Of course it isn't "all", there are of course geniune cases (and I have absolutely no problem supporting them).

There are, however, way too many scroungers who choose not to work.

And of course we have jobs for them to go into once we've slashed benefits? at the last count there was 500k vacancies (your figure) and 2.68m out of work.

no if we let people go as well then we have cracked it.

3 Posts and we have solved it where do i sign?

Hey that GOLD went cheap didn't it !!!!!

You equate selling off some gold with gerrymandering?
Hardly in the same league.

That's why i said 26k is enough anything more then that isn't (why isn't this sinking in)

£26,000 for 3 kids is 722.22 per kid per month you need more then that then they can get off there ar$e and get a job.

One kid could pay the mortgage one all the bills and you have 722.22p left to blow on what ever they want a month

Because they do, you are very naive, there are some that don't but the ones that do should be stripped of everything and there kids taken off them. I'd even make sure they couldn't have any more as well till they can prove to be responsible adults.

Well it isn't sinking in but it isn't me that is struggling.

LMFAO

I doubt any of us are struggling or we wouldn't have the internet, however the difference is what should we do about the takers you and coddy want to give them the world i want want them to work for a living.

See I'd like them to work for a living too (as I'm sure many of the families in that situation would) but we have a slight problem of 2.18m more people out of work than we do vacancies, even those desperate to get a job can't get one.

Got to keep up bud there is 800k of jobs that gives us 2 mill left, dont let anyone in for a year and let people who want to leave the country go where the hell they like booooooooooom we have sorted in a year !!

Now to keep my Scottish friends with us like one big happy family next thread .............

The 500k figure was provided by our pie munching friend.

Now I know you and your friend don't like answering this question but what do you do to encourage the workshy to get a job when even those desperate for work and find it?




Our friends who live in Scotland (and that is who will get a vote) are big enough to decide for themselves.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EllipsisOh and please read up on what the three (and it is three not a load) of dots mean punctuation wise.[/url

Please point to where I have said anything of the kind.

I have no problem with targeting benefits cheats. I do have a serious problem with broad-brush, simple-fix "solutions" that do nothing to address a problem, yet seem to appease the narrow minded by lumping the majority good in with the tiny minority bad.

What an intelligent reply.

Not to mention the fact that our government is happy to target the poorest and most vulnerable in society in order to score a few cheap points with Daily Mail readers, yet somehow rather less comfortable in tackling the issue of big business dodging billions of pounds worth of tax.

You really don't get this economics thing do you BG?

If it were so easy to wave a magic wand, create jobs then EVERYONE would be doing it.

What you need to do is create the CONDITIONS to allow people to create jobs.

Remove bureaucracy, ensure inflation is low, ensure taxes are low, reward enterprise, penalise laziness.

i.e. entirely the OPPOSITE of what Labour did.

The current coalition is trying to get back to this by sorting out the mess that they inherited.

Even if there are no jobs, I don't see 2.68 million people volunteering to help people less fortunate than themselves via charities, in hospitals, etc in exchange for their assistance. Surely, that would be the decent thing to do?

One they have absolute power and influence over, the other little.

Not just big business, has Gideon brought his trust fund back to the UK yet?

You're still happy for other countries to take migrants from the UK?

So, double standards, then.



Ah, just think of all the revenues from North Sea gas that went to fund the scrapping of industry and the throwing of people and communities onto the scrapheap – and with that, the concomitant creation of welfare dependency.

What an investment that was.

I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried.

You post is just wrong from start to finish. You are simply restating Thatcherism with the remove bureaucracy, low tax, reward enterprise mantra. This country has been run like that since Thatcher by both Conservative AND Labour governments. The result? A banking crisis like we have never seen before and the mess we are in now. That is not a coincidence.

The coalition is printing money like it is going out of fashion (bang goes low inflation), the economy is contracting, unemployment is increasing, we are borrowing more and yet despite almost begging the banks (some of which are govt owned) to lend they are not lending to businesses.

This government does not have a strategy for growth. We have had deregulation all over the place since the 80's as well as privatisations of rail and utilities etc. The right wing thinkers have had their "conditions for growth for decades" and all it has done is get us where we are today. In a mess.

So why, until the banking crisis and the global recession in 2008, did unemployment fall every single year that Labour was in power?

What is the current Tory led government doing to stimulate the jobs market? What taxes have they cut? What enerprise rewards have they put in place and how's inflation doing at the moment?

So what? You take out insurance on your house I take it? Do you expect the insurance company to give you all the money back because you are fortunate enough not to have your house burned down or broken into? It is just the same here. If you are lucky enough not to need a lot of treatment on the NHS or do not need help if out of work do you think you ought to be paying less into the system?

Why is the fact you may pay a lot in but are fortunate enough not to take a lot out a problem to you given you have no idea what your circumstances will be down the line and that you may just end up taking a heck of a lot out yourself?






And that is likely to get worse rather than better. We are very familiar with DLA as we have an autistic son. To claim it you already have fill in a 40 page document that seems deliberately designed to trip you up as opposed to ensure those obviously entitled too it get it. I think you will find more and more people with a genuine claim will be denied it as part of these proposed reforms. The problem you state will get worse not better.




Not THIS is the crux of the matter. Of course we can afford it. We are the 7th biggest economy n the works with a GDP of around $2.25 trillion. The fact is we are moving toward it being a safety net as opposed to the Welfare State as envisaged by Beverage is primarily down to the political ideology that has prevailed since the 80's.

The idea we can't afford it because there are too many scroungers is ridiculous. By your own figures about how much tax is unclaimed v benefit cheating shows the money lost on unpaid tax would more than cover the benefit fraud. So you must agree if you really do believe it is benefit fraud that makes it unaffordable that [usorting out the unpaid tax problem would solve that at a stroke[/u.

In any case the cost of the Welfare State is not defined by the cheats who are in the minority but by the cost of providing it for the majority who are much greater in number. Therefore the question of affordability is simply whether we want to do so or not.

The low tax environment you favour where we have a basic rate of income tax of 20% (when I started work it was 25%) is a typical environment in countries that have little welfare cover. We can afford it so the question is whether we want to or not. Or would we all rather have a new smart phone every year?



The point of mentioning uncollected taxes v benefit fraud was in the context of saving money for the country. The government could actually just accept it can't fix the benefit fraud problem with broad brush changes that WILL affect genuine claimants adversely but if it went after uncollected taxes with as much vigour it would be quids in and totally justified in doing it.

You seem to have missed the bit about gerrymandering.
What happened in Westminster was not just selling off housing stock for economic reasons.
Having nearly lost control of the council (only about 100 votes in it), they actually targeted the marginal wards and moved the tenants into neighbouring boroughs and then sold off the housing stock.
The (secret) project was specifically to swap voters around in order to maintain a tory electoral majority in Westminster.
If you wanted an example to demonstrate what gerrymandering is, you'd be hard pressed to find a better one.
Even the subsequent tory adminstrations have admitted it and apologised for it, so I'm afraid your "economics" reasons are simply untrue.