DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments

This is more about giving the ability to change the goal posts, when they feel like it, shame they don't do things like this for other government projects like PPP/PFI which are costing us hundreds of billions. the back dating on JSA would cost 100 million if that. What about bring in Laws to back date any MPs decisions that lead to a a decline in the economy etc..
 
Dolph said:
This is fair to the taxpayer and those impacted initially, while also providing a clear view that trying to play the system has consequences.
Click to expand...

Firstly, collective punishment is never fair; secondly, what on earth do you mean "trying to play the system"?
 
Dolph said:
Retrospective legislation is never a good idea and should never be used.
Click to expand...


True.

Dolph said:
What should happen is that the compensation bill is taken from the budget for jsa for 2013/2014 with all payments reduced by the amount necessary to recoup the cost. This is fair to the taxpayer and those impacted initially, while also providing a clear view that trying to play the system has consequences.
Click to expand...

That seems like a ridiculous suggestion.
 
It's fine to make people work for their money but they need to be paid a reasonable wage, working full time for £56 a week is unacceptable, people could be put to work on local projects that the councils won't fund themselves.
 
First the short sharp shock for just being unemployed,

then they want to retroactively change the law to avoid the consequences,

and now the cheeky ******** want to inflict collective punishment if they can't make these retrospective changes.

SICK, SICK and SICK.
 
Mr Jack said:
Firstly, collective punishment is never fair; secondly, what on earth do you mean "trying to play the system"?
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with Dolph's suggestion, but at what point does it stop being "collective punishment"? If the "taxpayer" is paying for it, is that not just collective punishment on a wider scale?

I guess "collective punishment" becomes "paying their fair share" when it is taxation on the rich? :D
 
Mr Jack said:
Firstly, collective punishment is never fair; secondly, what on earth do you mean "trying to play the system"?
Click to expand...

If collective punishment is never fair, then the taxpayer can not be forced to pay for this, so where should thr money come from?

and what I mean by trying to play the system is the people who spend far more time trying to ignore and subvert the will of the people, enacted by the government, than actually doing something to get themselves off dependency on the taxpayer.
 
RDM said:
Not that I agree with Dolph's suggestion, but at what point does it stop being "collective punishment"? If the "taxpayer" is paying for it, is that not just collective punishment on a wider scale?
Click to expand...

No. That's just taxation; it's not a punishment, it's a consequence of the governments action. Dolph is talking about targeting a particular group in order to discourage people from defending themselves in a court of law. That's punishment.
 
Mr Jack said:
No. That's just taxation; it's not a punishment, it's a consequence of the governments action. Dolph is talking about targeting a particular group in order to discourage people from defending themselves in a court of law. That's punishment.
Click to expand...

Compensation is punishment.
PHP:
 
Mr Jack said:
No. That's just taxation; it's not a punishment, it's a consequence of the governments action.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see the difference, it is me as a taxpayer (well, it would be if I paid tax (well I do pay some tax, just not income tax)) that is having to pick up the tab. How is that not "punishment" in the same way that a subset of taxpayers has to pick up the tab? Is the high duty of fuel collective punishment? Is the high duty on alcohol collective punishment?
 
Dolph said:
What alternative do you suggest? collective punishment of the taxpayer?
Click to expand...

dolph iv paid in to the sodding tax system, so why should i have my i get now made less because the gov's tried to be clever and lost a court case.

honestly change the record already.
 
Dolph said:
The budget for mps isnt big enough. we could do the dwp staff budget, I would be happy with that.
PHP:
Click to expand...

They are equally blameless. Even the most deluded, Daily Mail reading Tory could not consider scapegoating the innocent to protect the guilty would ever work in the long term.
 
People shouldn't have voted the blues back in power then.

I for one have never and will never vote Tory.
 
Redz said:
They are equally blameless. Even the most deluded, Daily Mail reading Tory could not consider scapegoating the innocent to protect the guilty would ever work in the long term.
Click to expand...

And yet that is exactpy what putting the burden on the general taxpayer does...
PHP:
 
Dolph said:
Compensation is punishment.
Click to expand...

No, it's compensation. Paying compensation may also serve to punish the transgressing party but the primary purpose of compensation is to, you know, compensate the wronged party.

The sums that have been suggested are not punitive for the government.
 
Dolph said:
And yet that is exactpy what putting the burden on the general taxpayer does...
PHP:
Click to expand...

My point exactly, make those responsible suffer the burden. Let the government lead by example, i.e. without remuneration until the debt is cleared. Would be hypocritical to not practice what they preach don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom