snap general election?

bbrap

mamba80 wrote:

bbrap wrote:

If any of the parties come up with a solution to make the lifestyle choice of doing nothing so unpalatable that no-one would want take that option I'd vote for them. I'm not talking about genuinely sick or incapable, I'm talking about the workshy who play the system to the cost of everyone else. The issues seem to have been discussed and then nothing is done as it is too hard and might upset people. Tackle the leeches and there might be a bit more to spend on things that need doing.

jeez who are these people???? dole for a single person is about 78 per week, or do you think that children should be punished for the life style choice of their parents?
do you think that if benefits are cut so much that these feckless parents will forgo their fags/ booze/lottery tickets so little jonny can get a new coat..... no they wont, so in your world, they can go beg or to the poor house perhaps?
taking these kids into care will cost a fortune and given what happens to kids in care, i m not sure this is a very good idea at all.
what you need to realise is that investment in education and skills means most people can start to make real choices instead of just following their parents lifestyles.
the real issue is that despite years of pledges, work doesnt pay, i know personally of folk who take on extra hours or who go back to work only to find that they then are far worse off as they lose housing benefit etc

if you want to limit benefit claims, then vote for a party that wants to help the poor better themselves, Corbyns life long learning and education plan is a fantastic idea and one that will both help the poor and mean we ll be less reliant on foreign workers over time.

Not paying people to have kids would be a start. Popping out a brood to gain more benefits should be tackled first. Yes the legacy of the current system will be hard but eventually the message that you will not gain will sink in. If the basic necessities were covered by non transferrable vouchers the feckless will not be able to use them to buy fags and booze. Whilst I agree that real choices require investment to make work pay and that learning and education will enable the poor to better themselves, the problem is that whilst the option is there to do nothing many will take it. In any society there will be those that take opportunities which are made available to them and those that choose not to, make that choice less favourable and the life long education plan may work.

rjsterry

Blimey, that one never dies, does it?

Nearly half of welfare spending goes on the state pension, with further 10% on housing benefit, which goes straight to landlords.

I'm sure you can find a few anecdotal examples, but the idea that there is some vast army of people having large families so they can live off the state is just a tabloid fantasy. The UK birthrate is falling again despite increased immigration.

Everyone wants to change the system, just not in a way that affects them.

mamba80

bbrap wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

bbrap wrote:

If any of the parties come up with a solution to make the lifestyle choice of doing nothing so unpalatable that no-one would want take that option I'd vote for them. I'm not talking about genuinely sick or incapable, I'm talking about the workshy who play the system to the cost of everyone else. The issues seem to have been discussed and then nothing is done as it is too hard and might upset people. Tackle the leeches and there might be a bit more to spend on things that need doing.

jeez who are these people???? dole for a single person is about 78 per week, or do you think that children should be punished for the life style choice of their parents?
do you think that if benefits are cut so much that these feckless parents will forgo their fags/ booze/lottery tickets so little jonny can get a new coat..... no they wont, so in your world, they can go beg or to the poor house perhaps?
taking these kids into care will cost a fortune and given what happens to kids in care, i m not sure this is a very good idea at all.
what you need to realise is that investment in education and skills means most people can start to make real choices instead of just following their parents lifestyles.
the real issue is that despite years of pledges, work doesnt pay, i know personally of folk who take on extra hours or who go back to work only to find that they then are far worse off as they lose housing benefit etc

if you want to limit benefit claims, then vote for a party that wants to help the poor better themselves, Corbyns life long learning and education plan is a fantastic idea and one that will both help the poor and mean we ll be less reliant on foreign workers over time.

Not paying people to have kids would be a start. Popping out a brood to gain more benefits should be tackled first. Yes the legacy of the current system will be hard but eventually the message that you will not gain will sink in. If the basic necessities were covered by non transferrable vouchers the feckless will not be able to use them to buy fags and booze. Whilst I agree that real choices require investment to make work pay and that learning and education will enable the poor to better themselves, the problem is that whilst the option is there to do nothing many will take it. In any society there will be those that take opportunities which are made available to them and those that choose not to, make that choice less favourable and the life long education plan may work.

look at the bigger picture, the amount the tax payer subsidises low wages via housing benefit and tax credits dwarfs unemployment benefit, the amounts claimed by fraud or the lazy is tiny.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... e-spending

Pensions are a huge expenditure.

i remember the Portillo program where he lived on benefits with a family for a week and how he totally struggled, his take was it was so stressful no wonder folk smoked.

Many people on long term benefits are incapable of work, i sometimes go into DWP and DCH (devon and cornwall housing) sites and whilst working see and hear some of the claimants, no employer (who hopes to make a profit) would take them on, they are illiterate, can barely put together a sentence and live chaotic lives, imho all we can try an do is make sure their kids dont follow their parents lives.

bendertherobot

Student numbers and migration then....

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

As I see it we are as usual being asked to choose between dreadful manifestos presented by dreadful politicians and our only option is to select which we think is the least worst. At least Corbyn has presented the electorate with a real choice this time around. The elephant in the room however is that his economic policies are absolute dog sh1t that would only have any chance of working if the economy operated in a vacuum where busines, entrepreneurs and high earners couldn't just up sticks and move to countries with more favourable tax arrangements. The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

what countries are they then?

Skilled People are leaving this country to go to higher taxed Auss/NZ/Canada....

If its not ok to expect folk earning over 80k to pay a little extra tax, why is it perfectly ok to expect people like nurses/police/soldiers/healthcare workers earning approx 15 to 30k to have real terms pay cuts with max 1% pay rises, maybe they ll fcuk off to the private sector or go abroad? as i read recently, the wealthy need more money to work harder but the poorer need less.......

May is now expecting people who ve worked fcuking hard to provide for their families and struggle to buy a house are now to be expected to pay for their so called social care, when their child help to look after them at home.

Stevo might moan that Labour can fro when it comes to paying extra tax BUT should in his old age he need home care and stropteen helps too, he ll be able to pass on max 100k, hardly enough for a deposit in the SE, on top of this, he ll need to pay more of his extra heating costs too .... robbing pirates eh????

Golden op to sort out insurance based care but with no cap on care costs, what company could ever provide this?

You make the mistake of assuming I'm endorsing the Conservatives which I absolutely​ am not. However we all have to make a choice at the end of the day. The sort of economics Corbyn and MacDonnel want to inflict on us brought us the Winter of Discontent and elsewhere have seen the virtual bankruptcy of Venezuela, the country with the world's largest oil reserves.

Venezuela went bankrupt because their sole industry is oil, no investment in alternatives, oil price has collapsed, country collapses, add in exports to friendly countries for little profit and the difficulties in refining their specific type of heavy oil and its easy to see why.... i dont think corbyn is suggesting any of this.

we ve had 7 years of austerity, vote tory and we ll all pay and get less in return, their record on public services is shocking.

under tories the country debt has soared.... the GFC screwed us all (well not if your rich it didnt) its just how it is portrayed in whatever news media you read lol!
https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and ... onal-debt/

surrey_commuter

we are still running an annual £50bn annual deficit. If Corbyn can shake £48bn out of the money tree why does he not use that to break even? then he can shake it again for another £48bn to start paying back the debt then shake again to pay for his new policies.

rjsterry

I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

As I see it we are as usual being asked to choose between dreadful manifestos presented by dreadful politicians and our only option is to select which we think is the least worst. At least Corbyn has presented the electorate with a real choice this time around. The elephant in the room however is that his economic policies are absolute dog sh1t that would only have any chance of working if the economy operated in a vacuum where busines, entrepreneurs and high earners couldn't just up sticks and move to countries with more favourable tax arrangements. The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

what countries are they then?

Skilled People are leaving this country to go to higher taxed Auss/NZ/Canada....

If its not ok to expect folk earning over 80k to pay a little extra tax, why is it perfectly ok to expect people like nurses/police/soldiers/healthcare workers earning approx 15 to 30k to have real terms pay cuts with max 1% pay rises, maybe they ll fcuk off to the private sector or go abroad? as i read recently, the wealthy need more money to work harder but the poorer need less.......

May is now expecting people who ve worked fcuking hard to provide for their families and struggle to buy a house are now to be expected to pay for their so called social care, when their child help to look after them at home.

Stevo might moan that Labour can fro when it comes to paying extra tax BUT should in his old age he need home care and stropteen helps too, he ll be able to pass on max 100k, hardly enough for a deposit in the SE, on top of this, he ll need to pay more of his extra heating costs too .... robbing pirates eh????

Golden op to sort out insurance based care but with no cap on care costs, what company could ever provide this?

You make the mistake of assuming I'm endorsing the Conservatives which I absolutely​ am not. However we all have to make a choice at the end of the day. The sort of economics Corbyn and MacDonnel want to inflict on us brought us the Winter of Discontent and elsewhere have seen the virtual bankruptcy of Venezuela, the country with the world's largest oil reserves.

Venezuela went bankrupt because their sole industry is oil, no investment in alternatives, oil price has collapsed, country collapses, add in exports to friendly countries for little profit and the difficulties in refining their specific type of heavy oil and its easy to see why.... i dont think corbyn is suggesting any of this.

we ve had 7 years of austerity, vote tory and we ll all pay and get less in return, their record on public services is shocking.

under tories the country debt has soared.... the GFC screwed us all (well not if your rich it didnt) its just how it is portrayed in whatever news media you read lol!
https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and ... onal-debt/

The point being Chavez spunked the proceeds of oil on socialist policies and was running a huge deficit even when the oil price peaked In 2008. Apparently he's a hero of MacDonnel and Corbyn's. Luckily for us they won't be getting their mits on power anytime soon.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

we are still running an annual £50bn annual deficit. If Corbyn can shake £48bn out of the money tree why does he not use that to break even? then he can shake it again for another £48bn to start paying back the debt then shake again to pay for his new policies.

We see Labour the same way...

And the annual cost of servicing the national debt is roughly equal to the annual deficit.

So we are a wealthy country that should have £50bn spare a year to spend but it is being sucked up by servicing the national debt.

The last labour government should have built up a cushion during all those years of growth rather than continually increase the debt mountain.

And yet Labour and its supporters still believe in this magic money tree :roll:

kingstongraham

If you can borrow at a low rate to fund capital expenditure that is going to make/save money in the future, that's not a bad thing. The problem is that borrowing in even the good times was paying for current spending, not investment. And Gordon Brown always described all spending as investment.
Investment funded by borrowing now would not be a bad thing. But higher nurses' salaries are not investment, they are spending, so should be funded by taxation.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

we are still running an annual £50bn annual deficit. If Corbyn can shake £48bn out of the money tree why does he not use that to break even? then he can shake it again for another £48bn to start paying back the debt then shake again to pay for his new policies.

We see Labour the same way...

And the annual cost of servicing the national debt is roughly equal to the annual deficit.

So we are a wealthy country that should have £50bn spare a year to spend but it is being sucked up by servicing the national debt.

The last labour government should have built up a cushion during all those years of growth rather than continually increase the debt mountain.

And yet Labour and its supporters still believe in this magic money tree :roll:

Tories are promising another 8 billion for the NHS seems she also has a secret money tree too lol! add in the cuts to Corp tax and billions promised for adult care, and it looks like she has a forest to pick from! so long as we are strong and stable then all will be well...... :roll: :roll:

given no party really knows the eco growth that the UK can achieve p0st brexit, spending promises (by all) are just that... hot air.

she might be determined to lead a united country but the brexit vote has caused deep division and if brexit is such a great op and idea as she is saying, then why is it also such a great challenge? attempting great challenges also can mean failure or they wouldnt be a challenge, at least she has the honesty to say that failure will be dire for the UK.

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

...the brexit vote has caused deep division...

The Brexit vote is a symptom of the division, unless you simplistically define the division in terms of how folk voted. It is not the cause, though it has at least highlighted the scale of the underlying issues.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

we are still running an annual £50bn annual deficit. If Corbyn can shake £48bn out of the money tree why does he not use that to break even? then he can shake it again for another £48bn to start paying back the debt then shake again to pay for his new policies.

We see Labour the same way...

And the annual cost of servicing the national debt is roughly equal to the annual deficit.

So we are a wealthy country that should have £50bn spare a year to spend but it is being sucked up by servicing the national debt.

The last labour government should have built up a cushion during all those years of growth rather than continually increase the debt mountain.

And yet Labour and its supporters still believe in this magic money tree :roll:

I do find it bizarre that one year on everybody is fixated on the economy and costing up funding pledges

mamba80

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

...the brexit vote has caused deep division...

The Brexit vote is a symptom of the division, unless you simplistically define the division in terms of how folk voted. It is not the cause, though it has at least highlighted the scale of the underlying issues.

as i ve said before, membership of the EU was not a big deal for many people, even as late as 2015, ukip had no MPs, in 2010 it didnt even figure in voter concerns.

the prospect of the brexit vote and the rhetoric that followed caused this division.

tory manifesto pinches alot from the Labour one of 2015....

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.

To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May

Matthewfalle

Plaid won't screw you as badly as the Tories.

You know what makes sense peeps.

bendertherobot

Average house price in Blaneau Gwent is circa £92k now. Most deprived area....

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.

To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May

You need to do your research.
If your in a care home, them yes you ll get to keep 100k instead of 23k, however now your house will be included in the assessment should you require (or want) care at home, where as before, at home it only inc cash.

another thing is that very often the care provided by the state will be limited, so unlike being in a nursing home, the family will be left having to top up with night care and additional private nursing, or have to give up job and become a full time carer.

Gotta to love fallon, stating that now pensioners will be able to leave their house to the family.... FFS a 100k isnt the value of the avg house, again BBC dont challenge him on this.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.

To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May

I agree it's an improvement; it was more a comment on its reception.

Lookyhere

Remember the Tories also promised to raise the threshold in 2010 and again in 2015 and never did it, wasnt it to £83k then?
Sounds like a promise that may well slip again and again, its going to be very expensive to implement with the rise in the elderly population expected over the next few years, also not being cynical but i suspect there are a lot of families who make the effort ie give up work, to look after mum or dad at home because they d expect to keep the house, now that wont happen..... so care home it is.

Huge sums are needed to pay for extra staffing costs and increasing nurse numbers in the care home industry eg the extra monies promised have already been eaten up by the min wage increase.

A move to some sort of care insurance capped with the state then taking over, might be a better option? especially as
now that the house will be taken into account for home care, you can bet firms that offer to mitigate your liabilities will do great business for those with foresight.

rick_chasey

One to p!ss off bigbean even more:
#Torymanifesto also pledges to increase the minimum income threshold for people to bring spouses into the UK, currently £18k @BritCits

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

One to p!ss off bigbean even more:
#Torymanifesto also pledges to increase the minimum income threshold for people to bring spouses into the UK, currently £18k @BritCits

To what? I'm wondering at what salary level the Tories will tolerate someone living with their spouse.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

One to p!ss off bigbean even more:
#Torymanifesto also pledges to increase the minimum income threshold for people to bring spouses into the UK, currently £18k @BritCits

To what? I'm wondering at what salary level the Tories will tolerate someone living with their spouse.

Is this household income? incoming spouse income or incumbent?

rick_chasey

I'm not particularly exercised or interested in green issues as a general rule, but air pollution is quickly becoming one of the important factors for me.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... and-mexico

That was quite a surprising figure...

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

One to p!ss off bigbean even more:
#Torymanifesto also pledges to increase the minimum income threshold for people to bring spouses into the UK, currently £18k @BritCits

To what? I'm wondering at what salary level the Tories will tolerate someone living with their spouse.

Is this household income? incoming spouse income or incumbent?

The Brit only.

Pross

I'm still confused why so many people say the 'rich' should pay more. The very nature of the system means that the more you earn (once over the tax free allowance) the more you pay and once you hit the higher threshold you start paying disproportionately more. What people are really saying is the rich (by which they usually mean someone who earns more than they expect to ever earn themselves) should pay an even more disproportionate rate. I actually wouldn't mind if they put a step in the system somewhere between the 20% and 40% rate, maybe 22% once you got above the national average providing there was a plan on where the extra gets paid but no doubt this would impact on most of those who want the 'rich' taxed so would be a squeeze on the hard pressed middle!

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

I'm still confused why so many people say the 'rich' should pay more. The very nature of the system means that the more you earn (once over the tax free allowance) the more you pay and once you hit the higher threshold you start paying disproportionately more. What people are really saying is the rich (by which they usually mean someone who earns more than they expect to ever earn themselves) should pay an even more disproportionate rate. I actually wouldn't mind if they put a step in the system somewhere between the 20% and 40% rate, maybe 22% once you got above the national average providing there was a plan on where the extra gets paid but no doubt this would impact on most of those who want the 'rich' taxed so would be a squeeze on the hard pressed middle!

Because the difference between life at £15,000 and £30,000 per year is enormous compared to the difference between life at £1million and £2million.

rick_chasey

Tories want to set up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in British State assets, by selling British State assets...



https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/865194112194097152

rick_chasey

And goodbye £350m to the NHS post Brexit.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see the Bow Group are unhappy about the Tory manifesto proposal to include property in assessment of assets in relation to paying for care.

Maybe this is why TM was hammering the Strong and Stable line to counter a backlash.

To be fair they are raising the threshold at which you are entitled to get care paid for quite substantially, from around £23k to £100k. This is likely to fall more heavily on those down South with valuable properties, although personally I have just seen my future inheritance go up by an extra £77k due to TM's announcement. She already got my vote, but thank you Mrs. May

You need to do your research.
If your in a care home, them yes you ll get to keep 100k instead of 23k, however now your house will be included in the assessment should you require (or want) care at home, where as before, at home it only inc cash.

another thing is that very often the care provided by the state will be limited, so unlike being in a nursing home, the family will be left having to top up with night care and additional private nursing, or have to give up job and become a full time carer.

Gotta to love fallon, stating that now pensioners will be able to leave their house to the family.... FFS a 100k isnt the value of the avg house, again BBC dont challenge him on this.

I have - my old dear went into a care home last month as she is not safe on her own, so no possibility of her returning home now my old man is not around. Her half of the house is included in the assessment (he passed his half to me in the will to avoid exactly this problem) and as she is now in care, the half a house would be included under the old rules - the only difference being she will now has to give away much less than before.