Staggering Statistic for London

domtheone

London's £36bn benefits bill is bigger than the UK's whole defence



Crazy.

rancidpunk

Population and increased cost of living doesn't make it much of a shock. People always think of money with London, but it has more poverty to go alongside too.

Bl4ckGryph0n

It's a huge number, and within that article there are some more shockers about other parts of the country.

I just don't see how it is sustainable to just throw more money at it, that is a lot of tax revenue that has to collected, and policies that those who are already contributing the most should contribute more are just not sustainable.

Enki

Another failure of capitalist market, much of this £36 billion will be working benefits, supplying cheap labour so companies can maintain profits and keep paying those dividends. At least London is still able to service itself this. Wonder how many fire fighters from Grenfell actually lived in London let alone Kensington...

Bl4ckGryph0n

So who has created those subsidies? You hit the nail on the head, yet are blaming the wrong people. We should be looking at our government to stop those kind of subsidies and let the capitalist market do its job and find the true value for its required resources.

Toko Black

Firstly, it is the fact that we have an aging population that is placing the greatest increase in expenditure and therefore demand on tax contributions.
As the population grows, economic, social and technological circumstances change, the demands on expenditure will change accordingly.
The report in the article is from 4 or 5 years ago by Ian Duncan Smiths think tank (he created it and when he detached himself from it to become a minister, he employed the co director of the think tank as one of his advisors), so the figures are a tad out of date.

What we really need to see is a break down of the increases in government spending over time by specific categories, like pensions, child support, oap care, job seekers etc as an increase in spending of GDP per capita.
That way we can establish what is increasing demand proportionally and better establish our positions on what to do about it.

If working age benefits are dramatically increasing year on year as a percentage of GDP per capita and that they are approaching an unsustainable point, then ofc we need to discuss how we deal with it.

However, if for example, the real driver for unsustainability is an increase in the elderly population, then I suspect the conversation and ethical positions on what to do will be slightly different.  

If we need to increase taxes to accomodate an aging population, then I suspect we would have less resistance or demands for benefits for the elderly to be cut than if we needed to increase taxes to accomodate working age benefits.

Without context, clarity and perspective on the causes, effects and long term trends, it's just a case of 'big numbers' shocker! then .

Enki

If the two, Government and capitalist market, were entirely separate of each other, culturally, morally and most importantly legally it would be worth considering but they are not and never will, so that's as much thought it deserves. And the curve is generally less regulation over the last 30 years, and those at the top are increasingly getting paid more at the expense of those at the bottom, a clear warning freer market will only look after those at the top.  Free Market it would be like ring fenced dystopian corporate socialism.

IronGiant

Maybe they commute , like hundreds of thousands of other workers.  Do I hear the sound of political point scoring using a tragedy again?

Enki

Probably as it's topical, and could applied to nurses etc. It's often suggested that London cannot service itself.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Absolutely - don't disagree with that. And you know what, sometimes that is absolutely fine....You eat an elephant one slice at a time, but if you don't stand back far enough you wouldn't realise it was an elephant in the first place. Nothing wrong with big picture recognition.