do you think the imminent benefit cuts will actually indirectly cause more crime?

[joko]

if they have a lot less money, will some people just turn to crime instead of getting work?
such as shop lifting, selling drugs, selling counterfeit goods, ebay fraud, even mugging...

just curious

cheers

[New Judge]

I’ve tried to keep up as much as I can, joko, but as far as I can make out there are to be no significant immediate benefit “cuts”. Certainly none so harsh that might persuade the recipients to resort to crime.

It’s true that there is talk in some quarters that some families in receipt of benefits might be reduced to comparative penury by having their benefit levels reduced to “merely” that of those on the average wage. However, it has not been entirely explained how this is to be achieved.

I don’t think we need worry about widespread civil disobedience just yet. After all, such a course of action usually requires the participants to get out of their pits in the morning, and I do not think there is any immediate danger of that just yet.

[rov1200]

Yes if they have less money to live on its likely they will resort to other methods. Soup kitchens, criminal activities and begging will be in evidence. Because we are sending fewer to prisons fines will go unpaid. Children will suffer from ricketts. People will die from hypothermia.

While jobs are scarce one area that will be on the up will be bailiffs so get in their quick.

[poodicat]

Happening already whats new..

[Jan1957]

What benefit cuts? I've just found out my DLA has gone up.

[New Judge]

When was that, steve, and what was the excuse for the disturbances?

[TheTruthHere]

New Judge some large stores only deliver to homes in the morning because the divs are up all night and sleep in the morning. If they are going to do your garden shed it is a easy bet that it will get done in the early hours.

[New Judge]

Of course, steve, I’d forgotten. After all, it was only 29 years ago!

I was not sure whether you were referring to those riots or those which were a reaction to the Community Charge in (I think) 1991. Although somewhat different in their root causes, both were similar in that those taking part were protesting against what they saw as an injustice but which many people saw as a rebalancing exercise.

Similarly the latest announcements by the Coalition seek to redress the huge imbalance that has developed between those paying into and those drawing out of the various State money pots.

Sorry. TheTruthHere, but I’m not quite sure of the connection between stores only making morning deliveries and certain elements not being available until the afternoon because they have been up all night thieving.

[VHG]

The poll tax was a MUCH fairer sysem of tax than the old Rates and newer Council Tax.

The Rates meant those easy to find (ie those with houses) had to pay the rates, those with no houses, or who moved around in rented accomodation a lot, paid nothing, even though they used the services as well.

I bet it was not those in houses who were protesting back them, no it was the "great unwashed". Those who, for years, had used services they had never paid for, and were now protesting because someone was asking them to pay.

I still feel if the Tories had introduced the Poll tax on a gradual basis, over say a 10 year period, start the poll tax low and gradually increase it over that period, while reducing the rates, it may have worked.

Now we are stuck with the council tax, which is almost the same as the rates.

[New Judge]

Sorry if you misunderstood, Steve, but I was paraphrasing The TruthHere’s contention when I was trying to understand how he linked such activities with stores making deliveries only in the morning. I’ve no idea what those elements get up to during the night because I’m usually asleep and I’ve no idea how their nocturnal activities influence when their new furniture is delivered.

I think VHG has hit the nail squarely on the head. All these wails of protest usually come from those who manage by one means or another to avoid paying their dues. You seldom see among those taking to the streets a single pensioner who happens to want to remain in the family home where his or her children were raised and gets stung for £2k per annum for the privilege. It’s usually people who see a slight chance that they finally may be asked to dip into their pockets – something which they had previously managed to avoid.

But back to the question, apart from the proposed cap on Housing Benefit which will see claimants limited to “only” about £400 pw for their rent (and it should never have been allowed to reach such a ludicrous level anyway), I don’t see any cuts looming which are vicious enough to compel claimants to take to the streets.

[flip_flop]

The poll tax was a significantly fairer system.

It makes perfect sense that four adults in one house should pay more then their next door neighbour with only two adults.

The current system assumes one's ability to pay based on the size of their house. It is completely arbitrary.

There could be two pensioners, living on state pensions, who happen to be sitting on, say, £500,000 worth of mortgage free equity, paying the same as their next door neighbours with a household income of £100,000. How is that a better system than the poll tax? Of course, those of a The Guardian disposition will be nasally whining that the pensioners could realise their equity....but why should they?

[sandyRoe]

Don't start taking the Guardian. That way madness lies.