From the incisive and always worth reading FlipChartRick on the Flip Chart Fairy Tales blog:
If the UK's social security costs really are out of control it's not because lots of people are sitting around with their feet up. It's because lots of people are in jobs that just don't pay enough.
As is always the case on that blog, the data is there to back up the claim. Recommended.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think we are talking about Housing Benefit here the roots of which ALL parties have shamefully covered up:
1) Soaring housing costs created by excessive Bank lending, speculation and a buy to let craze in this unproductive area (370% increase between 1997-2007).
2) Stagnant pay leading to over a million IN work needing some level of Benefit in this area.
3) The shameful political manipulation of those struggling with mortgages being pitted against those on benefits used as a foil to hide the REAL causes.
4) The obsession with housing as major asset and no caps on rents in the private sector.
5) The rise of neo-Rachmanism (many politicians with fingers in this foetid pie.
IT WILL GET WORSE- as well as the politics that turns those on Benefit into social pariahs.
The main costs are from state pensions and housing benefit, which should be more accurately called “Landlords Benefit” as it goes straight to them!
Jsa is something like £8 billion a year. Hardly massive.
Osboom has just kissed goodbye to at least a year’s worth of JSA to enable his city mates to make a killing.
It really shames and embarrasses me that we live in a nation that has the 6th richest economy in the world, yet there are 4.1million children in Britain living in poverty, 69% of whom live in households where at least 1 parent is working full time. Our government talks about one nation, then releases vile and completely untrue messages about the causes of an out of control welfare bill. They use these lies as if to justify their plans and policies of reducing the welfare bill, knowing full well what effect their policies will have on the number living in poverty and those already there. The policies of government are in no way based on concern for people, those they were elected to serve. No, the policies of our government are based on an ideology, cut the size of the public sector by reducing spending on it and sell off as much of our public services as possible to the private sector.
On top of the 4.1 million children, research from Oxfam shows that 3.5million parents starve themselves so that their children can eat. 1million people were so desperate last year that they went to a food bank because they could not afford to feed themselves. Meanwhile, despite 88% of respondents to a public consultation carried out by the “independent” body IPSA injecting to a £7,000 per annum pay rise for MP’s, in all likelihood the pay rise will go ahead at the end of the month. The blatant disregard for both the will and concerns of the people is breath taking. MP’s blocked a recommended 1% pay rise last year for all NHS staff, what is democratic about that?
David Cameron has spoken out against and even condemned the number of children living in poverty around the world. He has even invited other world powers to join him in a pledge to era dice child poverty by 2030. Perhaps he should start cleaning up his own backyard before looking to those of our neighbours. Actions speak louder than words and Mr Cameron’s actions have shown loud and clear his blatant disregard for the 4.1million children living in poverty in Britain, let alone those in other countries. The coalition and conservative governments both made their intentions clear and child poverty has not been a matter of concern for either.
As the article referenced by Richard clearly shows, it is low household income and rampant inequality that in part at least, are causing our economic and societal woes and our government clearly intend not to do anything positive about either.
Only if you use a completely ridiculous (and non comparable) definition of poverty!
What does that mean? I suppose up to 1 million people use food banks only because they’re scroungers?
WRONG, there is real need in the UK and under the cover of the darkness of this government and the controlled media things are going to get worse. Don’t worry though it will be swept under the carpet for as long as possible so it is out of sight and out of mind!
So because they do not cook by burning dried dung in the living room, they are not in poverty?
Everything is relative….as they say.
Theremustbeanotherway – What on earth it got to do with people being scroungers?
What do people not understand about the concept that it is absurd to compare people dying in 3rd world countries with people who are on 60% of the median income in one of the richest countries in the world.
Use your hyperbole of “darkness” of the current government if you must but don’t use absolute poverty in Africa to make your political points.
I think this debate has gone as far as it needs to
I think misunderstanding may well be occurring
It is utterly insulting to compare relative poverty in the UK with absolute poverty in the rest of the world.
Please explain
A tiny minority suffer absolute poverty in the UK. Cameron is referring to African children dying. The poster seeks to speak of the relative poverty experienced by our citizens in the same breath because he doesn’t like the Conservatives. I personally find that repellant.
Just to make myself absolutely clear. A family in the UK who earn 60% of the median income is not comparable to a child in Africa who is starving.
No they’re not
But please don’t use that to say neither matters
Where have I done that? There is only one poster who seems to link Cameron talking of absolute poverty in the world with relative poverty in the UK. The implication seems to be we shouldn’t help with absolute povery abroad before we deal with relative poverty in the UK.
To me that is flat out wrong.
I would agree
We must tackle both
And using African poverty to justify poverty here because African poverty is obviously worse is wrong also.
Africa could be a rich country, indeed, it potentially is, if it were not being bled dry by corporations and IMF policy.
This is a rich country, yet over a million people have to go to foodbanks. Pensions and benefits are being cut despite the fact that there is more than enough money to maintain them.
Yes..of course our poverty does not in any way compare to the poverty you see in Africa. But that doesn’t imply that poverty in this country doesn’t matter because it isn’t the same.
Railing against poverty in this country isn’t just right, it is an absolute requirement.
Pleased to see “social security” being used on this blog rather than the right-wing US-derived term “welfare”, which even Jeremy Corbyn has fallen victim to using…
Quite right
Another worth noting from flipchartrick:
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/more-freelancers-than-public-employees-is-that-really-a-good-thing/
It would be good if the UK government took some responsibility for helping the Real Economy by providing jobs, investment & encouraged The Bankers to do the same.
It appears that governments nowadays take no responsibility for The Economy & have concentrated on The Corporate Economy.
In fact the Bilderberg Elite appear to have a plan to bankrupt the US/UK/EU economies to bring down wages & make us all poor & more compliant.
Sociopath morons are in control.
IDS is now blocking release of figures showing how many have died within 6 weeks of having benefits stopped (against Information Commissioner’s decision).
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/11/statistics-refused-benefits-death_n_7561918.html
Ah, the huffington post – the last bastion of truth and unbiased opinion…
Ahhh, Iain Duncan Smith, that bastion of truth and unbiased opinion. Still defying the information comms order to release the information is he?