£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
VinnyMarsden wrote:Sell off all council housing, make them live in tents.
[/quote]I'm kinda thinking you have never suffered the misfortune of being in a single parent family (through no fault of her own, my mum was widowed at 41, 3 young kids to bring up).If it hadn't have been for social housing I shudder to think how our lives might have turned out.And one thing I do know as a cast iron certainty, living in a tent would not have enhanced a very bleak childhood, so rather than glib, idiotic comments it might be more constructive, like some people in the thread have done, to make somewhat sensible, well balanced comments, that, whilst I don't agree with some, have at least been considered before trying for the "cheap" laugh!!
Unless you are from Yorkshire, then you can make do with a shoe box in middle of t' road.
0 -
Ballysmate wrote:VinnyMarsden wrote:Sell off all council housing, make them live in tents.I'm kinda thinking you have never suffered the misfortune of being in a single parent family (through no fault of her own, my mum was widowed at 41, 3 young kids to bring up).If it hadn't have been for social housing I shudder to think how our lives might have turned out.And one thing I do know as a cast iron certainty, living in a tent would not have enhanced a very bleak childhood, so rather than glib, idiotic comments it might be more constructive, like some people in the thread have done, to make somewhat sensible, well balanced comments, that, whilst I don't agree with some, have at least been considered before trying for the "cheap" laugh!!
Unless you are from Yorkshire, then you can make do with a shoe box in middle of t' road.[/quote]
I don't argue with idiots, or people who cannot use the quote function.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
SloppySchleckonds wrote:Ballysmate wrote:VinnyMarsden wrote:Sell off all council housing, make them live in tents.I'm kinda thinking you have never suffered the misfortune of being in a single parent family (through no fault of her own, my mum was widowed at 41, 3 young kids to bring up).If it hadn't have been for social housing I shudder to think how our lives might have turned out.And one thing I do know as a cast iron certainty, living in a tent would not have enhanced a very bleak childhood, so rather than glib, idiotic comments it might be more constructive, like some people in the thread have done, to make somewhat sensible, well balanced comments, that, whilst I don't agree with some, have at least been considered before trying for the "cheap" laugh!!
Unless you are from Yorkshire, then you can make do with a shoe box in middle of t' road.
I don't argue with idiots, or people who cannot use the quote function.[/quote]
Is there an irony smiley?0 -
Surely a 'fair' way of distributing the cuts would be in some way reflect the proportion of benefits they make up.
This would mean having to save roughly £5 billion from pensions. I suggest a degree of means testing might achieve that, but a cut to the flat rate of the state pension would also achieve the saving.
This however is likely to be very unpopular with a strong voting group of the country and therefore is almost a no starter. Note how the Conservatives have promised to 'triple lock' pensions to ensure they remain viable as a means of living, but sadly it also ensures they will remain a substantial cost burden.
Housing benefit - roughly 20% is paid to people in work - clearly they are not paid enough if they cannot afford housing. This is state subsidy of inadequate wages. The difficulty is that if you remove this does unemployment rise?
To get the most out of housing benefit, most of the benefits would be paid to organisations that are aiming to provide social housing, as the money helps provide further social housing, instead of lining someone's pocket.
Disability living allowance - I'm sure that small savings could be made, but these people are likely to be some of the vulnerable that welfare is supposed to support. Proportionately they would take a £1 billion hit.
Pension credit - Increasing the earnings of pensioners to an acceptable minimum seems like a good idea and a good use of welfare spending.
Income support - State subsidy of inadequate wages. Does removal of this cause unemployment to rise as people choose between being paid pitance and not being paid at all? This should be abolished in favour of decent wages, but I'm not sure this is realistic
Incapacity benefit - For those who have paid in to the system and who are unable to work. I'm sure small savings could be made, but there will be a large proportion of the money being justly spent on these people.
Child benefit - while this is more minor it is a commonly discussed benefit. The difficulty is that often it is thought as a payment to a person for a child. I regard it as payment to a child to ensure their standard of living. Removing it from some children to 'penalise' their parents seems to be punishing children for the crime of having been born to parents who are not adequately responsible.
I wonder whether tax paid by businesses (big or small) could be related to the number of employees who are not in receipt/do not require benefits. If your business employs a lot of people on good (UK) wages (who therefore pay more tax than they receive in benefits) you can make more profit before paying tax. (E.g. for each employee earning enough to be in the higher tax bracket you can have the amount of higher rate tax they pay as business profit being exempted from tax up to £45000)
If your business employs people who require benefits then more of your profits/income in the UK is taxed. I imagine that employers like Tesco, who employ people on low wages to work in stores in central london, who are unlikely to be able to afford london rent, would be most hit by this, but this is part of the intention.
If your business is as a sole trader then you pay taxes on profits similar to what an employee would pay, perhaps with a few thousand pound business allowance on top of the personal allowance.0 -
I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
-
Agree completely that the subsidies for subsistence relieve employers of the need to pay a living wage but any change must be implemented gradually or you're just throwing struggling families into an even bigger mess.0 -
Agree completely that the subsidies for subsistence relieve employers of the need to pay a living wage but any change must be implemented gradually or you're just throwing struggling families into an even bigger mess.
Be great to see employers paying a decent wage but why should they? employers are not a safety net for their employees, they are there to make money pure and simple, Osborne would need to rise the min wage and he wont do that - no wonder a French worker produces on avg 30% more than their english counterpart.
Look what happened when agricultural wages boards were abolished, farm workers are now all on min wage - previously you could skill up and earn more plus the board gave a pay rise every year, all that has gone ..... ever seen a poor farmer?0 -
So the state shouldn't support the poorer working members of society (agreed, with the caveat it shouldn't need to) but nor should employers be obliged to pay a living wage. Nice! Britain at it's finest. Wealth accumulation at any cost with no social responsibility.
Agree completely that the subsidies for subsistence relieve employers of the need to pay a living wage but any change must be implemented gradually or you're just throwing struggling families into an even bigger mess.
Be great to see employers paying a decent wage but why should they? employers are not a safety net for their employees, they are there to make money pure and simple, Osborne would need to rise the min wage and he wont do that - no wonder a French worker produces on avg 30% more than their english counterpart.
Look what happened when agricultural wages boards were abolished, farm workers are now all on min wage - previously you could skill up and earn more plus the board gave a pay rise every year, all that has gone ..... ever seen a poor farmer?0 -
Now what we need is a way to make it easier to sack people (sorry, provide a "more flexible workforce")
So the state shouldn't support the poorer working members of society (agreed, with the caveat it shouldn't need to) but nor should employers be obliged to pay a living wage. Nice! Britain at it's finest. Wealth accumulation at any cost with no social responsibility.
Agree completely that the subsidies for subsistence relieve employers of the need to pay a living wage but any change must be implemented gradually or you're just throwing struggling families into an even bigger mess.
Be great to see employers paying a decent wage but why should they? employers are not a safety net for their employees, they are there to make money pure and simple, Osborne would need to rise the min wage and he wont do that - no wonder a French worker produces on avg 30% more than their english counterpart.
Look what happened when agricultural wages boards were abolished, farm workers are now all on min wage - previously you could skill up and earn more plus the board gave a pay rise every year, all that has gone ..... ever seen a poor farmer?Ecrasez l’infame0 -
So the state shouldn't support the poorer working members of society (agreed, with the caveat it shouldn't need to) but nor should employers be obliged to pay a living wage. Nice! Britain at it's finest. Wealth accumulation at any cost with no social responsibility.
Agree completely that the subsidies for subsistence relieve employers of the need to pay a living wage but any change must be implemented gradually or you're just throwing struggling families into an even bigger mess.
Be great to see employers paying a decent wage but why should they? employers are not a safety net for their employees, they are there to make money pure and simple, Osborne would need to rise the min wage and he wont do that - no wonder a French worker produces on avg 30% more than their english counterpart.
Look what happened when agricultural wages boards were abolished, farm workers are now all on min wage - previously you could skill up and earn more plus the board gave a pay rise every year, all that has gone ..... ever seen a poor farmer?
No the state should not be supporting poorer working families, why should my taxes go to a multi billion pound corporation, so they can make huge profits, pay their workers peanuts and award themselves nice fat bonuses?
the state should be making sure that empoyers pay a living wage but what the tories are doing is limiting min wage rises, cutting working taxes and penalising poorer workers with ever more spending cuts (if your rich you can buy your way out of any cuts), whilst cutting taxes for the nations richest and selling RBS shares back to the city at a discount, look after their own seems to be their mantra.0 -
Distinctly remember Tories being against a minimum wage when it was introduced.
That's essentially what's being discussed when people talk about a 'living wage'.0 -
Wow, are we going all leftie (read: sensible)? Thanks indeed to Lookyhere and Rick Chasey for antidotes to the venal self interest which has infected everyone else, it seems.0
-
Not me fella, always been left of centre in a seventies labour kind of way.Wow, are we going all leftie (read: sensible)? Thanks indeed to Lookyhere and Rick Chasey for antidotes to the venal self interest which has infected everyone else, it seems.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Money is super cheap to borrow and this country is falling apart, we ve just had the longest ever recession and seen the richest get even richer, the poor get even poorer and yet still with the promise of a cut in income tax, we all go baa and vote on v short term dubious self interest.
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system and despite austerity we are borrowing more than ever the labour party did and investing even less in our future as a nation.0 -
So when people vote Tory they are stupid, but when they vote labour their IQ magically rises?i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Please do go on thinking that the massive Labour defeat at the general election was nothing to do with their left wing policies or growing irrelevance to a modern Britain. And please give give Jeremy Corbyn a chance to lead the party, as clearly Labour lost because they were not left wing enough "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system
Despite having an absolute shitload of money thrown at it since ooh about 1997.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
Frank the tank wrote:
Not me fella, always been left of centre in a seventies labour kind of way.Wow, are we going all leftie (read: sensible)? Thanks indeed to Lookyhere and Rick Chasey for antidotes to the venal self interest
Frank, quite. Sorry I didn't also point out that there are others who save the forum from rabid Tory ideology. A temporal anecdote about 70s Labour; Britain under Labour in the 70s ran a surplus - then came along a 5% GDP boost from North Sea oil just as the batshit-crazy-bitch Thatcher got the reins, and she and her ghoulish cronies completely squandered the lot. Now we have a chancellor who is increasing borrowing and still talking of the opposite. He lives down the same rabbit hole as Thatcher did, it seems.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:
Not me fella, always been left of centre in a seventies labour kind of way.Wow, are we going all leftie (read: sensible)? Thanks indeed to Lookyhere and Rick Chasey for antidotes to the venal self interest
Frank, quite. Sorry I didn't also point out that there are others who save the forum from rabid Tory ideology. A temporal anecdote about 70s Labour; Britain under Labour in the 70s ran a surplus - then came along a 5% GDP boost from North Sea oil just as the batshit-crazy-bitch Thatcher got the reins, and she and her ghoulish cronies completely squandered the lot. Now we have a chancellor who is increasing borrowing and still talking of the opposite. He lives down the same rabbit hole as Thatcher did, it seems.
Yeah it would be brilliant to go back to living as we did in the 70s.
We would only be working 3 days a week, so more time on our bikes eh.
Electricity bills would be slashed due to the power being switched off every night. Candle light is so romantic don't you think.
We could stop bothering to sort through our rubbish to recycle. It wouldn't matter any more because no-one would empty our bins
People wouldn't mind paying 98% tax so that the nice Mr Healey could pay back some of his borrowing to the IMF.
A veritable paradise eh comrade!0 -
Distinctly remember Tories being against a minimum wage when it was introduced.
That's essentially what's being discussed when people talk about a 'living wage'.
To me there doesn't seem much point in raising the wages at the bottom with the housing market in the state it is as any increases will be absorbed in to rents and pushing property prices up even more. Money flows up. I said something similar to my brother years ago when the minimum wage was introduced and I think whilst it wasn't the sole factor it certainly played it's part in the house price boom during Blairs years in power. For as long as quality shelter is a premium this will continue no matter how much you crank up wages, artificially or otherwise.0 -
Yep, Britain under Labour in the 70's was a proper basket case.Frank the tank wrote:
Not me fella, always been left of centre in a seventies labour kind of way.Wow, are we going all leftie (read: sensible)? Thanks indeed to Lookyhere and Rick Chasey for antidotes to the venal self interest
Frank, quite. Sorry I didn't also point out that there are others who save the forum from rabid Tory ideology. A temporal anecdote about 70s Labour; Britain under Labour in the 70s ran a surplus - then came along a 5% GDP boost from North Sea oil just as the batshit-crazy-bitch Thatcher got the reins, and she and her ghoulish cronies completely squandered the lot. Now we have a chancellor who is increasing borrowing and still talking of the opposite. He lives down the same rabbit hole as Thatcher did, it seems.
Yeah it would be brilliant to go back to living as we did in the 70s.
We would only be working 3 days a week, so more time on our bikes eh.
Electricity bills would be slashed due to the power being switched off every night. Candle light is so romantic don't you think.
We could stop bothering to sort through our rubbish to recycle. It wouldn't matter any more because no-one would empty our bins
People wouldn't mind paying 98% tax so that the nice Mr Healey could pay back some of his borrowing to the IMF.
A veritable paradise eh comrade!
Although Bally you also forgot to mention 25% inflation and union barons holding the country to ransom. Ah, those wonderful days of socialism. And people still want to take us back to the 70's..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So when people vote Tory they are stupid, but when they vote labour their IQ magically rises?i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Please do go on thinking that the massive Labour defeat at the general election was nothing to do with their left wing policies or growing irrelevance to a modern Britain. And please give give Jeremy Corbyn a chance to lead the party, as clearly Labour lost because they were not left wing enough
what you or i think is immaterial, but if Labour think they ll gain power by being more Tory than the Tories, then they ll be sadly mistaken.
I take you are not racist? then how come the SNP on a left wing agenda swept both the Tories and Labour into the gutter.
what Labour lacked was a credible leader, instead they had an embarrassment of one, who thought a tablet of stone was a vote winner, even i, looked away ashamed with that ridiculous stunt.
I heard Corbyn on R2 today, what he said about Miliband, the Mansion tax (he was against it and the 2 wars blair -not a socialist -took us to) NHS, railways and education, made perfect sense, what labour are against is the Murdock media, in Scotland, Sturgeon had their support, labour, not surprisingly didnt, they didnt even have mine!
you can joke about the UK in the 70's but did the Tories do such a great job in the early 90s and ERM fiasco?
the UK today, is miles behind its competitors in productivity, education, healthcare, investment and all this under basically right wing governments for decades, blair/brown were in reality more right wing than thatcher.
the right wing has failed on all levels unless you are very rich, then it all works for you, right wing deregulation caused the banking crisis (and i mean across the world not just in the UK) right wing policies have caused the greatest movement of refugees since WW2.0 -
Say what you like about the Conservatives, the general election results don't lie. Labour went in on a left wing ticket and got hammered. The lowest number of commons seats since 1987 IIRC. If right wing policies have been so disastrous in living memory, why is anyone voting for them?
You claim above that the Tories only won because of the 'promise of a cut in income tax'. Which massive tax cut was promised? It must have been substantial if it bribed sufficient voters to materially alter the election result and could not have been only for the rich as if Britain is a basket case as you say, there can't be many rich voters in the country . And of course this is completely different from Labour's promise to increase benefits :roll:
Scotland is inconsequential electorally as it did not affect the overall result. But the answer is less about left wing policies appealing to the Scots than Scottish nationalism appealing to the Scots.
And as I said above, I am all for you supporting Corbyn, do carry on. It will keep the Tories in power for some time to come."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
[quote="Stevo 666
Scotland is inconsequential electorally as it did not affect the overall result. But the answer is less about left wing policies appealing to the Scots than Scottish nationalism appealing to the Scots.[/quote]
Results would prove that answer incorrect.
The Scots voted against independence but were overwhelmingly for their policies in the election.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 -
The percentage votes for independence, and the SNP in the general election, were different but not that different: 44% to 50%. The election result in Scotland was another demonstration of the drawbacks of the FPTP system: less than half of the votes gets you 95% of the seats, not bad*.
Results would prove that answer incorrect.Scotland is inconsequential electorally as it did not affect the overall result. But the answer is less about left wing policies appealing to the Scots than Scottish nationalism appealing to the Scots.
The Scots voted against independence but were overwhelmingly for their policies in the election.
Stevo is right in that the main appeal is nationalism rather than left wingery - it's true that there is a default left wing position in Scotland, because as you know we're all genetically just and fair and egalitarian, unlike those horrible nasty English who would all sell their grannies for a quick buck, and it's way easier, as always, to be all for socialist policies when it's someone else's money you're spending. But to a great extent the left wing position of the SNP is a pragmatic one, in that it's the easiest way to play off against the evil Tories, the evil English, Westmonster etc. After all, they would soon need to implement right wing policies if we were actually to get independence or FFA - the austerity necessary to come anywhere close to balancing the books would make your eyes water, proportional to Scotland's GDP it would be vastly greater than £12 billion...
There's also an argument that the SNP's success is chiefly due to the meltdown of Labour and the Liberals in Scotland: a transfer of votes from two left wingish parties, abandoned because of their general uselessness, to another. And before anyone starts - yes, Scottish Labour has always been a leftwing party, ditto the Scottish Liberals.
*Don't get me wrong, I'm really quite glad that the loony fringe (Greens and UKIP) didn't get a lot of seats for their votes, and there are big drawbacks to PR as well. But it still seems a bit unfair. Nearly half a million Scots voted Tory, more voted Labour, and they got one seat each for that: the SNP got about 1 seat for every 25,000 votes (best ratio of any party), UKIP 1 for every 4 million.0 -
Election was brilliant result for the likes of Stevo and me. Not just the majority, although tiny, but the consequences. Labour wiped out in Scotland by the SNP, thereby making it even harder for them to gain power. Even a Lab/SNP coalition is unthinkable.
The SNP calling for FFA. Everyone knows that it would be economic suicide for Scotland so won't happen. SNP thereby get to continue to blame the hated Tories for Scotland's woes and consequently hold on to their support.
A win/win for Cameron and Sturgeon. It is almost as if there was a deal done. Now where's that conspiracy thread...?0 -
No, Sturgeon never, ever said that to the French ambassador, OK? And anyone who ever says she did must be an evil English Tory, OK? (Unless they're an evil Scottish Lib. Or an evil French ambassador...)Election was brilliant result for the likes of Stevo and me. Not just the majority, although tiny, but the consequences. Labour wiped out in Scotland by the SNP, thereby making it even harder for them to gain power. Even a Lab/SNP coalition is unthinkable.
The SNP calling for FFA. Everyone knows that it would be economic suicide for Scotland so won't happen. SNP thereby get to continue to blame the hated Tories for Scotland's woes and consequently hold on to their support.
A win/win for Cameron and Sturgeon. It is almost as if there was a deal done. Now where's that conspiracy thread...?0 -
There's also an argument that the SNP's success is chiefly due to the meltdown of Labour and the Liberals in Scotland: a transfer of votes from two left wingish parties, abandoned because of their general uselessness, to another. And before anyone starts - yes, Scottish Labour has always been a leftwing party, ditto the Scottish Liberals.
That part was kind of my point.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 -
well its a democracy, and your party didn't win, so you need to get over it - the issue is how much debt the previous labour government left the country with and the need to dig out of the hole by living (governing) within our means, or you can follow Greece... and we pay way too much in benefits to anyone who crosses the channel - which is why the UK is a soft touch and so many want to get here - well it has to stop !i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Money is super cheap to borrow and this country is falling apart, we ve just had the longest ever recession and seen the richest get even richer, the poor get even poorer and yet still with the promise of a cut in income tax, we all go baa and vote on v short term dubious self interest.
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system and despite austerity we are borrowing more than ever the labour party did and investing even less in our future as a nation.http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
well its a democracy, and your party didn't win, so you need to get over it - the issue is how much debt the previous labour government left the country with and the need to dig out of the hole by living (governing) within our means, or you can follow Greece... and we pay way too much in benefits to anyone who crosses the channel - which is why the UK is a soft touch and so many want to get here - well it has to stop !i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Money is super cheap to borrow and this country is falling apart, we ve just had the longest ever recession and seen the richest get even richer, the poor get even poorer and yet still with the promise of a cut in income tax, we all go baa and vote on v short term dubious self interest.
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system and despite austerity we are borrowing more than ever the labour party did and investing even less in our future as a nation.
Isn't Osborne borrowing more than Labour EVER did? so we are not living within our means (as if we ever have, only Brown succeeded in that in recent years)
Anyway, the only way labour could not have borrowed that amount would have been to let the banks go to the wall and then we d really have been Greece.
with such a poor std of school leaver, we need immigration to support industry, our company cannot recruit engineers within the UK and there isnt enough graduates of suitable level.
Though i agree that we need to change our benefits systems to match those of other euro countries but i dont think it is that simple.0 -
Quoting ILM Zero7 "so many want to get here - well it has to stop !"
Location = Doha? So define for us your "here" then. Or are you expat = non UK taxpayer = not 'we' = don't have a valid say in this?0
