Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[MrMoonX]

This pretty much +1.

One thing people seem to forget.

A 3% increase in benefits isn't the same as a 3% payrise.

3% of £70 a week compared to 3% of £250 a week, the simple fact is most workers can get by still with a pay freeze, benefits are already significantly lower than than pay in most cases (except for a few rare exceptions with are NOT the standard for most).

It shows a real lack of character & moral fiber to support these changes, which looking at who is posting in favour doesn't surprise me one bit.

Shame on those who expect the poorest in society to feel the pain.

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. ~Samuel Johnson

A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. ~ Mahatma Ghandi

good post, I said similar ealier and got the OMG the deficit type replies, well perhaps the government would like to collect the dodged taxes from their biggest donators

 

[bam0]

It shows a real lack of character & moral fiber to support these changes, which looking at who is posting in favour doesn't surprise me one bit.

When your ideology says that those who are poor have themselves to blame for not trying harder, this is where we end up.

 

[estebanrey]

It's not about losing out, benefits are not a prize.....it is entirely about need. Pure and simple. The only thing that should remain untested is the State Pension (I don't see pensions as benefits), everything else should be based upon the means of the individual.

I never thought I'd say this but....

I AGREE WITH CASTIEL!!!

The problem we have with the current form of means testing is it equals "fill out a form", then require 1000s of people to process those forms. But in this day and age, with computers and huge databases I don't see why the government can't automatically know most of this stuff about us.

The Inland Revenue know everyone's income, your bank know how much you've got in savings, your local council know how much you house is worth etc.

With a decent computer system (it annoys me that 'computer systems' get a bad name because of one failed project in the NHS but I digress), and a well worked out algorithm it should be possible to automatically means test everyone and calculate payments specific to you, which are then paid by BACS.

The argument that you can't give people individual payment amounts because it's too complex is rubbish, fairly small accounts departments do it every month for people's pay in the workplace. You never hear your employer say "oh we'll just pay everyone a universal wage because it's too complicated to pay them specific hourly rates" do you?

 

[karl515]

I have no issues with people in need getting benefits but i think they should rise in line with wages! I feel it's unfair to have them getting a big rise each year when the hard working basically get a cut due to the 1% rise being under the rate of inflation.

 

[elmarko]

When your ideology says that those who are poor have themselves to blame for not trying harder, this is where we end up.

I guess you are right.

But you would have thought otherwise intelligent people who spend a bit of time reading up on human behaviour & psychology (which in turn results it dismissing that ideological stance as scientifically flawed).

It's based on ego, "I did well in life because I'm great!" - as opposed to the hard cold truth "I did well in life because I was fortunate enough to have the required upbringing & environment to succeed".

If we had perfect social mobility coupled with perfect equality of opportunity & a 100% meritocratic society the attitude of "poor people get what they deserve" would be fine (not that it's possible as we all have different quality parents & different genetic predispositions).

Family A - Hard-rule parents.

Child 1 - Requires hard parenting to develop & succeed - does well in life.
Child 2 - Requires soft parenting to develop & succeed - does badly in life.

Family B - Soft-rule Parents

Child 3 - Requires hard parenting to develop & succeed - does badly in life.
Child 4 - Requires soft parenting to develop & succeed - does well in life.

Are child 2 and 3 lazy?, or 1 & 4 lucky? - or is it simply stupid to label people either way for being the product of culture, genetics & environment (all factors they objectively have no control over).

I'd go for the latter, sadly it doesn't fit with the simplistic duellist approach the average mouth breather on this forum likes to pretend the world works in & ergo we get the kind of stupid opinions we see on here daily.

 

[Gilly]

Which schools give car / car allowances? I'll move!

Strong pension? Crippled pension! Haha.

Good pay and good holidays.

It closed last year, but the school my partner's Dad worked at did. he was head of department, but there were 7 different faculty members above him at that school, not including the other heads of department, so I wouldn't expect that to differ.

It's a lot less than it was.

For the young'uns that's meh, for people that have been paying in to it for say ~ 20 + years, it's crippled. A lot of those teachers have had to keep working.

The scheme is a lot less than it was, but it doesn't affect the scheme that is now closed for those that have paid in for years. That money doesn't just disappear.

 

[RDM]

But you would have thought otherwise intelligent people who spend a bit of time reading up on human behaviour & psychology (which in turn results it dismissing that ideological stance as scientifically flawed).

I may just be one of the average mouth breathers but it seems that I know enough about psychology to understand that behaviourism is only one theory of human behaviour and one that whilst it has its proponents certainly isn't universal. Indeed in education at least constructivism is seen as a much more reliable and useful theory.

Though it does make me wonder that if you are such a proponent of behaviourist theory and determinism that is derived from it why you use so many pejorative terms for people that you must believe are just acting how they are because of the environmental factors that have moulded them?

But then of course you couldn't help yourself doing that either, that character flaw would also be pre-determined.

 

[jas72]

If the private sector was left to its own devices, ie a totally free market then wages would decline to next to nothing. The public sector has to lead in that area and the government has to regulate to keep things above unsafe minimums.

Exactly this!

The private sector has shown it's ruthlessness in this by outsourcing its work to places with no minimum standards and places employing children.

Tax benefits for low paid should be scrapped in favour of making companies pay a decent salary to their staff.

I wonder if MPs pay and expenses will also be capped at 1% if MPs expenses will be abolished in many cases or at least under serious review?

Of course cutting back on the civil service means there's less people available to chase the fraudsters.

We could stop benefits to the long term sick and unemployed forcing them to live by other means and when they commit crimes we lock them up which costs 5-6 times the amount the currently get on benefits.

 

[estebanrey]

I guess you are right.

But you would have thought otherwise intelligent people who spend a bit of time reading up on human behaviour & psychology (which in turn results it dismissing that ideological stance as scientifically flawed).

It's based on ego, "I did well in life because I'm great!" - as opposed to the hard cold truth "I did well in life because I was fortunate enough to have the required upbringing & environment to succeed".

If we had perfect social mobility coupled with perfect equality of opportunity & a 100% meritocratic society the attitude of "poor people get what they deserve" would be fine (not that it's possible as we all have different quality parents & different genetic predispositions).

Family A - Hard-rule parents.

Child 1 - Requires hard parenting to develop & succeed - does well in life.
Child 2 - Requires soft parenting to develop & succeed - does badly in life.

Family B - Soft-rule Parents

Child 3 - Requires hard parenting to develop & succeed - does badly in life.
Child 4 - Requires soft parenting to develop & succeed - does well in life.

Are child 2 and 3 lazy?, or 1 & 4 lucky? - or is it simply stupid to label people either way for being the product of culture, genetics & environment (all factors they objectively have no control over).

I'd go for the latter, sadly it doesn't fit with the simplistic duellist approach the average mouth breather on this forum likes to pretend the world works in & ergo we get the kind of stupid opinions we see on here daily.

Whilst I agree with this you can't also assume everyone who has done well did due to pure luck either.

As easily as you say a rich person can think "I'm rich because I'm great" it is equally wrong for all poor people to think "I'm only poor because of bad luck".

It cuts both ways, that's why it's so hard to design a tax and welfare system that accommodates it.

We need a more meritocratic system I agree, but the problem with that is some of the biggest barriers to social mobility IMO are things hard wired into the global economic system.

Take the notion of interest for example, someone who starts of with a million quid will be getting an effective wage each year off interest whereas someone who starts off £10,000 in debt will have to work very hard just to keep up with the interest he owes on it.

It ultimately means that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work for each £1 whereas the richer you are the harder it is to spend a £1 (as by the time you spend it you've earned it back in interest).

I remember reading somewhere years ago that Bill Gates could spend all day buying boats and cars and he'd still be richer at the end of the day than the start because of interest.

 

[jas72]

but aren't the banks using his cash to give poor people loans?
or should we just give him no interest and give the people intrest free loans?

 

[Gilly]

I may just be one of the average mouth breathers but it seems that I know enough about psychology to understand that behaviourism is only one theory of human behaviour and one that whilst it has its proponents certainly isn't universal. Indeed in education at least constructivism is seen as a much more reliable and useful theory.

Though it does make me wonder that if you are such a proponent of behaviourist theory and determinism that is derived from it why you use so many pejorative terms for people that you must believe are just acting how they are because of the environmental factors that have moulded them?

But then of course you couldn't help yourself doing that either, that character flaw would also be pre-determined.

 

[estebanrey]

but aren't the banks using his cash to give poor people loans?
or should we just give him no interest and give the people intrest free loans?

I'm not suggesting we scrap interest. I'm just point out that it IS a barrier to social mobility.

In an IDEAL world, people wouldn't require loans because everyone would have a decent level of income and everything (including houses and property) would be fairly affordable after a short amount of saving.

Again, I'm not putting forward suggestions, just telling an inconvenient truth about how things like interest hinder social mobility.

But on your point, I don't think the bank are using his money to lend to poor people. It's not as if he goes to the bank and a few million is missing and they say "oh sorry MR Gates, we had to lend a couple of mil to poor people, we'll put it back when they pay it back", that's not really how banks work. In reality, they just "create" the money they loan out in the expectation of getting back, but they don't physically lend out other people's money.

 

[elmarko]

I may just be one of the average mouth breathers but it seems that I know enough about psychology to understand that behaviourism is only one theory of human behaviour and one that whilst it has its proponents certainly isn't universal. Indeed in education at least constructivism is seen as a much more reliable and useful theory.

Though it does make me wonder that if you are such a proponent of behaviourist theory and determinism that is derived from it why you use so many pejorative terms for people that you must believe are just acting how they are because of the environmental factors that have moulded them?

But then of course you couldn't help yourself doing that either, that character flaw would also be pre-determined.

I don't blame people for being idiots, but I firmly believe they are & don't feel the need to white-wash over that fact.

I'm fully aware these people are also just as unfortunate to have had no moral substance instilled into them during their upbringing.

I pity them.

 

[RDM]

I don't blame people for being idiots, but I firmly believe they are & don't feel the need to white-wash over that fact.

I'm fully aware these people are also just as unfortunate to have had no moral substance instilled into them during their upbringing.

I pity them.

It's ok, I don't blame you for you lack off basic civility, it is just unfortunate you didn't have it instilled in you during your upbringing. I pity you.

 

[elmarko]

Whilst I agree with this you can't also assume everyone who has done well did due to pure luck either.

As easily as you say a rich person can think "I'm rich because I'm great" it is equally wrong for all poor people to think "I'm only poor because of bad luck".

I agree it may not be "bad luck", if if you include a person having poor genetics & bad parents or the inherent inability to make good choices as bad luck (which I personally do).

I'm lucky, to firstly be born in a developed world (that already was quite a long-shot)

Then I'm lucky to have been born a straight white male (no distinct disadvantages related to prejudice I could experience, not that it's bad to be anything else obviously - but the chances of me being bullied, sexually abused or discriminated against are statistically significantly lower)

I was then fortunate enough to have good parents who cultivated my ability to learn at a young age, genetically lucky (never sick or ill, no medical conditions, perfect eye-sight) - then lucky enough to develop enough self-esteem make it through life.

I was simply lucky that various factors aligned in my favour & my childhood experiences didn't leave me unable to cope with the challenges we face in the outside world.

I view people in a mechanistic fashion, criminals/lazy people are defective - due to poor "manufacture" (parents/genetics/childhood experiences).

It cuts both ways, that's why it's so hard to design a tax and welfare system that accommodates it.

We need a more meritocratic system I agree, but the problem with that is some of the biggest barriers to social mobility IMO are things hard wired into the global economic system.

Take the notion of interest for example, someone who starts of with a million quid will be getting an effective wage each year off interest whereas someone who starts off £10,000 in debt will have to work very hard just to keep up with the interest he owes on it.

It ultimately means that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work for each £1 whereas the richer you are the harder it is to spend a £1 (as by the time you spend it you've earned it back in interest).

I remember reading somewhere years ago that Bill Gates could spend all day buying boats and cars and he'd still be richer at the end of the day than the start because of interest.

I pretty much agree with all of the above.

 

[elmarko]

It's ok, I don't blame you for you lack off basic civility, it is just unfortunate you didn't have it instilled in you during your upbringing. I pity you.

Hit a nerve did I?.

I'd prefer to have a good moral fibre than civility on internet forums to be honest.

 

[RDM]

Hit a nerve did I?.

Not in the slightest, I find your approach amusing. Childish name calling diminishes any points you may have.

I'd prefer to have a good moral fibre than civility on internet forums to be honest.

I hadn't realised they were mutually exclusive not that you have really managed to demonstrate the former either.

 

[Gilly]

Hit a nerve did I?.

I'd prefer to have a good moral fibre than civility on internet forums to be honest.

You aren't coming across as having any of that.

 

[elmarko]

Not in the slightest, I find your approach amusing. Childish name calling diminishes any points you may have.

I hadn't realised they were mutually exclusive not that you have really managed to demonstrate the former either.

Not really - I fail to see how it diminishes the point I'm making, argue against the content of what I say not the delivery method.

Besides, calling a group of people stupid isn't always an insult (contrary to popular belief) - but a genuine estimation of the average intelligence level of the group in question, I'll use the phase "clearly lacking in intelligence understanding, reason, wit or sense" if you would prefer.

It's already well document certain political ideological viewpoints (ones which are in contrast to our scientific understanding of human behaviour) are held by people with lower IQ's.

Simplistic dualism is easier to digest than the truth, ergo more appealing to the mentally deficient.

If you simply don't care about the poor, or the quality of life of the vulnerable population then say so - but it's the faux-moral attitudes presented which irk me, I could at least respect the honesty presented.

You aren't coming across as having any of that.

Meh, I find supporting changes which will cause actual pain to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable peoples lives to be far more morally reprehensible than simply lacking a little politeness on an internet forum.

But I guess I may be in the minority.

 

[hyperst]

I guess more than half the people here are not living on JSA, if you was, you might have a different opinion, but while you are on the good side of life you seem to have rose tinted specs on, imo.