Bwhahahahahahahahaaaaa
Radical benefits shake-up
- Thread starter gothic_hobbit
- Start date
Bwhahahahahahahahaaaaa
It's obviously going to cost more, but if just a handful of people sit up and listen, and realise you cannot recklessly keep on breeding without regard for looking after their spawns, it'll already help. It's going to take a long long time to instill personal responsibility into these families, but hopefully we'll get there in the end.
I don't know where you get your ideas from, but corporations and high earning individuals are taxed to the hilt. Tax them more and they'll simply up and leave. Many more workers where their ones came from. Lose them, lose their tax money and X amount of people out of a job.
Well the people keep voting in these governments. Don't want to hear them moan if this is what they've voted for.
Instead we should pull a France, up tax to 75% for the wealthy and watch them and their tax money, businesses (that employ) leave the country?
erm some companies aren't paying a flat rate they have negotiated special deals...
and as if these companies are going to up and leave over a few fraction of a percent profit.
the fact is minimum wage being so low is making more people every year eligible for working tax credits and housing benefit.
it can not carry on like this forever.
buuut....these policies are supposed to be saving us money...
And in the scheme of things it is only a handful of people, hence I fail to see the hysteria surrounding what is portrayed as a 'massive' issue.
So what a few people bum off the state, they always have they always will. I remember exactly the same thing being said in the early eighties by the Conservatives then, and they were in power for 19 years....and still didn't solve anything.
The actual issue is the amount of welfare we are spending on working benefits, pensions and the NHS.
Rather than blindly forge ahead with how you think this can be achieved and hope it might get somewhere in the end, how about, oh I don't know...some evidence based policies?
Whoa there tiger!, that sounds like some kind of communist science talk.
[communist talk]But I haven't even broached the subject of a maximum wage yet![/communist talk]
And here in lies the real issue with our way of democracy.
Benefits have always been available to workers, nothing new there. People these days are far less likely to spend within their budget and sacrifice niceties.
We need to build hundreads of thousands of new houses, to decrease rent/mortgages, we need the goverment to stop helping FT as well as sensible mortgages, basically we need inflation to devalue houses over the next 10-15 years. But we need more housing stock and mortgages need to be less obtainable, untill that happens, cost of living and especially houses will continue rising.
As for whoever said I have fallen for the torie line. How is describing it as a public opinion policy, like I did in my first spot falling for it?
He said probably, is there any evidence it would? (genuine question)
Also, you mentioned earlier about simplifying tax and benefits, and by that putting forward the example of a flat rate tax system.
But a Flat Rate system is not synonymous with a simple system though, the complicated part of the tax system is not multiplying the final figure by x% in what ever bands, the complicated part is the massive list of rules to work out that final number in the first place.
So, we could still create a simple but progressive tax system or a complicated but flat rate system, they are two separate issues.
Last edited:
Flat tax is progressive and remove most of the exceptions. Simplified, fair etc.
if personal allowance is also set at ~20k no one is paying tax below a liveable wage, so far less tax creidts etc
Of course you could creat a complicated flat tax, that isn't what suggest though, and not really epfeasable to go full detail on a forum, without the countries book.
They are linked, it's still a lot more work to work out tax rates, than a flat tax.
As for the evidence, should have deleted his first line, my response was aimed at the "Government is going to risk a shakeup like that"
And there's thousands of policies which go for public opinion over facts. After all they have to be voted in and there's Zero constitution saying a goverment has to go for facts over public opinion.
And benfits certainly can be abused, my uncle worked about a month in his life, zero medical conditions, now "retired" it should never of been a choice. Even when he was forced to apply for jobs, he got one and gave it up after a few days as he couldn't do it and yet still got JSA. What a surprise you can keep up after a few days, what job can you keep up after a few days, especially assembly line or warehouse work, takes time to build dexterity and/or muscles.
It's a safety net on Ethan should be for all, why we have homeless people is beyond me.
if personal allowance is also set at ~20k no one is paying tax below a liveable wage, so far less tax creidts etc
Of course you could creat a complicated flat tax, that isn't what suggest though, and not really epfeasable to go full detail on a forum, without the countries book.
They are linked, it's still a lot more work to work out tax rates, than a flat tax.
As for the evidence, should have deleted his first line, my response was aimed at the "Government is going to risk a shakeup like that"
And there's thousands of policies which go for public opinion over facts. After all they have to be voted in and there's Zero constitution saying a goverment has to go for facts over public opinion.
And benfits certainly can be abused, my uncle worked about a month in his life, zero medical conditions, now "retired" it should never of been a choice. Even when he was forced to apply for jobs, he got one and gave it up after a few days as he couldn't do it and yet still got JSA. What a surprise you can keep up after a few days, what job can you keep up after a few days, especially assembly line or warehouse work, takes time to build dexterity and/or muscles.
It's a safety net on Ethan should be for all, why we have homeless people is beyond me.
Last edited:
Good.
Benefits should be a safety net not a way of life.
I don't think anyone has any problem with providing for those that have disabilities, who are elderly and on low incomes and for those that have lost their job through no fault of their own.
For those that think they can milk the system and never intend to work - they need sorting out.
Benefits should be a safety net not a way of life.
I don't think anyone has any problem with providing for those that have disabilities, who are elderly and on low incomes and for those that have lost their job through no fault of their own.
For those that think they can milk the system and never intend to work - they need sorting out.
I am sure it will cost more in the first years, this is not really a cost saving exercise.
What it does do is draw a line which says 'over this we will not pay'. It provides the person/family a budget which they will have to decide how to manage. Like the majority of people in the country.
It is open to another government to relax it in the future if they so wish.
The more interesting bit is that a minister wishing to increase any part of the welfare budget will need to report to the House of Commons. In a similar but different manner to which inflation is reported to the chancellor
What it does do is draw a line which says 'over this we will not pay'. It provides the person/family a budget which they will have to decide how to manage. Like the majority of people in the country.
It is open to another government to relax it in the future if they so wish.
The more interesting bit is that a minister wishing to increase any part of the welfare budget will need to report to the House of Commons. In a similar but different manner to which inflation is reported to the chancellor
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Yet you're apparently ok with working people being subsidised to live there. As a "tax payer" you pay their benefits too.
What do you mean "these families"?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
More people being forced to use food banks.
Quote:
Naomi Rogers, a spokesperson for UK Uncut said “Half a million people now rely on food banks and it’s the government’s decision to slash benefits that’s forcing that number up. The benefit cap, bedroom tax, the scrapping of crisis loans and attacks on disability living allowance and job seekers allowance are driving people into shocking levels of poverty.”
Source:
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog
But hey, ignorance is bliss right, after all, benefit claimants are really living it up. Yeah, right.
Quote:
Naomi Rogers, a spokesperson for UK Uncut said “Half a million people now rely on food banks and it’s the government’s decision to slash benefits that’s forcing that number up. The benefit cap, bedroom tax, the scrapping of crisis loans and attacks on disability living allowance and job seekers allowance are driving people into shocking levels of poverty.”
Source:
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog
But hey, ignorance is bliss right, after all, benefit claimants are really living it up. Yeah, right.
A cap really hurts all beneift claimants does it? Oh wait you're lumping it altogether and over simplifying it.
Somehow something that isn't in effect is already forcing people to food banks.
And of course all people on benefits spend their money wisely as well? And still can't afford food?
Somehow something that isn't in effect is already forcing people to food banks.
And of course all people on benefits spend their money wisely as well? And still can't afford food?