking if George Osbourne was right to link a child killer with big families who are out of work. No is my answer. It's crass and vindictive and what I would come to expect from him.

If you had asked should big families with out-of-work parents be paid so much, I would have given a conditional no.


If you would have also said should we start to see some rich bankers going to gaol, and being stripped of their wealth, I'd have said yes, too.

[dannyboy]

I'd like to know what the bill is for that: families with 5 or more kids and parents that won't work. I don't like it either, but I suspect that there is a certain amount of deflection going on by the government too.

In any case, your question was asking if George Osbourne was right to link a child killer with big families who are out of work. No is my answer. It's crass and vindictive and what I would come to expect form him.If you had asked should big families with out of work parents be paid so much, I would have given a conditional no.


If you would have also said should we start to see some rich bankers going to gaol, and being stripped of their wealth, I'd have said yes, too.

hear hear.

political point scoring of the lowest kind.

[Berkshirelad]

Slightly away from the original question, but what I would suggest is pay the maximum child benefit for the first child, a reduced rate for the second and third, followed by nothing for any subsequent children. Child benefit to end when the child concerned leaves full-time education.

I would also keep the benefit as universal as this will massively reduce the cost of administering it.

Just to reduce the number of civil servants in HMRC further. I would introduce a £15,000 index-linked tax allowance with all income of any sort above this taxed at a flat 25%. No other allowances or credits (or other tax dodges).

[Cognosco]

I think he was wrong to make the connection to a child killer. Typical political spite. On this point, Labour are right, the Tories are on a mission to demonise a section of the community that are easy to hit. Having said that, I don't agree with a something for nothing benefit system, but it is up to governments to provide the platform for jobs that enable families to earn a liveable wage.

I can understand the concern that it is more beneficial to not work rather than work? But until wages paid make it possible to to live on the wages that are paid then this will always be the case. Just working the system.
No different than high earners and multinational companies using tax loopholes and stuffing money into offshore accounts etc. rather than paying their rightful dues. But it is wrong to brand all benefit receivers as scroungers.
After all their is millions more lost from tax loopholes and evasion than from benefit fraud?

[dannyboy]

After all their is millions more lost from tax loopholes and evasion than from benefit fraud?

about 14 times as much.


Tax avoidance = £15 billion, Benefit fraud = £1billion ( or just 0.7% of the £148billion in benefits paid out each year )

tax credit fraud is just under half a billion, whilst errors by DWP staff & the claimants themselves acounts for £4billion

[stewiegriffin]

Using Philpott as an example of a benefit claimant is like using Osborne as an example of a chancellor.

Most benefit claimants are honest people struggling to get by. A 1% rise in benefit payments (a real terms cut) will only serve to make that situation worse.

Osborne and the evil IDS will latch on to anything they can find to justify their nasty, vindictive policies.

When they start going after Vodafone, Barclays, Starbucks, Phillip Green etc with the same enthusiasm they'll find there is money in the pot to fund benefit claims.

Osborne has claimed over £50k from the taxpayer by flipping his 2nd home since he became an MP. How's that for an example of the 'something for nothing culture'? Apparently stealing from the taxpayer becomes socially acceptable if you went to Eton.

[Squelchy]

Osborne could just as easily pointed to a young unmarried mother (with 4 kids by 4 different men) living on benefits. He could have held her up as an example of 'benefits Britain'

Except that it would have been J.K. Rowling whose earnings have now enriched the coffers of the exchequer enormously. But that would have made Osborne look even more silly wouldn't it?

Go on George, pick on the easy cases, pander to the crowd.

[Simon Kirby]

I think George was right too. It's only usual suspects of Guardian and Mirror reading pinkos who are up in arms so who cares.

Nice use of the ad hominem there Blake.

[Simon Kirby]

There are several policies of this Government that I disagree with, but their attempt to tackle the bloated welfare state is something I very much support. George Osborne gave a reasonable answer to a journalist's question.

Only the welfare state isn't particularly bloated, it's the NHS that consumes the majority of our tax.

[Andy Capp]

I've said this before, but given the choice, I'd have my life over one on benefits and I am far from a top earner.