£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html0 -
yeah i ll go with that 800e amonth
2 yr ago when i faced redundancy, i would have got £53 per week and that only for 6months, nothing after (due to having some savings) despite having worked and paid a fcuking fortune in tax for the last 30 years.
Cuts to benefits? dont make me laugh
0 -
Why not? We are pretty damn generous, probably too much so otherwise there would not be so much oublic support behind keeping them in check (part of the tory manifesto in the last GE).yeah i ll go with that 800e amonth 2 yr ago when i faced redundancy, i would have got £53 per week and that only for 6months, nothing after (due to having some savings) despite having worked and paid a fcuking fortune in tax for the last 30 years.
Cuts to benefits? dont make me laugh
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
Fair bit of research to suggest it's the best way to improve living standards.0 -
I think most people are of the view that work is the best way to improve living standards.Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
Fair bit of research to suggest it's the best way to improve living standards.
That solution also avoids the reduction in living standards for the people who have to subsidise benefits / state giveaways."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why not? We are pretty damn generous, probably too much so otherwise there would not be so much oublic support behind keeping them in check (part of the tory manifesto in the last GE).yeah i ll go with that 800e amonth 2 yr ago when i faced redundancy, i would have got £53 per week and that only for 6months, nothing after (due to having some savings) despite having worked and paid a fcuking fortune in tax for the last 30 years.
Cuts to benefits? dont make me laugh
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/284
i think what the public and i suspect you would support is a contributions based system, not having such, is why the UK is a magnet for EU citizens and why DC cannot make any changes to the UKs benefits system.0 -
A culture whereby people can expect something for nothing is anathema to me. As Stevo says, the best way to improve your standard of living is and should be through your own efforts.
State should be there to lend a hand when necessary.0 -
I think most people are of the view that work is the best way to improve living standards.Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
Fair bit of research to suggest it's the best way to improve living standards.
That solution also avoids the reduction in living standards for the people who have to subsidise benefits / state giveaways.
So you're in favour of policies aimed at 0% unemployment?0 -
I think most people are of the view that work is the best way to improve living standards.Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
Fair bit of research to suggest it's the best way to improve living standards.
That solution also avoids the reduction in living standards for the people who have to subsidise benefits / state giveaways.
I would assume that the idea behind this scheme is to cut unemployment by boosting the spending power of the population, as well as simplifying (and therefore reducing the cost of) the benefits system. Don't know whether or not it would work, I'd be interested in seeing some of Rick's research for this.0 -
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21562.pdf
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSAFETYNETSANDTRANSFERS/Resources/WPS5090.pdf
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-09/new-findings-from-war-on-poverty-just-give-cash
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/is-it-nuts-to-give-to-the-poor-without-strings-attached.html?_r=0&referer=
There is loads and loads on this.
Appreciate people talk a lot about incentives etc but increasingly it's clear "econ 101" thinking isn't always backed up by evidence.
This finish example is a good example of governments governing on the basis of evidence based research. They've seen the research and the evidence and are considering it on its own merits and practical outcomes. It's rationale behaviour.
It may well not work. But it's the policy deciding process I think is enviable.0 -
It's the expenditure equivalent of "one tax rate" too.
It reduces admin costs a lot, no one has to worry about not being fed or going to food banks or anything like that.
They're the positives.
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bis0 -
I am in favour of job creation - as previously explained on here before, that means creating a business friendly environment, incentivising wealth creators/wealth creation and attracting investment. Zero unemployment is unattainable in practice. Although clearly, minimising those on benefits by way of having people in who can work in employment (and self employment) is generally desirable.
I think most people are of the view that work is the best way to improve living standards.Here's a novel idea. Or I thought it was. The Dutch are looking at it too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
Fair bit of research to suggest it's the best way to improve living standards.
That solution also avoids the reduction in living standards for the people who have to subsidise benefits / state giveaways.
So you're in favour of policies aimed at 0% unemployment?
Are you in favour of policies aimed at giving people enough state hand outs that they don't need to/want to work? Have you considered the motivational aspects for both the potential recipients and those who would have to fund it?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I haven't needed to; the studies do.
Take a look yourself.
Out of interest, for the unavoidabley unemployed group in Stevo world, how do they make ends meet?0 -
I haven't needed to; the studies do.
Take a look yourself.
Out of interest, for the unavoidabley unemployed group in Stevo world, how do they make ends meet?
Work house?0 -
You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?0 -
You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?
i m not joking at all.
imho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.0 -
You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?
i m not joking at all.
imho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.
0 -
Really?
"The homeless?", Tory minister Sir George Young once said, "Aren't they the people you step over when you are coming out of the opera?"
and isnt the proposed cuts to young peoples access to housing benefit going to lead to more young people living shelters or the streets?
Answer Ricks question then : What do you think is the right level of benefit to those who for whatever reason get left behind?0 -
imho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.
You make assertions about me and perhaps 11 and a half million others and make an offensive post based on a quote from one minister 25 years ago.
You don't know me or my circumstances, so yes, you are talking shite.0 -
Then they can fine them £1000. Win, win.and isnt the proposed cuts to young peoples access to housing benefit going to lead to more young people living shelters or the streets?
Of course, how you get £1000 from a homeless person is the conundrum.
Maybe you lock them up instead. Then make them work for their upkeep. Oh!......The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
a party that does this......
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future-despite-no-possibility-of-9811910.html
would, as i say if they could, have back the work house.0 -
a party that does this......
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future-despite-no-possibility-of-9811910.html
would, as i say if they could, have back the work house.
But that isn't what you said is it?
You saidimho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.0 -
Maximise their chances of getting a job - see conditions above needed to create jobs. Welfare needs to cater for the essentials but should be set a rate that does not encourage it as a lifestyle option otherwise that is what a fair proportion of people will do. People also need to get real about what are essentials - for example fags and sky tv subscriptions are not essentials.You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well put BallyYou joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?
i m not joking at all.
imho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.
Left wing sweeping generalisation at its finest :roll: Mamba, did you read or understand what I said before about maxi,ising job creation and business creation?
Also a good reason why those with similar political views will get pasted at the next general election. If the continual focus and claimed most important issue is the bottom what 3-4% of the population, how do you think the other 96-97% feel about that? Ignored or used as cash cows is the likely answer (Percentages used for illustration but you get my drift)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
a party that does this......
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thousands-with-degenerative-conditions-classified-as-fit-to-work-in-future-despite-no-possibility-of-9811910.html
would, as i say if they could, have back the work house.
But that isn't what you said is it?
You saidimho most if not all of those on the right, look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty if they could, just as they did in the Victorian era, they ve not changed.
Neither of you have said what a safety net benefit should be have you? easy to put some thicko remark up instead.
Dont really see the difference between forcing people who have serious illnesses into work (many of whom will be v poor by virtue of not in work) and making people who are as Stev0 says unemployable to work, doing what exacty?
Easy to say safety net benefits should be at an amount that prevents it being a life style choice but what is that level?
what about the DWP calculations for a single person? (2013 levels per week)
£71.00 for single person, 25 and over,
£56.25 for those under 25
£111.45 - couple, both 18 and over
not much is it? and hardly a life style choice. cant see them spending it on SKY or fags, i earn more than the couple rate per day.0 -
Mamba, do you still feel it a valid point, saying I, Stevo and 11 million others would 'look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty'0
-
I have said it before: Capitalism requires the factory fodder in boom times and then the fodder is surplus to requirements during bust.
I am pretty sure that every boom cycle has the casualties that can't/won't adapt to the changing working environment and an excess of the above during the bust cycle. Since the big bust in the late twenties, I think the 'residual' body of unemployed grows and constitutes most of the unemployed. Couple the lack of social investment during a bust cycle and the problem is consolidated.
In my line of work, what I see are people who are unemployable. They are clueless as to how unemployable they are, regardless of how much determination and enthusiasm they have. So, the idea that a no strings handout (something I mentioned eons ago on a similar thread but got laughed at) may result in more positive results (I read the link RC) is interesting.
What I envisage in the future is immigrants filling the low and semi-skilled positions. They are much more employable than certain sections of our indigenous population who will continue on a downward spiral no matter what we throw at them. If giving them a straight handout has the potential to allow them to make their own decisions and invest rather than fritter the cash, what other choice do we have? How far do you take the current (very) coercive benefits system? How do you extract successive generations from the cycle of misdemeanour and poverty? How much does it cost to administer the current welfare system? How much of that cost are appeals to sanctions and penalties?
Every Tory government tries in vain to be more coercive than the last, every labour administration tries to throw more money at the problem than the previous one in an endless cycle. Neither work.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
+1.Mamba, do you still feel it a valid point, saying I, Stevo and 11 million others would 'look down their noses at people who wont or cant make it and would glady leave them to die in poverty'
ATQ Mr. Generaliser
And while you're at it, please point out where I said anything about forcing people to work who are genuinely unable to do so? Or is that yet another case of what you want me to say :roll:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maximise their chances of getting a job - see conditions above needed to create jobs. Welfare needs to cater for the essentials but should be set a rate that does not encourage it as a lifestyle option otherwise that is what a fair proportion of people will do. People also need to get real about what are essentials - for example fags and sky tv subscriptions are not essentials.You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?
But you said 0% unemployment isn't possible - so say you are one of those, with no money coming in. Aren't any jobs around. How would they make ends meet????
Sure you work on them getting a job, but meanwhile???0 -
Prove to me that they cant make ends meet on the current rather bloated benefits system.
Maximise their chances of getting a job - see conditions above needed to create jobs. Welfare needs to cater for the essentials but should be set a rate that does not encourage it as a lifestyle option otherwise that is what a fair proportion of people will do. People also need to get real about what are essentials - for example fags and sky tv subscriptions are not essentials.You joke but it gets to the crux of the issue.
If you accept some level of unemployment is inevitable, then what should be done about those who are?
But you said 0% unemployment isn't possible - so say you are one of those, with no money coming in. Aren't any jobs around. How would they make ends meet????
And then you tell me how much money you would throw at how many people to do nothing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
