They moan about the new mummt tax

[Freakbro]

The eldery (pensions) and the sick (disability allowance) aren't effected by the 1% cap so that makes two thirds of that argument untrue.

That's true, I had forgotten that, but it doesn't change the assertion that whenever the 'welfare bill' is mentioned, the picture painted is that it is all taken by 'dole scroungers'....when the reality is only a fraction of it is taken from abuse of the system.

The problem is the welfare bill *is* too high, but since the majority of it is spent on the elderly and infirm, there doesn't seem to be a lot we can do about it.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The point is that basics cost too much, people don't need more money they need lower costs.

I doub't there will be a sentence posted in this thread that makes more sense.

Thread can be closed now.

 

[Xordium]

The point is that basics cost too much, people don't need more money they need lower costs.

Part of those higher costs though is a complete inequality in wealth which makes things far too costly for large swathes of society. But otherwise an excellent point. Why we have to prop up artificially high property is beyond me - actually it isn't because I can quite clearly see the conflict of interest for those that perpetuate it.

 

[JoeF1]

If they can not afford children do not have them, they complain about having less money, well join the rest of the country.

Summed the whole thread up in his post. Nice OP, Nice.

 

[estebanrey]

The problem is when critical people analyse changes to the benefits system they always make the presupposition that the amount being paid out now is correct, and therefore any cut to it would be an unjustifiable, or unfair loss to the person affected by it.

We need to almost forget about the current system and in your mind start with a blank piece of paper and ask 'what would be a fair amount for this type of claim' and I'm sure in a lot of cases the result would be less than what they currently get.

We also live a weird situation where you can have X for 500 years, then put it up to Y for a year and then when you put it back down to X it gets called a 'cut'. Take the 50% tax rate or 'Education Maintenance Allowance', neither of them have existed for very long but when they both got cut the left suddenly acted like they were longstanding principles of British policy.

I genuinely believe that you could put JSA up to £30,000 a week for a month, then cut it back to £200 and some lefties would complain about a 'savage attack' on the jobless.

It's not about the cut, it's about what is the right amount in the first place.

 

[Pneumonic]

Bottom line is that this government has it's economic policy all wrong.. the amounts they are cutting will make little practical difference when you look at the big picture unless they actually generate more tax income. I wouldn't disagree that we need to reduce budgets; certainly many welfare claimants have no intention of working... but on the flip side many that do claim actually need support.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The problem is when critical people analyse changes to the benefits system they always make the presupposition that the amount being paid out now is correct, and therefore any cut to it would be an unjustifiable, or unfair loss to the person affected by it.

We need to almost forget about the current system and in your mind start with a blank piece of paper and ask 'what would be a fair amount for this type of claim' and I'm sure in a lot of cases the result would be less than what they currently get.

We also live a weird situation where you can have X for 500 years, then put it up to Y for a year and then when you put it back down to X it gets called a 'cut'. Take the 50% tax rate or 'Education Maintenance Allowance', neither of them have existed for very long but when they both got cut the left suddenly acted like they were longstanding principles of British policy.

I genuinely believe that you could put JSA up to £30,000 a week for a month, then cut it back to £200 and some lefties would complain about a 'savage attack' on the jobless.

It's not about the cut, it's about what is the right amount in the first place.

I often dont agree with Este but I certainly do this time.

So much of our current welfare bill was introduced or dramatically increased under the last labour government. So like boom and bust which they elimininated (apparently) they also royally stiched up the future with over the top expectations of welfare.

Whilst I do agree we need more housing we do need it to be the right housing, our ever increasing population has to expect to living in conditions that most of the rest of the developed world does. Look at say Japan, their places are small and mostly highrise in cities yet we still expect a house in a leafy suburb.

Tower blocks have a bad rep here, but with some serious effort the main issues could be eliminated. I think there is a far cry from council tower blocks (which cloudsmost peoples perception) from average owner occupied.

I live in a modern townhouse (ie terrace by any other definition) and we can hardly hear the neighbours in normal activity. Yes all have to slam the front doors as they are badly fitting and badly designed, but bar that its hard to tell if they are in or out, to either side, and one said has relatively young children. However I am certain a nice big sub would resonate through the walls.
People are quite antisocial now with things like noise, thats part of whats holding us back from the inevitable move upwards that we need to make.
Once we can get over this hurdle, get the benefits of efficiency in building bigger properties and with a much lower land usage and hence land cost per property we may have a hope of getting more realistic housing costs, until we can make that leap we face the inevitable high property prices.
No amount of social and affordable housing schemes will change the fundamental issues we face with housing. Bar a few new towns.
Maybe a new town being designated every 10 years could fix the issue, but where we could possibly place them dont know.

 

[aln]

Maybe a new town being designated every 10 years could fix the issue, but where we could possibly place them dont know.

You should compare a map of England to Scotland sometime.

 

[Omaeka]

The problem is when critical people analyse changes to the benefits system they always make the presupposition that the amount being paid out now is correct, and therefore any cut to it would be an unjustifiable, or unfair loss to the person affected by it.

We need to almost forget about the current system and in your mind start with a blank piece of paper and ask 'what would be a fair amount for this type of claim' and I'm sure in a lot of cases the result would be less than what they currently get.

We also live a weird situation where you can have X for 500 years, then put it up to Y for a year and then when you put it back down to X it gets called a 'cut'. Take the 50% tax rate or 'Education Maintenance Allowance', neither of them have existed for very long but when they both got cut the left suddenly acted like they were longstanding principles of British policy.

I genuinely believe that you could put JSA up to £30,000 a week for a month, then cut it back to £200 and some lefties would complain about a 'savage attack' on the jobless.

It's not about the cut, it's about what is the right amount in the first place.

Truer words were never spoken. It's bad when people who don't have to work and receive benefits have nicer houses, nicer cars, more material goods then they know what to do with and takeaways every night. Whereas blue collar workers get bent over by the Government and struggle to even pay the rent, simply because the taxes are so unbelievably unfair to those who actually work and contribute to society, just because the Government's so bad at handling their money. We need a system like America, where benefits gets you a house, utilities paid for and coupons that can only be spent on food. You can almost guarantee that unemployment levels will plummet when people actually have to work to have nice things, up until they realise how much the Government has off them for it of course, but it'll give the economy a temporary boost at the least.

Something I found on Facebook is a great example.

im 18 an mummy to a beautiful boy and baby bump #2
i have the best group of friends a girl could wish for

For one, she has zero employment history, and zero education and probably never even bothered with School, yet she'll be rolling in it anyway compared to most for doing nothing but squatting out little brats who'll go on to do the same. The fact the working man get's stung in order to fund rubbish like this is a joke. In a perfect country the age of legal contraception would be damn higher than 18, there would be a minimum income requirement and people like this should have their children given to those who can't have them, but deserve them. Controlled breeding has so many benefits for society but it'll never happen simply because it's such a huge breach of our 'human rights'.

The best part of it all though, is that a close friend of my fathers, his wife has horrific back problems to the point she needs morphine and has several operations scheduled for this year, but oh yeah the Government thought it was alright to stop all of her benefits for some reason. This forced her husband who practically sat around all day caring for her to get a job to get her money for what she needs, which the Government just mostly take back anyway. She even tried applying for JSA but they told her she was incapable of finding work due to her condition so she was denied, but had her genuine benefits stopped!? Country is a joke.

 

[realBabelfish]

The OP had the most valid point. If you cannot afford to look after your children don't ******* have them! It's not the states job to provide for your child, you should provide for your child!

Me and my wife really want a second child, we would love too! However at the moment our house isn't big enough for us and two children and we have a debt to clear. So we had a real shocking thought, this is really out there do brace yourselves... We will wait until we are financially able to provide for ourselves, our current child and new child before having one!!! BOOOOMMM!!

******* outrageous I know but I think we could really be on to something, we will take some self responsibility and not blame the state for all our problems **** me I feel like a true rebel!!

i'm in the same boat. well, the mrs wants another but no chance i will go for that until our debts are cleared. i think women just go ga-ga when they think about this whereas us men tend to be a bit more logical.

one thing i need to clear up though is this. what if you were well off with kids and then lost your cash. fair enough we need to stop people pooping out kids when they arent working but plenty of hard working people have lost their jobs in the last few years, how do we pay for the kids? should kids be made to suffer?

 

[MrMoonX]

Truer words were never spoken. It's bad when people who don't have to work and receive benefits have nicer houses, nicer cars, more material goods then they know what to do with and takeaways every night. Whereas blue collar workers get bent over by the Government and struggle to even pay the rent, simply because the taxes are so unbelievably unfair to those who actually work and contribute to society, just because the Government's so bad at handling their money. We need a system like America, where benefits gets you a house, utilities paid for and coupons that can only be spent on food. You can almost guarantee that unemployment levels will plummet when people actually have to work to have nice things, up until they realise how much the Government has off them for it of course, but it'll give the economy a temporary boost at the least.

Something I found on Facebook is a great example.



For one, she has zero employment history, and zero education and probably never even bothered with School, yet she'll be rolling in it anyway compared to most for doing nothing but squatting out little brats who'll go on to do the same. The fact the working man get's stung in order to fund rubbish like this is a joke. In a perfect country the age of legal contraception would be damn higher than 18, there would be a minimum income requirement and people like this should have their children given to those who can't have them, but deserve them. Controlled breeding has so many benefits for society but it'll never happen simply because it's such a huge breach of our 'human rights'.

The best part of it all though, is that a close friend of my fathers, his wife has horrific back problems to the point she needs morphine and has several operations scheduled for this year, but oh yeah the Government thought it was alright to stop all of her benefits for some reason. This forced her husband who practically sat around all day caring for her to get a job to get her money for what she needs, which the Government just mostly take back anyway. She even tried applying for JSA but they told her she was incapable of finding work due to her condition so she was denied, but had her genuine benefits stopped!? Country is a joke.

sigh

you do realise we have an ageing population, placing controls on child birth would only make welfare problems worse, the reason the NHS is struggling is due to the ageing population and the associated costs with health and social care for the elderly. We need people to keep having babies otherwise we will have a whole host of problems associated with a population that is increasingly getting older.

Oh and you want a legal aid of conception? just LOL humans are designed to have babies in their late teens, it is only a social construction which means this is unacceptable. The later people have children the more problems it brings, we are already seeing an increase in Downs etc. due to many women waiting until mid-late 30s before having babies, this again would place even more stress on the social care budget.

The government have played a clever game, if you tell the people something for long enough over , e.g people on benefits on scroungers, people believe the propaganda. I suggest you take your copy of the daily mail and recycle it.

Your comparison to america is even better, American unemployment is huge, their benefits system mean people end up living in tents in the woods. What kind of civilised society does this, whilst giving tax cuts to the rich.

I suggest you educate yourself past the right wing propaganda, spend some time volunteering at a food bank, start seeing the real poverty that is hitting people in your community.
Ask yourself the question: should all this be happening whilst the government are cutting taxes for millionaires?

 

[estebanrey]

sigh

you do realise we have an ageing population, placing controls on child birth would only make welfare problems worse, the reason the NHS is struggling is due to the ageing population and the associated costs with health and social care for the elderly. We need people to keep having babies otherwise we will have a whole host of problems associated with a population that is increasingly getting older.

You are essentially advocating a pyramid scheme then?

Besides, in another thread I already proved that a human costs the government far more between 0-18 that they do for 65-death. You can't just look at the NHS costs of the old in isolation, you need to look at everything. How much do you think it costs, for example, to give a child high quality western schooling for 11 plus years? Look how much we spend on education, child care, child benefit, extra housing benefit for kids etc etc. It dwarfs what the NHS spend on the old and what the government spend on pensions.

 

[aardvark]

The problem is when critical people analyse changes to the benefits system they always make the presupposition that the amount being paid out now is correct, and therefore any cut to it would be an unjustifiable, or unfair loss to the person affected by it.

We need to almost forget about the current system and in your mind start with a blank piece of paper and ask 'what would be a fair amount for this type of claim' and I'm sure in a lot of cases the result would be less than what they currently get.

We also live a weird situation where you can have X for 500 years, then put it up to Y for a year and then when you put it back down to X it gets called a 'cut'. Take the 50% tax rate or 'Education Maintenance Allowance', neither of them have existed for very long but when they both got cut the left suddenly acted like they were longstanding principles of British policy.

I genuinely believe that you could put JSA up to £30,000 a week for a month, then cut it back to £200 and some lefties would complain about a 'savage attack' on the jobless.

It's not about the cut, it's about what is the right amount in the first place.

spot on.

 

[Fubsy]

The problem is when critical people analyse changes to the benefits system they always make the presupposition that the amount being paid out now is correct, and therefore any cut to it would be an unjustifiable, or unfair loss to the person affected by it.

We need to almost forget about the current system and in your mind start with a blank piece of paper and ask 'what would be a fair amount for this type of claim' and I'm sure in a lot of cases the result would be less than what they currently get.

We also live a weird situation where you can have X for 500 years, then put it up to Y for a year and then when you put it back down to X it gets called a 'cut'. Take the 50% tax rate or 'Education Maintenance Allowance', neither of them have existed for very long but when they both got cut the left suddenly acted like they were longstanding principles of British policy.

I genuinely believe that you could put JSA up to £30,000 a week for a month, then cut it back to £200 and some lefties would complain about a 'savage attack' on the jobless.

It's not about the cut, it's about what is the right amount in the first place.

Like others have said, I think this is a good sensible post.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

For me the best bit is:

Single mum-to-be Helen Mockridge has one clear suggestion for a better way to reduce the deficit.
"Taxing really rich people, obviously, that's where the money should come from," she said.

Obviously, the rich should pay for you to have a child...

That's where I lost it too. As same with the mansion tax it's just pure jealousy, nothing else. Regardless of how anyone thinks, "rich" people already pay a considerable amount of tax in this country, and get very little in return for it, whereas the people paying the least amount of tax and shouting the loudest are always the people who are getting the most out of the system.

 

[regulus]

For me the best bit is:



Obviously, the rich should pay for you to have a child...

I'm going to sit on the fence on this one as it doesn't affect me but really? Comments like that don't help their cause...

Same here. My comments and thoughts on such an idiot like that single mum would get me banned. As if it's her RIGHT for me to pay for her to pump out a sprog that will more than likely be just as stupid and entitled as she is.

 

[MrMoonX]

You are essentially advocating a pyramid scheme then?

Besides, in another thread I already proved that a human costs the government far more between 0-18 that they do for 65-death. You can't just look at the NHS costs of the old in isolation, you need to look at everything. How much do you think it costs, for example, to give a child high quality western schooling for 11 plus years? Look how much we spend on education, child care, child benefit, extra housing benefit for kids etc etc. It dwarfs what the NHS spend on the old and what the government spend on pensions.

I didnt just look at the NHS I said Health AND SOCIAL care, the social care budgets for local authorities are stretched by an ageing population and are only getting worse. We need people to keep having babies end of!

millionaire politicians hitting working families the hardest whilst giving tax breaks to millionaires is the issue. We already have a disgusting child poverty rate for a country that is one of the richest in the world, these kind of taxes and cuts are compounding this. The rise of food banks should tell you this, its just not right for a modern democracy to let people live like this.

 

[estebanrey]

That's where I lost it too. As same with the mansion tax it's just pure jealousy, nothing else. Regardless of how anyone thinks, "rich" people already pay a considerable amount of tax in this country, and get very little in return for it, whereas the people paying the least amount of tax and shouting the loudest are always the people who are getting the most out of the system.

You are looking at the system the wrong way, like a personal insurance policy. I see the welfare state as a system that ensures we all live in a civilised society and that benefits the rich just as much as the poor.

I don't think it's as simple as looking at the direct in and outs of each person and saying it's unfair on people who put more in than they get out because a rich person's wealth in the first place could be based on the fact we have a welfare state. For example a housing landlord with a big portfolio probably pays more in tax than he gets back in state support, but most of the money he 'earns' will also be coming from housing benefit pot paid to his tennants. Likewise the MD of a retail chain needs a population of people who have disposable income in order to buy things from his shop.

In short almost all state benefits ultimately end up as profit in some business owners pocket so I don't think you can say the rich don't benefit from welfare payouts to the poor.

 

[regulus]

Funny how all the women in that video are near enough obese.

 

[MrMoonX]

Another issue is making sure people are paid a living wage, the minimum wage is a joke and good couple of quid an hour short of what is needed to be able to live without the state topping it up. We need rent and childcare controls that would go a long way in ensuring people could afford to work.