It doesn't reduce the cost of your food. It increases the payments to shareholders, if anything.
If you expect any savings to be passed on to shoppers, then you're being a bit naive.
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
It doesn't reduce the cost of your food. It increases the payments to shareholders, if anything.
If you expect any savings to be passed on to shoppers, then you're being a bit naive.
'There are enough jobs for everyone in the country and you are to blame if you can't find one' - Some Tory idiot.
Your preference is retroactive legislation, just disguised by deferring the costs.
People were penalised illegally.
You want them to remain penalised and make it legal.
That requires retroactively changing the law.
To answer your question, a welfare state is generally considered better than mass murder or a collapse of society. What else are you going to do with the millions of people if the state doesn't provide bread and circuses? You have to either kill them all or accept the consequences of them all doing whatever is necessary to survive, i.e. revolution without any form of replacement government.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Posted: March 15th, 2013 | Author: editor | Filed under: Info on schemes | 4 Comments »
Yesterday the Government introduced a new workfare bill to retroactively change workfare legislation judged unlawful by the High Court, so that it has always complied with the court ruling, even though for two years it did not. Its aim? To avoid paying back the JSA money it unlawfully stopped when people were ‘sanctioned’ on its workfare schemes. That the government would try to avoid paying was expected. What no one expected was how it plans to do so.
In its arguments to justify withholding social security people are due – an average of about £500 per person, £130 million pounds in total – the DWP has stated that:
“If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions”
In short, if the government is made to obey the high court’s ruling, it will inflict collective punishment on those who can least afford it by finding £130 million pounds more in new cuts from the welfare
budget. Shockingly this is supported by Labour. Yet again the poorest will be made to pay for the mistakes of the powerful.
So if they have to pay back what was illegally taken away thay are going to further punish the jobseeker with more cuts. Very tantrum like, children.
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/
Yesterday the Government introduced a new workfare bill to retroactively change workfare legislation judged unlawful by the High Court, so that it has always complied with the court ruling, even though for two years it did not. Its aim? To avoid paying back the JSA money it unlawfully stopped when people were ‘sanctioned’ on its workfare schemes. That the government would try to avoid paying was expected. What no one expected was how it plans to do so.
In its arguments to justify withholding social security people are due – an average of about £500 per person, £130 million pounds in total – the DWP has stated that:
“If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions”
In short, if the government is made to obey the high court’s ruling, it will inflict collective punishment on those who can least afford it by finding £130 million pounds more in new cuts from the welfare
budget. Shockingly this is supported by Labour. Yet again the poorest will be made to pay for the mistakes of the powerful.
So if they have to pay back what was illegally taken away thay are going to further punish the jobseeker with more cuts. Very tantrum like, children.
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/
Government lost a high court challenge, so they change the law to avoid having to pay back money they illegally stopped from the poorest in society, just wow this government is disgusting, all at the same time giving a massive tax break to the rich 
I would take it from the jsa budget, reducing the payment to all claimants, not just those impacted.
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, I am not opposed to a fair and functioning welfare state. I am opposed to our unfair and dysfunctional welfare state that fails both claimants and those forced to pay for it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
So you want jsa claiments to pay back money that is repaid to them after it was illegally taken away in the first place. Mind boggling mentality.
So you want jsa claiments to pay back money that is repaid to them after it was illegally taken away in the first place. Mind boggling mentality.
No. Try actually reading what I wrote. The cost of paying back the issue would remain in the budget for unemployment benefit and worked cost neutral to the taxpayer. It is the way businesses handle regulatory fines and the like, there is no magic money tree, the money has to come from somewhere, and taking it from the taxpayer creates moral hazard for chancers who think they have no responsibility in exchange for the money they are given.
Code:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
LOL! I'm starting to think Dolph is actually IDS lol
one minor issue, where has the money gone that they sopped in the first place. i assume that £150 million is still in the budget for this year so shouldnt have gone anywhere else. and to say "oops we dont have it anymore" is utter rubbish as how do new claimants get money if theres no more money to start with ?!
What an incredibly convincing counter argument. nothing beats an argumentun ad hominem in a debate.
Who do you think should pay for this decision? it can only be either taxpayers via increased taxes, taxpayers via reduced services, benefit recipients via benefit cuts, or public sector employees via reduced pay or staff reductions.
PHP:
What about the companies, people and institutions whose actions precipitated these current woes. I don't see them contributing too much. In fact aren't the rich just getting richer? Strange anyone would have thought the corrupt ***** had orchestrated the whole thing. Not that it matters there are sufficient drones like you to support their actions and enough of a general apathy to ensure nothing gets challenged?
Taxing a corporation results in the money coming from either customers or staff, so the choices are not that different, you just use a less efficient and transparent collection method.
The problem is we have a fundamentally flawed benefots system. All this sort of thing is just tinkering round the edges without addressing the root of the problem.
PHP:
so they set a quota of stopping benefits to pay for a reduced budget, which is more likely. They illegally took money from the poorest people in society and should have to pay it back, end of. No more BS right wing turd from Dolph, you cant argue this its illegal FULL STOP, the money is there, I mean where did they find the £16M to give to comic relief or the money to give themselves an inflation busting payrise
so they set a quota of stopping benefits to pay for a reduced budget, which is more likely. They illegally took money from the poorest people in society and should have to pay it back, end of. No more BS right wing turd from Dolph, you cant argue this its illegal FULL STOP, the money is there, I mean where did they find the £16M to give to comic relief or the money to give themselves an inflation busting payrise
I haven't argued that they shouldn't pay it back, I have explicitly said the exact opposite. The claims should be met, but the cost fed back into the future benefit budget and accounted for accordingly.
why should everyone pay for the IDS' ideologically led failures? The department has the money they took, they made a saving from it, they should pay it back out of the existing budget, or perhaps the ministers responsible for the utter **** ups at the DWP take a pay cut
I don't think that any Govt should be over-ruling the judiciary by way of retrospective legislation...it impacts on the effectiveness of the Judiciary to act independently and without prejudice.
As for allocating the costs, you can't reduce payments to all benefit claimants to pay compensation to those who have been treated unfairly, that would be simply making the same mistakes...unfortunately the taxpayer will have to pay, but perhaps if it can be attributed to somewhere (and with the best will in the world I doubt it is practical or even legal) then it should come out of Govt budgets rather than the welfare budgets as it was the Govt that made the mistake, so they should pay for the mistake.
As for allocating the costs, you can't reduce payments to all benefit claimants to pay compensation to those who have been treated unfairly, that would be simply making the same mistakes...unfortunately the taxpayer will have to pay, but perhaps if it can be attributed to somewhere (and with the best will in the world I doubt it is practical or even legal) then it should come out of Govt budgets rather than the welfare budgets as it was the Govt that made the mistake, so they should pay for the mistake.
Your first option is essentially the same as I am advocating, the second would require pay cuts across the dwp as we have over £100m to cover and I am pretty sure ministers pay comes in around the £100k mark and there arent enough responsible ministers to make up the shortfall. I would accept that proposal though, although I doubt the PCS would...