Strokes Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 No, we were debating your clear, but false implication that lefties believe that throwing money at the unemployed is the best solution. I was refuting that. Of course there are some idlers and cheats out there and they should be pressured and penalised. However, if "a lot of people don't actually need benefits" and are receiving them after 5 years of a Tory government, that just proves what a rubbish job the government must be doing at tackling the problem. Thank god we have a new government then No, we were debating your clear, but false implication that lefties believe that throwing money at the unemployed is the best solution. I was refuting that. Of course there are some idlers and cheats out there and they should be pressured and penalised. However, if "a lot of people don't actually need benefits" and are receiving them after 5 years of a Tory government, that just proves what a rubbish job the government must be doing at tackling the problem. Thank god we have a new government then
The Blur Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 It's interesting your are happy to criticise the Tories for stamping on people 'rights' yet are happy to admit you voted for a party whose leader said that it was going to make criticising a certain religion a hate crime and criminal offence. Both are same principles because it involved people being discriminated due to their social circumstances- religion in the example you brought up and disability in Access to Work example that I used and I am against both of that. I do not think Ed will hardly make it criminal to disagree against principles of the religion and that hate crime measures are reserved for much more serious offences than that but if Ed does outlaw disagreeing with principles of any religion then of course, I am against that.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Amazing how all these lefties aren't interested in money but one mention of some benefits being cut and they go absolutely bat shit. Would it to be too much to ask the lefties to concede that sometimes just giving people money isn't actually helping them at all? Often people are actually much happier providing for themselves, and if benefit cuts are an effective way to push them into work then that's surely a good thing? The Liberal Democrats have of course influenced coalition policy, that is the point of coalition. Who said anything about benefit cheats? Moose's comment (in bold, above), to which I initially responded, clearly refers to benefits cheats - claimants making insufficient effort to find work, who'll find work if their benefits are cut, allegedly. You initially responded to my point that lefties did NOT believe that throwing money at the unemployed was the best solution. Of course the Lib Dems influenced coalition policy - we'll shortly see the difference, which you'll like and I won't, I daresay. However, the implication of your comment was that the Lib Dems chose to let the Tories proceed with the Bedroom Tax, but prevented them from denying benefits to people who didn't need them.....which would be a bizarre set of priorities for the Lib Dems. Admittedly, you added in the point about the means-testing of Child Benefit, Winter Fuel Allowance etc, but that wasn't the original topic under discussion unless it is children and pensioners that Moose wanted to "push into work" - and I assume that would be a step too far, even for him. Don't know what I think, ultimately, about the means-testing of such items. I suppose there are alternatives: e.g. integrate Child Benefit into Tax Credits (which are already means-tested), remove the Winter Fuel Allowance but increase the basic state pension....could be a logistical nightmare, though. Alternatively, how about leaving those items in place, but increasing income tax on incomes above £40k? Not that the Tories will do that, of course!
MooseBreath Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 No, we were debating your clear, but false implication that lefties believe that throwing money at the unemployed is the best solution. I was refuting that. Of course there are some idlers and cheats out there and they should be pressured and penalised. However, if "a lot of people don't actually need benefits" and are receiving them after 5 years of a Tory government, that just proves what a rubbish job the government must be doing at tackling the problem. It would be harsh to criticise the tories because above all they are in the votes game, and slashing benefits isn't a vote winner. Labour spent more than a decade getting people hooked on hand outs. Had the coalition instantly turned the taps off, there would have been trouble. The existence of trouble doesn't mean it's justified, of course. Much like a drug addict will behave irrationally when going cold turkey, so too will a benefits addict. But it does mean that the only way to get the welfare bill down to more sensible levels, without causing more trouble than its worth, is to taper it down, and that's exactly what we've done and must continue to do.
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 A company/organisation that investigates passport fraud etc offered to use their skills in uncovering benefit cheets for free. The government turned them down instead of opting for their own methods which is costing millions in implementing and in appeals. The company would have found out who the benefit cheats were and the innocent would not had to suffer.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Most people have stopped believing this, it's far more likely they actually believe the morally correct thing to do might be to realise loading billions of debt onto future generations so we can continue to engorge in living beyonds our means is actually a horrific and selfish thing to do. I've had this conversation with numerous people my age over the last couple of weeks especially since the election after they've moaned about the result and they are rather receptive to it. As soon as you make the point that it's important to stop spending money we don't have and borrowing our way through hoping it will sort itself out, they become more sympathetic to the result. We spend 56 billion or whatever on interest repayments currently which comes at a huge opportunity cost. That interest has to be paid every year and we will still be paying it for many years to come, sacrificing public services in the future. Generations previous have had it good and we'll be the ones picking up the tab in 10-20 years time and I don't want to see more and more spending and borrowing to build that tab up even more. The problem is everyone is so short termist these days that they wonder why things don't instantly become perfect for them. It's probably because many aspects of life have become easier and more instant that they expect government and economics to do the same. At least I've convinced the kid I tutor that the Greens are an ideal fantasy for now, maybe their time will come in the future when things have improved but now is the time to acknowledge we overspent in the past and make government more sustainable again. The Conservative party isn't perfect, it still needs a whole lot of modernising for me, I think people would find they agree with modern conservatism far more than they realise
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Honestly, most people have Zero awareness about any of that, they are just spouting the usual shite about nasty Tories. That is the problem. A lot of people do have zero awareness. We have a nation of ostriches.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 It would be harsh to criticise the tories because above all they are in the votes game, and slashing benefits isn't a vote winner. Labour spent more than a decade getting people hooked on hand outs. Had the coalition instantly turned the taps off, there would have been trouble. The existence of trouble doesn't mean it's justified, of course. Much like a drug addict will behave irrationally when going cold turkey, so too will a benefits addict. But it does mean that the only way to get the welfare bill down to more sensible levels, without causing more trouble than its worth, is to taper it down, and that's exactly what we've done and must continue to do. Which benefits, though? As we have established, a large proportion of benefits go to people in work (tax credits, housing benefit, income support) or to the sick/disabled or for childcare. If they slashed out-of-work benefits, it probably WOULD win votes, but it wouldn't bring in anything like £12bn. Ignoring for a minute the minority who abuse the system, how will it help anyone - or the economy - to cut the real incomes of people on low pay, in part-time work, maybe with children or health problems to cope with? Of course, cutting tax credits / benefits while simultaneously enforcing a real increase in the minimum wage and reinforcing job security might work, transferring the costs to employers....but again, the Tories won't do that, will they?
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 A company/organisation that investigates passport fraud etc offered to use their skills in uncovering benefit cheets for free. The government turned them down instead of opting for their own methods which is costing millions in implementing and in appeals. The company would have found out who the benefit cheats were and the innocent would not had to suffer. Do you have any proof at all of this Ken? Or perhaps you can give me an example of a Government successfully using a "free" service. You generally find, that these companies operate on a gain share arrangement - we save you $1M, we get half.
MooseBreath Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Which benefits, though? As we have established, a large proportion of benefits go to people in work (tax credits, housing benefit, income support) or to the sick/disabled or for childcare. If they slashed out-of-work benefits, it probably WOULD win votes, but it wouldn't bring in anything like £12bn. Ignoring for a minute the minority who abuse the system, how will it help anyone - or the economy - to cut the real incomes of people on low pay, in part-time work, maybe with children or health problems to cope with? Of course, cutting tax credits / benefits while simultaneously enforcing a real increase in the minimum wage and reinforcing job security might work, transferring the costs to employers....but again, the Tories won't do that, will they? I'm more than happy for in-work benefits to be cut. Compensate that by lowering tax or, if you want a bit of socialism, raise the tax free allowance some more. It seems nonsensical to me to tax people only to give it back if you meet some criteria or other. Child benefit and the like should definitely be means tested and should also be reduced. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids.
The Blur Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 I've had this conversation with numerous people my age over the last couple of weeks especially since the election after they've moaned about the result and they are rather receptive to it. As soon as you make the point that it's important to stop spending money we don't have and borrowing our way through hoping it will sort itself out, they become more sympathetic to the result. We spend 56 billion or whatever on interest repayments currently which comes at a huge opportunity cost. That interest has to be paid every year and we will still be paying it for many years to come, sacrificing public services in the future. Generations previous have had it good and we'll be the ones picking up the tab in 10-20 years time and I don't want to see more and more spending and borrowing to build that tab up even more. The problem is everyone is so short termist these days that they wonder why things don't instantly become perfect for them. It's probably because many aspects of life have become easier and more instant that they expect government and economics to do the same. At least I've convinced the kid I tutor that the Greens are an ideal fantasy for now, maybe their time will come in the future when things have improved but now is the time to acknowledge we overspent in the past and make government more sustainable again. The Conservative party isn't perfect, it still needs a whole lot of modernising for me, I think people would find they agree with modern conservatism far more than they realise I agree, this is why I am not entirely against welfare cuts- we all need to make savings and welfare benefits is one of most ample areas to make savings on especially that it is a messed up system riddled with errors. My disagreement lie with how Tories deliver those cuts- I am deaf myself and in last five years, there were three big cuts to that are directly targeted at deaf community (as part of disabled community)- all three cuts were either being amended frequently or postponed upon more review or reversed (fair play to Tories for being big enough to admit their errors though) after an outcry from deaf community and disabled community. This show lack of research and thought that Tories have made in implementing those cuts and ironically, they probably also ran up more costs in reversing and rethinking those cuts!
TimG Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Here's an interesting article by a nobel prize winning economist about austerity and the UK election result: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0 And here's a survey of UK economists from CFM http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity Yet most people seem to think that the Conservatives are the economically responsible party.
MooseBreath Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Here's an interesting article by a nobel prize winning economist about austerity and the UK election result: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0 And here's a survey of UK economists from CFM http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity Yet most people seem to think that the Conservatives are the economically responsible party. Krugman has been banging on about austerity for years. Go back and look at some of his ppredictions from 2010. Don't expect him to admit to being wrong though. Espousing anti-austerity is how he makes his living. Interestingly although he uses Keynes to justify spending during a recession, he doesn't follow it through like Keynes by saying that during periods of growth, like now, we should be running a surplus. He's picking and choosing to suit his agenda. Winning a nobel prize for economics doesn't make him right, either. In 2013, two economists shared the Nobel prize with opposing theories. At least one if not both of them were guaranteed to be wrong, but they still got the prize. As for that survey, nobody says that austerity should create growth in the short term. That's not what austerity is about.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 I'm more than happy for in-work benefits to be cut. Compensate that by lowering tax or, if you want a bit of socialism, raise the tax free allowance some more. It seems nonsensical to me to tax people only to give it back if you meet some criteria or other. Child benefit and the like should definitely be means tested and should also be reduced. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. If the Tories plan to cut the deficit to the extent they've announced, any cuts in benefits would have to be much greater than any tax cuts / increasing allowances, otherwise the deficit wouldn't be reduced. Rather than raise the tax-free allowance, which will increasingly benefit everyone other than part-time and low-paid workers, now that it is £10,600, the socialist thing to do would be to reintroduce a 10% band or cut the standard rate and increase the higher rate, but that obviously won't happen. I think most parents will tell you that family finances can be pretty tight already, unless you're on an income well above average. I don't necessarily disagree with your "if you can't afford kids" comment, but if it becomes too financially disadvantageous for people to have a family, who'll pay for your pension in your old age? The kids of the rich? The kids of poor immigrant families, who are currently boosting the birth rate? The kids of people on benefits? Here's an interesting article by a nobel prize winning economist about austerity and the UK election result: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0 And here's a survey of UK economists from CFM http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity Yet most people seem to think that the Conservatives are the economically responsible party. A good article - and an explicit condemnation of Labour for failing to make these arguments over the past 5 years, which I'm sure played a key part in their defeat. They allowed the Tories to get away with the lies that Labour profligacy caused the deficit (it was mainly the financial crash) and that responsible Tory deficit cutting yielded a great recovery (it initially choked off growth, which only returned when austerity was relaxed - and the recovery is still very fragile). The argument that you should increase public spending to compensate for a private sector downturn seems counter-intuitive, though, when set against the "we must all tighten our belts" argument. Labour needed a powerful image to counter-balance it, but never really even tried. How about this: "If you're in a twin-engine jet and one engine fails, you don't remain air-borne by switching the other engine off to provide balance....you carefully increase power from the other engine, until you can bring the plane to a safe landing and repair the other engine"? To continue the analogy in a boom (as per Moose's comment), of course, if one engine is over-heating, you don't balance it by turning up the other one, either! The first Tory budget will be very interesting. Their manifesto was quite explicit that they intend to repeat their errors of 2010-13, by making swingeing cuts that risk choking off the fragile recovery. Will they really do that or was it just bluff? We'll soon see, as they'll need to start any major cuts early, in case they lose their majority later in the parliament - and in preparation for vote-winning measures in 2020. My guess is that they'll opt for a halfway approach - some nasty cuts, but not as much as the £25bn or whatever they've threatened.
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Here's an interesting article by a nobel prize winning economist about austerity and the UK election result: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-unthinking.html?_r=0 And here's a survey of UK economists from CFM http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity Yet most people seem to think that the Conservatives are the economically responsible party. They want people to think that. And yes it is true announcing benefit cut on its own would not win votes.But couple that with speeches like 'hard working families' 'scroungers and workers' plus headlines in papers 'Man with12 children receives £1000 per week' eventuall gets to people and some may even start to come out with phrases like 'free money' Governments are in the vote catching not popularity business especially around election time. I doubt the national debt will be paid off in the next 100 years. None of us on FoxesTalk will be around to see it end so why over worry about it? The 'if you can't afford children dont have them' edoes not always work. What if you have had 3 kids then you or your wife becomes seriously ill and needs a home carer? You may have to give up work to look after them. What if awoman in a violent relationship eventually leaves with young children? Should they be forgotten about? Until the whole situation and circumstance is known it is unfair to lump all people on benefits together, many who do work.
Webbo Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Really? Still pretending that the economy is worse than it was 5 years ago? The election ended last week, nobody believed it then and nobody believes it now.
Stadt Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 My biggest criticism of the cuts is that they're being far too optimistic with the cuts, we need cuts, desperately in fact but £12 billion is massively optimistic considering the more obvious cuts have already been made.
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Interesting the new minister for the disabled Justin Tomlinson is against disability benefit and Human rights. How does that work if a disabled person asks him for help? http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3093-new-minister-for-disabled-strongly-against-disability-benefits-and-human-rights Some of the comments are good. #12 tintack 2015-05-12 18:18 Just read that the new equalities minister voted against same-sex marriage. Cameron's just trolling the public now. Stand by for Joey Essex to be announced as the new education minister.
Webbo Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Interesting the new minister for the disabled Justin Tomlinson is against disability benefit and Human rights. How does that work if a disabled person asks him for help? http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3093-new-minister-for-disabled-strongly-against-disability-benefits-and-human-rights Voting against the Human Rights Act doesn't mean you're against human rights.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Really? Still pretending that the economy is worse than it was 5 years ago? The election ended last week, nobody believed it then and nobody believes it now. Depends which criteria you look at, doesn't it? Employment is better, GDP marginally better but from a higher population, so GDP per capita is worse, I think. Productivity is worse. After falling for years, real incomes are roughly back to where they were; like inflation, this is mainly down to the slump in oil prices. As for growth, here's the official data: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32493745 So, growth has been falling for more than a year - not necessarily a good time to introduce swingeing cuts to public spending and to the real incomes of those with the highest propensity to spend.... Oh! I've thought up another analogy for Keynesian economics: "If everyone tightens their belt at the same time, the food shops all go bust, the farmers don't plant their crops as they know they won't be able to sell at market and everyone starves" Yes, requires some work, I know!
TimG Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Krugman has been banging on about austerity for years. Go back and look at some of his ppredictions from 2010. Don't expect him to admit to being wrong though. Espousing anti-austerity is how he makes his living. Interestingly although he uses Keynes to justify spending during a recession, he doesn't follow it through like Keynes by saying that during periods of growth, like now, we should be running a surplus. He's picking and choosing to suit his agenda. His argument, and Keynes said the same I think, is that you should wait until the boom after you have had a successful recovery before doing the austerity measures and trying to run a surplus. Keynes never said that you should do the austerity so soon after growth returns after a recession. We're certainly not in a boom yet. What do you think he got wrong in 2010? Winning a nobel prize for economics doesn't make him right, either. In 2013, two economists shared the Nobel prize with opposing theories. At least one if not both of them were guaranteed to be wrong, but they still got the prize. No, it doesn't necessarily mean he's right but it gives him some credibility. People talk about the cuts like it's fact that they're necessary, e.g. Wookie above: "We need cuts, desperately in fact", despite the cost of borrowing being so low http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef568030-a7a8-11e4-be63-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Zx2BubtR
TimG Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Really? Still pretending that the economy is worse than it was 5 years ago? The election ended last week, nobody believed it then and nobody believes it now. I'm not sure anyone is saying that it's worse than it was 5 years ago, just that austerity has harmed growth and that the economy could have been a lot better by this point without it.
Webbo Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Depends which criteria you look at, doesn't it? Employment is better, GDP marginally better but from a higher population, so GDP per capita is worse, I think. Productivity is worse. After falling for years, real incomes are roughly back to where they were; like inflation, this is mainly down to the slump in oil prices. As for growth, here's the official data: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32493745 So, growth has been falling for more than a year - not necessarily a good time to introduce swingeing cuts to public spending and to the real incomes of those with the highest propensity to spend.... Oh! I've thought up another analogy for Keynesian economics: "If everyone tightens their belt at the same time, the food shops all go bust, the farmers don't plant their crops as they know they won't be able to sell at market and everyone starves" Yes, requires some work, I know! It would be interesting to see what the GDP per capita was during Labour's years considering the population grew by 3 million approx. Take away the growth generated by public spending based on borrowing you have to wonder whether our growth was quite poor compared to the rest of the world during a world wide boom. I'm not sure anyone is saying that it's worse than it was 5 years ago, just that austerity has harmed growth and that the economy could have been a lot better by this point without it. Haven't we had the fastest growth in the western world over the last couple of years?
TimG Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Haven't we had the fastest growth in the western world over the last couple of years? No, just in 2014. The bulk of the cuts during the coalition came in the first 2-3 years when growth was much lower than expected. Then Osborne reduced the speed of the cuts and growth increased. The Tories pledged to eradicate the deficit completely in 5 years, but they had to slow the cuts due to a lack of growth and in the end they were only able to halve it.
Webbo Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 It's predicted that the US will grow faster than us this year, but we're still predicted to do better than the Eurozone this year and next. 2.7% is still pretty healthy though. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/14/imf-projects-faster-global-growth-but-warns-of-risks Maybe we should cut down to American levels of taxes and public services?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.