Officials tell councillors 'cut benefits to keep council tax freeze' (From Bucks Free Press)

I suspect Wycombe district has more than its share of people involved in tax avoidance schemes. Why not encourage them to pay their way. I'm sure that will raise more than taking money away from those who have the least

At last some sense!! Cut it more! In actual fact take it away all together! Most dont deserve the benefits so this is good!

tigeran wrote:
At last some sense!! Cut it more! In actual fact take it away all together! Most dont deserve the benefits so this is good!

I D 10 T

sparky49 wrote:

tigeran wrote:
At last some sense!! Cut it more! In actual fact take it away all together! Most dont deserve the benefits so this is good!

I D 10 T

Ah! Our old socialist parasite is back! I thought that would bring you out of your HUGELY discounted, tax payer funded burrow! LOL!! How is it on Leach street? Still reveling in having others fund your habitat?

Yet another stupid yes/no poll.

Another blanket proposal that fails to discriminate between those in genuine need of benefits to which I have no problem in contributing, and those who leach off the rest of us.

It is the availablility of benefits that needs to be addressed. This has never been done properly. That is why we hear of people in genuine need being refused help and others, who have no intention of working or contributing, who know the "system" inside out are allowed to claim every single penny that they are "entitled" to.

The money the council wasted installing new street lighting in Marlow Bottom after their previous "cut 'em down to save money" could have been used for some of this.

How about we cut pay of council workers who waste our taxes and apply that savings to those who are truly in need as an alternative?

There's far too much waste in the local council and it is high time that it suffer like the rest of us!

Why is it that anyone under 60 on benefits is classed as a scrounger or a parasite but when they get to 60 they're protected? Still, the winter fuel allowance is one benefit for them that is getting abolished.

typical statistics - big headline underpinned but small actual results (344 actual replies!).

Also, why are claimants allowed to vote? surely they are not paying council tax anyway, so would be unaffected by a change?

why should us working people pay for people who are doing benefit fraud or cannot be bothered to get off there backside and get a job. i was out of work for six weeks and quickly and easily got a new job if people apply for enough jobs they will get one. but they are to lazy and people like us have to foot the bill!? where is the logic abd fairness in that. me and my family have money taken ofg us and we struggle to pay our way while they happily live of our money and have everything handed to them on a plate. rant over!!

geoffW wrote:
Yet another stupid yes/no poll.

Another blanket proposal that fails to discriminate between those in genuine need of benefits to which I have no problem in contributing, and those who leach off the rest of us.

It is the availablility of benefits that needs to be addressed. This has never been done properly. That is why we hear of people in genuine need being refused help and others, who have no intention of working or contributing, who know the "system" inside out are allowed to claim every single penny that they are "entitled" to.

I couldnt agree more.

What will be the effects of cutting council tax benefit for people on benefits? Many will not be able to afford to pay the difference. Their benefits are being capped i.e. cut. The council will have more bad debts. The council will be forced to write off the amounts owing or take people to court. A huge waste of time and energy for little gain in my honest opinion. The courts will be bogged down with council tax defaulters.

BucksComment wrote:
typical statistics - big headline underpinned but small actual results (344 actual replies!). Also, why are claimants allowed to vote? surely they are not paying council tax anyway, so would be unaffected by a change?

They'd be affected because they'd potentially lose £300 p.a.

hammertime69 wrote:
why should us working people pay for people who are doing benefit fraud or cannot be bothered to get off there backside and get a job. i was out of work for six weeks and quickly and easily got a new job if people apply for enough jobs they will get one. but they are to lazy and people like us have to foot the bill!? where is the logic abd fairness in that. me and my family have money taken ofg us and we struggle to pay our way while they happily live of our money and have everything handed to them on a plate. rant over!!

You see this attitude is fuelled by the current government - making unemployed and sick people the target of hate. I am sure if they looked at society properly they would find that most people claiming benefits do so because they need help and not because they are scrounging lazy bums.

Just think about how you feel if you lost a job and couldnt get one quickly.or became ill and you had to seek help only to be told you are a lazy bum by the public and a scrounger by the government. Cannot pay your rent, lose your home. It can and does happen to anybody so didn't think you are immune when you throw around these insults.

Slacker wrote:

hammertime69 wrote:
why should us working people pay for people who are doing benefit fraud or cannot be bothered to get off there backside and get a job. i was out of work for six weeks and quickly and easily got a new job if people apply for enough jobs they will get one. but they are to lazy and people like us have to foot the bill!? where is the logic abd fairness in that. me and my family have money taken ofg us and we struggle to pay our way while they happily live of our money and have everything handed to them on a plate. rant over!!

You see this attitude is fuelled by the current government - making unemployed and sick people the target of hate. I am sure if they looked at society properly they would find that most people claiming benefits do so because they need help and not because they are scrounging lazy bums.

Just think about how you feel if you lost a job and couldnt get one quickly.or became ill and you had to seek help only to be told you are a lazy bum by the public and a scrounger by the government. Cannot pay your rent, lose your home. It can and does happen to anybody so didn't think you are immune when you throw around these insults.

"Cannot pay your rent, lose your home"

Yes but this is the problem. The people who genuinly do need help dont get it. You could pay in all your life, fall on hard times for a few months and loose your house because of it, yet someone who has never worked and never will because the system allows them to, will never EVER be effected like this as they are in the sytem and therefore no harm can come to them. There are far more unworthy benefit claimants out there than the general public know.

The system is the problem and it needs to be changed. These cuts are a very good thing. I hope this is a trend for the future and cut benefits more and more. I agree that unfortunatly the people in genuine need will suffer as a result and that is a problem, but not a big a problem as the scroungers who give benefits a bad name. Wycombe has FAR too many claimers that should not have benefits, they are genuine pond life!

so your happy to pay for druggies and alcholics that cannot be bothered to work its because they are allowed to get away with it that families struggle to pay there owb rent cuz there payin for some one elsesm fair enough if your ill or have a genuine reason i agree but u dont agree with paying for people who pop out kids and sit on there backsides

I think the benefit system is great, for those in genuine need. However the lazy scroungers should have all benefits taken away to save the money. Don't put up our council tax. We work hard, haven't been on holiday in 3 years, don't have sky tv and dont live extravagent lives. Why should we suffer when some people on benefits do all these things and have no intention of working. This is what needs addressing.

i got taxed ovef 800 in one month where is the right in that!! i have three kids under 5 that that could have gone on not some one elses kid cuz people theese days no if they have a kid they get a house paid for them and get free money. why would any one want to support that. or pay for people who abuse there life. i work to support my family not other peoples and imigrants. im all for people who have worked and now need temporary help or a bit of benefit paid cuz they dont earn enough or ill people but not the rest of them

How about getting a sense of proportion about how much benefit fraud and overpayment there actually is?

Take a look at the DWP figures for 2011/12 at http://statistics.dw
p.gov.uk/asd/asd2/in
dex.php?page=fraud_e
rror

But of course this wont actually fit in with tigger and the rest of those who don't seem to have any concept of what it means to live in a civilised society.

I dont see anyone complaining that Starbucks take advantage of our infrastructure - educating and providing healthcare for there staff, providing roads on which to deliver their products etc, etc, while managing to arrange their business so they don't have to pay any tax. We are subsidising all of this and its going straight into their shareholders pockets.

My husband works Monday to Friday and so do I, I have recently had to take on a second job meaning I now work 7 days a week just to keep our heads above water! I cant afford to have my heating on when I need it and have not had a night out with my friends for over six months yet more than one person who I know who is on benefits is out EVERY weekend, two who I know particularly well have 12 kids between them and are approaching 40 and have NEVER worked a day in their lives!!! how can any one think this situation is right? and what sort of example are they setting to their plentiful off spring? I have no problem with people who are genuinely in need, I have in fact claimed benefits my self in the past but too many people see it as a lifestyle choice rather than the safety net it was original intended to be.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
How about getting a sense of proportion about how much benefit fraud and overpayment there actually is?

Take a look at the DWP figures for 2011/12 at http://statistics.dw

p.gov.uk/asd/asd2/in

dex.php?page=fraud_e

rror

But of course this wont actually fit in with tigger and the rest of those who don't seem to have any concept of what it means to live in a civilised society.

I dont see anyone complaining that Starbucks take advantage of our infrastructure - educating and providing healthcare for there staff, providing roads on which to deliver their products etc, etc, while managing to arrange their business so they don't have to pay any tax. We are subsidising all of this and its going straight into their shareholders pockets.

Oh dear, another wet behind the ears Socialist view................
...............

A civilised society is one where only the needy get benefits and anyone who CANT afford children doesnt have them, anyone that CANT afford Sky TV doesnt have it etc, etc. THAT is civilisation!!
If we let people like you run the country we wouldnt stand a chance! (proved that when Labour were in).
Run along now and carry on dreaming of your 'civilised society' .....LOL!!!

tigeran wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
How about getting a sense of proportion about how much benefit fraud and overpayment there actually is?

Take a look at the DWP figures for 2011/12 at http://statistics.dw


p.gov.uk/asd/asd2/in


dex.php?page=fraud_e


rror

But of course this wont actually fit in with tigger and the rest of those who don't seem to have any concept of what it means to live in a civilised society.

I dont see anyone complaining that Starbucks take advantage of our infrastructure - educating and providing healthcare for there staff, providing roads on which to deliver their products etc, etc, while managing to arrange their business so they don't have to pay any tax. We are subsidising all of this and its going straight into their shareholders pockets.

Oh dear, another wet behind the ears Socialist view................

...............

A civilised society is one where only the needy get benefits and anyone who CANT afford children doesnt have them, anyone that CANT afford Sky TV doesnt have it etc, etc. THAT is civilisation!!
If we let people like you run the country we wouldnt stand a chance! (proved that when Labour were in).
Run along now and carry on dreaming of your 'civilised society' .....LOL!!!

But what this story is about is a proposal that no-one gets any benefits. Or, more to the point everyone gets their benefits cut regardless of need.

The proportion of people receiving benefits they are not entitled to is very small (if you read the link with the numbers in it).

Maybe my perception is distorted because unlike Humbug77 I don't know any 40 yr olds that have never worked and have 12 children. And whats the big deal about Sky TV? Why would anyone want to give their money to Rupert Murdoch?

How do you propose to deal with people who have children at some point in their lives when they can afford them, then later become unemployed? Or for that matter the 12 children of the 40yo "unemployed never done a days work in theirs lives" Are we going to allow them to starve? Go to school barefoot? or just put them in the workhouse?

They may be pond-life to you but not to me.

people that are on benefits get so much money they can probably afford to pay a little rent due to the fact they get food vouchers council tax and rent paid dental care prescriptions paid for eye tests and glasses paid for them and EVERYTHING else so why shouldnt they have to pay something

Abolish WDC and save us all shed loads of cash.
As it is WDC have stacks of cash in reserves that can make up the shortfall from Gov but as usual the Tories go after the most vulnerable cheered on by the right wing trolls.

I can't afford council tax but a further £13 would make no difference to me and I would be willing to pay it if it helped the truly badly-situated. If we abolished Council Tax - almost the only sensible idea M Thatcher ever had - and taxed everyone at a local level based on their income (as we do at national level) then there would be enough to go round. At the moment the country is run so that the rich are 'free' to completely maximise their advantages while, as someone says above, being 'cheered on by right wing trolls.'

I am a bit sad only 18% of my fellow citizens would be willing to pay £13 annually to help the destitute.

A lot of so-called 'benefits' are in fact exemptions - if you are out-of-work and totally broke, and can prove it with letters from the bank and the Unemployment people, then the council doesn't charge you Council Tax (that helps support people who are in work to have children and educate their children) none of the right-wing troll stuff is based on sense and reality in our society.

theres alot of people claiming all types of bennifits which they dont need or deserve, so what about just sorting that out instead. And all the money the council waste should be looked at. they spent a fortune on that awful shopping centre which has forced many shops to close resulting in less money going in to the pot. And what about all the money the've wasted on the frogmore fountain over the years, and theres still not one there. And all the money they must waste on those bloody traffic lights which are going up everywhere, in most places round abouts would work alot better and would be cheaper! so thats just a few things of the top of my head where the council waste money. They keep doing it and will keep raising taxs, these people are all the same noyhing will ever change

theres alot of people claiming all types of bennifits which they dont need or deserve, so what about just sorting that out instead. And all the money the council waste should be looked at. they spent a fortune on that awful shopping centre which has forced many shops to close resulting in less money going in to the pot. And what about all the money the've wasted on the frogmore fountain over the years, and theres still not one there. And all the money they must waste on those bloody traffic lights which are going up everywhere, in most places round abouts would work alot better and would be cheaper! so thats just a few things of the top of my head where the council waste money. They keep doing it and will keep raising taxs, these people are all the same noyhing will ever change

The vast majority of those claiming council tax relief are in lowly paid employment, so once again the poorest of our society are going to be the ones that pay for a crises that was not of their making.

Fortunately I do not claim benefit but I could claim about £20 a year as my income comes just below the cut off point, I voted NO because of all the shady dealings over many years, local government needs a big shake up.
.
Where are the Icelandic millions?
.
There was no problem finding £30,000 to buy a wood in Flackwell Heath.
.
The Council sold it's housing stock to Red Kite at knock down prices, it has been rumoured some houses for just £1
-
There is always money for the councillors to finance their personal pet projects.
-
It's always those at the bottom of the pecking order that have to pay the price.
.
Auditing the books should differ from the past, not just balancing columns of figures but auditing what the money is spent on and whether we get value for money.

geoffW wrote:
Yet another stupid yes/no poll.

Another blanket proposal that fails to discriminate between those in genuine need of benefits to which I have no problem in contributing, and those who leach off the rest of us.

It is the availablility of benefits that needs to be addressed. This has never been done properly. That is why we hear of people in genuine need being refused help and others, who have no intention of working or contributing, who know the "system" inside out are allowed to claim every single penny that they are "entitled" to.

And theory they're not! Totally agree with the above....

MrsFBucks wrote:

geoffW wrote:
Yet another stupid yes/no poll.

Another blanket proposal that fails to discriminate between those in genuine need of benefits to which I have no problem in contributing, and those who leach off the rest of us.

It is the availablility of benefits that needs to be addressed. This has never been done properly. That is why we hear of people in genuine need being refused help and others, who have no intention of working or contributing, who know the "system" inside out are allowed to claim every single penny that they are "entitled" to.

And theory they're not! Totally agree with the above....

**And the pennies they're not entitled to**

I think it is a shame that 81% of voters in the survey cannot find just £1.00 per month to help out people less fortunate than themselves, many with children and on the bread line.

Funny isn't it that there are loads of posts on here that say there are 'loads of people' who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, yet when it is pointed out that, according to the DWP's figures, this simply isn't true they completely ignore this fact.Perhaps they would care to produce some figures to back up their assertions.
If you don't like the size of your tax bill, either get a lower paid job, or campaign to make those who avoid paying their tax pay up. One thing you can be sure of is that even if you cut all benefit payments by 50% , we the lowly taxpayer wouldn't see any benefit.
There are so many savings that could be made but these savings would impact more on the extremely wealthy, so the chances of them happening are small. Instead the government, and this council, choose to make scapegoats of the poor.
Tell me, can anyone tell me how much money this council gave to the failed stadium project?I wonder by how much that would have cut our council tax bill?

What all these critics fail to acknowledge is that in this current climate any one of them could lose their jobs and thus their house etc.
And the chances are they may not be able to find similar work... the work is not there.
Comet is about to close another load of stores making a lot of people redundant.
What are those folk going to do?

demoness the second wrote:
What all these critics fail to acknowledge is that in this current climate any one of them could lose their jobs and thus their house etc.
And the chances are they may not be able to find similar work... the work is not there.
Comet is about to close another load of stores making a lot of people redundant.
What are those folk going to do?

Cancel their sky subscriptions and hand their kids over to social services of course. Haven't you been paying attention?

sai-diva wrote:
Funny isn't it that there are loads of posts on here that say there are 'loads of people' who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, yet when it is pointed out that, according to the DWP's figures, this simply isn't true they completely ignore this fact.Perhaps they would care to produce some figures to back up their assertions.
If you don't like the size of your tax bill, either get a lower paid job, or campaign to make those who avoid paying their tax pay up. One thing you can be sure of is that even if you cut all benefit payments by 50% , we the lowly taxpayer wouldn't see any benefit.
There are so many savings that could be made but these savings would impact more on the extremely wealthy, so the chances of them happening are small. Instead the government, and this council, choose to make scapegoats of the poor.
Tell me, can anyone tell me how much money this council gave to the failed stadium project?I wonder by how much that would have cut our council tax bill?

£500k apparently and that was just the feasibility study. And was anyone at WDC made accountable for spending that kind of money on a private enterprise?

The first thing they should do is cut councillors allowances particularly those for the cabinet members.Travel costs and a small allowance only also I belierve it may be that councillors get free parking in all the District council car parks all the time. They should not get this perk but be made to pay and then calim back if it isto attend a meeting, not so that they can use it to go shopping.

stir up wrote:
The first thing they should do is cut councillors allowances particularly those for the cabinet members.Travel costs and a small allowance only also I belierve it may be that councillors get free parking in all the District council car parks all the time. They should not get this perk but be made to pay and then calim back if it isto attend a meeting, not so that they can use it to go shopping.

I agree there are plenty of ways in which the Council could meet the 85k. Chiltern Council are doing so. Councillors could use public transport cycle or walk to get to the Council and their spaces could be rented out. That should cover it over a year plus giving up sarnies, snacks and drinks there would be cash over. Consultants could be topsliced 10% and political parties could pay standards committee costs if their member is naughty.
I also agree abolish the District Council and all who sail in her. It has been mortally wounded with the loss of Housing. Rats are leaving the sinking ship e.g. David Carroll Deputy Dawg of the Police Commissioner.

sai-diva wrote:
Funny isn't it that there are loads of posts on here that say there are 'loads of people' who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, yet when it is pointed out that, according to the DWP's figures, this simply isn't true they completely ignore this fact.Perhaps they would care to produce some figures to back up their assertions.
If you don't like the size of your tax bill, either get a lower paid job, or campaign to make those who avoid paying their tax pay up. One thing you can be sure of is that even if you cut all benefit payments by 50% , we the lowly taxpayer wouldn't see any benefit.
There are so many savings that could be made but these savings would impact more on the extremely wealthy, so the chances of them happening are small. Instead the government, and this council, choose to make scapegoats of the poor.
Tell me, can anyone tell me how much money this council gave to the failed stadium project?I wonder by how much that would have cut our council tax bill?

This is a fantastic thing they are doing and I hope to god they see sense and cut more and more benefits. The figure you are bleating on about with regards to how many people claiming benefits that are not due it are FAR too many, wether that be as little as 100 people, still far too many and the system needs to be a system where, obviously except the very handicaped etc, you dont get ANYTHING until you have contributed for a given length of time. Two kids and no job since you left school?, tough, go live with your parents and use contaceptives in future. No, keep up the good work boys and SLASH some more off!! Please stop bleating on about things you know nothing about!!

Perhaps this can be viewed as a positive thing in the long run? While I understand what has already been said on both sides of this arguement (in respect of those who do not 'need' these benefits and will 'learn a lesson' and of those who are infact vulnerable and essentially require the help), I think that this has already been addressed in the above report.
Those who physically aren't able to work, or those who reach a retirement age, will be assisted to the full stretch in terms of council tax payments. I see so much sense in this. Those who do have the ability to work therefore have an option available to them, albeit quite a tough option in some peoples views, in that if you're not working you unfortunately will only be able to afford the base essentials in life.
As highlighted above, there are those claiming benefits who seem to have every luxury available to them, and those who are working struggle and scrape to get by. It should, and always should, be the other way round. I don't mean in any way to offend or belittle those who are receiving benefits, since to some they are essential to get by, but it should not be 'beneficial' to anyone to be on benefits rather than working, and I think this is what the new scheme will encourage.
I very much doubt that the council would invest in a decision that would settle those on a low income in the district into further poverty by sending them to court etc in order to obtain the extra incremements in the council tax. While they get many things wrong, I think in their work to reduce costs for the majority of people, they will not pay out any more to retrieve balances from those who simply cannot pay. As has been noted in the report, there will be a new scheme to financially assist those on a low income, but it will mean that those who can afford to pay extra to the community tax do so, instead of paying out for further luxuries, which many of those working cannot afford.
In the long run it seems to be a small step into making the benefit system less of a 'free for all', and to show that if you're dedicated to claiming benefits, then it won't be a walk in the park, which I think has been advertised for long enough. (And by this I, again, don't mean offense to those who are claiming benefits at the moment and are infact struggling. I'm aiming at those who, as I say, are 'dedicated' to claiming benefits, instead of using them as a temporary form of financial assistance).

Voyeur wrote:
What will be the effects of cutting council tax benefit for people on benefits? Many will not be able to afford to pay the difference. Their benefits are being capped i.e. cut. The council will have more bad debts. The council will be forced to write off the amounts owing or take people to court. A huge waste of time and energy for little gain in my honest opinion. The courts will be bogged down with council tax defaulters.

I agree with Voyeur - what s/he describes seems to be the logical outcome of the policy of a government that overlooks millionaires whose wages are paid to their wives or who are resident for tax purposes in Monaco while pandering to people like 'tigeran'. I don't see how removal of Council Tax 'Benefit' can be made to work - this seems to be some sort of statement by the government and the council.

We have a system where people owning or inhabiting a property have to pay to run local amenities regardless of their income. This liability is removed if they have no job and no savings and now the liability is being replaced - I don't understand how those with little or nothing can be made to give non-existent wealth - I think a possible answer would be for the long-term unemployed to apply for bankruptcy using the services of a lawyer on Legal Aid. Council Bailiffs could take all that they have that is not adjudged a vital necessity and then they will be left alone until the economy picks up and there are jobs out there.