By This Is Money Reporters and Tim Shipman
|

Doubt of the benefits: Prime Minister David Cameron risks Coalition disharmony with his welfare reforms.
Further cuts to welfare will be announced by David Cameron today, with the universal benefits enjoyed by all pensioners protected while jobless families and the young bear the brunt of cost-cutting.
The Prime Minister risks a Coalition row by dismissing calls for better-off pensioners to be stripped of free bus passes, television licences and the winter fuel allowance, instead targeting cuts at families with several children who do not work, and under-25s on housing benefit.
Both Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have made clear they favour a raid on such benefits for senior citizens.
But Mr Cameron will stress that he is not prepared to renege on his pledge to protect the benefits, made ahead of the 2010 election. In his speech today, he will say: âTwo years ago I made a promise to the elderly of this country and I am keeping it. I was elected on a mandate to protect those benefits â " so that is what we have done.â
Instead, jobless families could be penalised for having more than three children under the plans. They could also be kicked off the dole after two years.
The Prime Minister will also float the idea of stripping under-25s of housing benefit. The maximum amount of Housing Benefit a family can claim may also be slashed from the current limit of £25,000 a year.Â
Any such proposals would be controversial as a high number of those on housing benefit are in work and not claiming unemployment benefits, but rely on the housing handout to live in otherwise unaffordable areas.
Removing the benefit would force more young people to live with their parents for longer.
Mr Cameron will claim that there is a âwelfare gapâ in Britain, where those on the dole have a financial incentive to have more children while those in work are forced to stop having children because they simply cannot afford to.
He will float the idea that ou t-of-work parents could be penalised by having their income support slashed and additional child benefit stopped if they have more than three children.
Other measures being considered include forcing the unemployed to work for free in exchange for benefits.
Mr Cameron will say: âIf you are a single parent living outside London, if you have four children and youâre renting a house on Housing Benefit, then you can claim almost £25,000 a year. That is more than the average take-home pay of a farm worker and nursery nurse put together.
âWe have created a welfare gap in this country â" between those living long-term in the welfare system and those outside it. This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing. It created a culture of entitlement.â
He will also suggest that Britain adopts Americaâs tough benefits rules which see the unemployed forced to work and even automatically stripped of payments after two years out of work.

Haves, and have nots: Elderly people will keep universal benefits.
Stressing the virtues of âself relianceâ, Mr Cameron will say: âQuite simply, we have been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work, when we should be enabling working-age people to work and have children. So itâs time we asked some serious questions about the signals we send out through the benefits system.
âYes, this is difficult territory. But at a time when so many people are struggling, isnât it right that we ask whether those in the welfare system are faced with the same kinds of decisions that working people have to wrestle with when they have a child?â
Downing Street sources say the Prime Minister will seek to advance this agenda through the Coalition, but the reality is that he will meet fierce resistance from the Lib Dems. Instead, the measures are likely to form the centrepiece of a Tory manifesto at the 2015 election.
In 2010, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt provoked a row when he suggested that th e workshy should stop having children if they cannot afford them, saying the number of children is a âchoiceâ.
Today Mr Cameron will point out that there are more than 150,000 people who have been claiming Income Support for over a year who have three or more children and 57,000 who have four or more.
It remains unclear, however, exactly what ministers would do to ensure a child did not suffer if he or she was the fourth or fifth born. One idea is to improve school meals and early years education to the point where the less well-off benefit hugely.
Mr Cameron will also cite the experience in America, where people are forced to work for benefits and do not get them indefinitely.
A No 10 source said such âtime-limitingâ could potentially apply to many benefits. âDavid will say we should look at time limiting benefits. In America they say, âSorry, you have it for two years and then youâre on your ownâ.â
In Wisconsin, when benefits claimants were told they would get no handouts after two years on the dole, the number of claims dropped by 57 per cent. When that state introduced âworkfareâ schemes to ensure claimants did something useful for their benefits, claims dropped by 80 per cent.
Mr Cameronâs decision to float such controversial ideas is likely to lead to claims that he has abandoned the âcompassionate Conservativeâ mantra with which he won power. But he is keen to create clear blue water between the Tories and the Lib Dems as the Coalition enters the second half of the Parliament.
The Lib Dems said they would not support the plans but were content with Mr Cameron floating Tory ideas.
Liam Byrne MP, Labourâs work and pensions spokesman, said: âThis is a hazy and half-baked plan when we need a serious back-to-work programme for young families.â
VIDEO: No more money! Cameron wants to cut benefits.. .Â
-
Kate told to curtsey to blood princesses Beatrice and... -
Mom who made sex tape with son, 16, is jailed for four... -
'Gentlemen, take tips': Obama reveals how he romanced... -
Ann Curry's replacement at Today set to be named next week... -
That's some 30th birthday gift! Queen gives William a... -
Growth of the 'breastaurant': Waitresses offering dinner and... -
The little girl who didn't exist: Mother 'doted on her two... -
Bought for $15,000... sold for $2m: Incredible 300-year-old... -
Pictured: The man who 'smashed a 77-year-old woman in the... -
Puppy love: The lion cub called Simba who has forged an... -
Mommy bear to the rescue after cub gets trapped in a... -
Lonesome George, the LAST giant Galapagos Islands turtle,...
Share this article:
Here's what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
- Newest
- Oldest
- Best rated
- Worst rated
im not left wing or right, im of. the mature age. The descision to stop all housing benefit for under 25s is wicked, many people in low paid jobs receive housing benefit and work hard so they will be punished. many wealthy people say they dont need winter fuel allowance etc. many middle class and rich are hypocrits because they receive benefits themselves such as child benefit, dla, winter fuel etc.
Report abuse
The arguments in favour of all sots of means testing seem to assume that the local government cuts ( caused by lower government grants) have not decimated the army of local government employees who were required to administer trhis. On the subject of 'failed promises' I think the present government should hang their heads in shame. If the same advanced planning that David Cameron is using to suggest the U25 cuts had been applied to the Conservative manifesto at the last election ie. the NHS changes, they would not have got near to forming a government. A good test should be' If itt is not in the manifesto with full and explained consequences it should not be allowed in the policy plans for that parliament. Demonising individuals is a very low for of government.
Report abuse
Dave, IOM.... Child allowance was only paid for the second child in the sixties AND seventies ! - p'tit dodo, world's end and for the second child it was 70p a week which in new pence is 35p a week...............£14.80 a week and they begrudge that its not a kings ransom but honestly I think I will give mine to the red cross it will choke me to think its so begrudged.
Report abuse
Don't worry pensioners are next on the hit list.
Report abuse
I think if you can prove you work full time and a certain amount of miles away from your house then public transport should at least be a tiny bit subsided. It's an absolute rip off to get to work for me and I know worse in areas such as London. I get on 2 buses and a metro to get to work and often it's full of slow pensioners moaning that it's too busy (is going to get a potato THAT important at 7am?) or grilling the driver for 8 minutes making me late over why the bus was 1 minute late. What about all the pensioners who get a free pass they never use? No wonder job seekers moan about getting to and from interviews when a day saver is ã9 odd!
Report abuse
Yeh you don't like the truth do yeh....I am thinking of getting a driver to drive me around anyone like a job.............stuff your paltry £15 a week each HOUSHOLD and you posting from Canada I must ask do pensioners die in your Country from cold and lack of food? pensioners in the UK do.......yes not much is it on top pf the lowest State pension in the civilised world.
Report abuse
The welfare state has balooned uncontrolably and is accountable for almost 25% of all government spending, wide scale abuse is almost unchecked. There is no point saving for a pension or putting money by for retirement unless you are one of the minority of workers on over £100k a year as whatever you save you will be penalised for, those that have nothing will be far betteroff as they will get everything for free from the state. My in laws retired 3 years ago mid 60's and are spending every penny they have including the sale of the house, they intend having no financial assetts by 70 so the state is responsible for them - they now live in social housing, they will leave my wife (her parents) not a penny. Selfish?? In a way yes, but why scrimp and scrape all your life for retirement only to be penalised due to your savings! I intend doing something similar and have told my kids not to save for retirement as its not worth it unless they are on mega mone y.
Report abuse
Dave, IOM.... Child allowance was only paid for the second child in the sixties AND seventies !
Report abuse
So to sum up. If your poor in the UK you have basically had it.
Report abuse
Surely a bus pass only costs the local authority anything if the pass is actually used. The " rich" pensioners with bus passes who use their cars their cars don't actually cost the govt. anything. The best and fairest thing to do would be to tie bus pass issue, free prescriptions, winter fuel allowance and exemption from National Insurance contributions to the state pension age - 65 rising to 67 and beyond Of course, the biggest savings would come from equalising public and private sector employment terms - same holidays, same working hours, same retirement age, same occupational pension contributions and payments, same notice periods, same car mileage allowances etc
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar