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.

Quote ="DaveO" 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. '" 0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent - DWP's own figures. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem ... _sep10.pdf. The Daily Mail via IDS was quoted as 94% which was a lie and the above document from IDS's own government proved that. I suggest XBrettKennyX takes a close look at that document before pointing the finger at benefit claimaints suggesting we are all frauds.

Quote ="DaveO" 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. '" 0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent - DWP's own figures. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem ... _sep10.pdf. The Daily Mail via IDS was quoted as 94% which was a lie and the above document from IDS's own government proved that. I suggest XBrettKennyX takes a close look at that document before pointing the finger at benefit claimaints suggesting we are all frauds.

I think the principle of universal benefits and the reasons for them have been mentioned in this thread but subsequently ignored.

The idea is that a universal benefit is due to all, regardless of income, hence the word Universal.
Those that could afford to do without the benefit were simply taxed more.

That way, you don't need means-testing and the benefit is way cheaper to administrate.
Also, it removes the stigma of being in receipt of the benefit.

So, when creeps like Osborne start mealy-mouthing about the poor paying for the rich to have the benefits, he's either totally stupid or slimily disingenuous. My money is on the latter explanation.

Both parties are now firmly in the "we need to tax less" camp ... whereas I am not.
Why? because it simpler and more equitable.
Providing you can get the rich to pay their whack that is.
And that is the nub of the problem, the tories want their rich backers to keep more... and the easiest way is to set people against each other whilst they scurry around feathering own nests and those of their backers.

We have heard big bold statements about tax dodgers and fat cats ... and absolutely zero action.
So much easier to make the poor even poorer.

And screw the concomitant social problems, which you can always blame on them anyway. As with attacking benefits as unfair etc, and benefit claimants as 'workshy' and 'feckless' etc – all the while knowing that there are not remotely enough jobs for those who are looking/eligible for a job.

And it works rather well – as revealed here.

Most people are still under the illusion that Labour caused the recession and the total debt is their fault.
That blame persists despite it being patently untrue.

The focus at the moment is on benefits and blaming the unemployed ... the number of job-seekers outnumbers vacancies by about 5/1 or 6/1, and many of them were actually working until recently, but the untruth that they are just a bunch of workshy wastrels with £30k cars and 90" flatscreens persists as well.

Housing benefit stands at about £20bn, directly caused by selling-off social housing stock in the 1980's .... but the myth persists that these people are unworthy of a roof over their heads and that they are a drain on the economy.

Myth, myth, myth.
The country is ill at the moment, mentally ill.

Absolutely spot on.

Because easy and cheap credit fuelled an illusion of sustainable growth (an end to boom and bust as I recall). Then the easy and cheap credit ran out. Now we are going back to where we were before the failed policy of those years - ie getting back to the harsh truth that we have not been doing as well as eveyone imagined.

This is part of the problem with our benefits system. It pays out relatively handsomely when their is 'full' employment (ie the "scrounger" is catered) but as soon as there is need for it for the willing workers who lose their jobs the benefits are cut back. It happens every time. So, I wonder whether when we have 'full' employment we should insist able people work and put aside the money saved for the rainy day when what might be termed genuine claimants need it?

Quote ="Hull White Star"0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent - DWP's own figures. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem ... _sep10.pdf. The Daily Mail via IDS was quoted as 94% which was a lie and the above document from IDS's own government proved that. I suggest XBrettKennyX takes a close look at that document before pointing the finger at benefit claimaints suggesting we are all frauds.'" It would be pretty difficult to fraudulently claim DLA without officialdom being complicit. The forms are enormously long (and require an official to help complete them the first time) and have to be completed every five minutes.

Quote ="Hull White Star"0.5% of DLA claimants are fraudulent - DWP's own figures. research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem ... _sep10.pdf. The Daily Mail via IDS was quoted as 94% which was a lie and the above document from IDS's own government proved that. I suggest XBrettKennyX takes a close look at that document before pointing the finger at benefit claimaints suggesting we are all frauds.'" It would be pretty difficult to fraudulently claim DLA without officialdom being complicit. The forms are enormously long (and require an official to help complete them the first time) and have to be completed every five minutes.

And scrapping everyone's [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1human rights[/url appears to be another target. Only Johnny Foreigner uses them though, no genuine stiff upper lip Brit would ever do that (but that's for a whole other thread

)

Unfortunately, the term "Full employment" is never anything of the kind.
Even when we have "Full employment" there are those who can't get or can't do the work.
Besides, the rules about "actively seeking work" apply all the time, not just when employment is low.

Mostly because those who were giving it out (bankers) were using their position to gamble with the funds that they did have. When that went wrong, the government stepped in to protect and help them (still not sure why) but it saved many many jobs in the banking sector

That's why I put it in inverted commas. Fact remains though that we have just been through a period of full employment - as shown by the fact that we have to import enormous numbers of migrant workers from EU states. Why is it that a young graduate from Poland or wherever feels they can earn a good living, renting their own place in a foreign country doing a job on minimum wage, when a young British person, with the benefit of being in their own country, often living with family feels it beneath them to get out of bed when other people and their parents can pay for them? That is a huge issue and there's no denying it.

There's long been a part of me that would have liked to see the banks in question go under. However, obviously that would have hurt employees who had done absolutely nothing wrong – and who, unlike many of those who had been greedy and incompetent, would suffer from unemployment, having not secured themselves a tidy renumeration package.

But I think it would also have been utter chaos too.

If you think how long it takes to sort things out when, say, a travel company goes bust and people are stranded abroad, then transfer that to a big bank going under, with no customer able to access their money, pay their bills etc for some days at least.

On a similar note, isn't it extraordinary how much the customers of companies that go to the wall are shafted?

The case has come up again, in the last few days, of Farepak, the Christmas savings firm that went broke five years ago. Customers are still waiting for compensation, while the liquidators are apparently likely to get over £5m in fees.

It's even more morally obscene because these were people who were not taking easy credit, but were saving.

There has been something rotten going on for years, and ordinary people are way down the ladder in terms of the priorities of those who really run the country for themselves and their friends.

I'm going for a lie down. - I agree with Dally.

An employer will want someone willing and able to do the job, often without having to train them (or at least a bare minimum) and there are plenty of non-Brits who fit into that category.

I remembered your view when I typed my bit and agree to a large extent, but am perplexed as to why it was seen as sensible/essential to prevent a number of companies in a crowded market go to the wall, when in many other sectors, governments of whatever hue sit on their hands and let private industry carve the whole thing up, with subsequent job losses.

What is the difference, apart from the obvious one, between banking and car production, or banking and steel production?

There are issues and I doubt anyone would deny them.

However, it is also entirely true that there are issues with how seasonal labour is dealt with in this country, which does not help getting people into jobs when their lives are based in the area of the work.

Similarly, for many migrant workers from the former Eastern Bloc, the pay over here for certain lowly jobs will be considerably more than they can get at home (although the cost of living is also much higher). But if, as many have, you come and do such work for a short term, then living in dorms and so forth is easier to put up with – you don't have to spend the kind of money on accommodation that you would if you were a permanent resident intending to build your life.

Plenty of people have, indeed, been able to do this – and then return to their country of origin and use the money they've saved to set up in business there.

Well, because it's the banks, to start with – and finance plays such a huge role in the national economy.

But I think the difference is that everyone needs a bank – a bit difficult not to use one these days. Imagine a couple going under. Complete chaos. Possibly runs on other banks etc. I've certainly seen analysis where Brown's decision to rescue is increasingly being credited with stopping descent into a depression rather than a recession.

duplicate post

Do i really need too when half of you don't even know what your talking about.
You all keep them lefty rose tinted glasses

It is our duty to look after ourselves rather then rely on everyone else who is actually working their ar$e off to pay for others. We all know it isn't everyone but a cap at 26k if you like it or not, is what WILL happen and i look forward to hearing, how unfair it is when its past.

It is up to them and i hope we stay altogether doesn't mean i can't talk about it and discuss it now does it.

Those that actually do get benefits and CAN work should be under council supervision doing jobs for the council for 4 days a week while spending one day a week gathering information to get a job. Those excluded are ones that CAN'T WORK for disabled reasons and those that are trying to improve themselves by been at college or Uni.

If you don't agree with that then quite frankly i have no more time for you.

What do we do with the council employess who are thrown out of work because someone is doing their job for nowt?