Guest BlueBrett Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 Why is it that you and those like you get all bent out of shape over a handful of people who cost the country millions but shrug your shoulders and look the other way about everything which costs the country trillions? I'm sorry but you are one of the very worst culprits for doing just that! "It was the bankers! The bankers did it!" seems to be your favourite war cry. You don't seem to be able to recognise that correcting flaws in perpetual systems is far more beneficial than arguing the toss about one off spending decisions (you mention bank bailouts and trident) The government had absolutely no choice but to bailout the banks, what would you have preferred? As for Trident, well I think any intelligent person really has to defer to the government on that one. Do you or I really know enough about the specific national security threats we face and the cost/benefit ratios etc to form a worthwhile opinion? More likely if we try to we'll just come down on one side or other due to some vague impression of intuition. You can hardly oppose your opposites if that's all you've got. And as Webbo has said repeatedly, this is not some vulgar money matter. For me, this debate cuts right to the heart of the wider debate about what kind of society we want to live in and what we believe the role of government should be in our particular mode of democracy. No doubt we all have very different ideas about these last 2 questions but until people at least recognise that this is what we are talking about we will get nowhere. Only good thing to come out of all this is that it really draws attention to the ineptitude and soulless pragmatism of the Labour Party. Surely we'll not have to stomach that horrible lot in power again for at least a decade.
Webbo Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 But it is being changed in the wrong way, Time will tell. It might be a bit rough on those with 10 kids already who thought they were set for life but hopefully it will stop people popping out babies every 2 years just to stay on the gravy train.
I am Rod Hull Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 I see the Olympics is going to cost over 5x+ (will be way over that, could be 10x) the original estimate of £2.4 billion of public sector £. (I wonder who`s making all the dosh from this?, maybe the same people that had their fingers in the new Wembley and the Millenium dome)...... RBS chief executive Stephen Hester has been awarded 3.6 million shares worth £960,000 for great leadership, even though shares of the bank fell by over 40%. .... Looking down is easier than looking up.... Funny how the "I`m on £26,000 benefits a year and I dont care" story came out a week before these.. Benefit fraud, terrorism, bad ass dictators (with oil), immigrants, Cheryl Coles hair.... it takes the heat off themselves and makes you look at other stories like this?.... They turn your heads and Its called politics, its been going on for a few thousand years.....
Daggers Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 ...we get child benefit and tax credits "Fvck everyone else's benefits as long as I get mine", eh?! Brilliant - hypocritical, much?
Charl91 Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 "Fvck everyone else's benefits as long as I get mine", eh?! Brilliant - hypocritical, much? I'm sure the tax he pays is much more then the benefits he receives......
FoxyPV Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 The vast majority of people will not be getting anywhere nearly £26k a year. The vast majority will get around £90 a fortnight and £200(ish) a month housing benefit. Hardly the lap of luxury. Benefits, whilst a cultural problem in the UK, are not the reason that the finances are shot. It was spending too much (on stupid ****ing wars amongst other things) and receiving too little (tax avoidance etc). It's always easiest to pick on the bottom rung of society.
I am Rod Hull Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 And still no mention of the MP`s expenses scandal? I`m disappointed...
Saxondale Posted 26 January 2012 Posted 26 January 2012 The vast majority of people will not be getting anywhere nearly £26k a year. The vast majority will get around £90 a fortnight and £200(ish) a month housing benefit. Hardly the lap of luxury. Benefits, whilst a cultural problem in the UK, are not the reason that the finances are shot. It was spending too much (on stupid ****ing wars amongst other things) and receiving too little (tax avoidance etc). It's always easiest to pick on the bottom rung of society. To be fair, they're implementing enormous defence cuts too.
The Doctor Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 I see the Olympics is going to cost over 5x+ (will be way over that, could be 10x) the original estimate of £2.4 billion of public sector £. (I wonder who`s making all the dosh from this?, maybe the same people that had their fingers in the new Wembley and the Millenium dome)...... RBS chief executive Stephen Hester has been awarded 3.6 million shares worth £960,000 for great leadership, even though shares of the bank fell by over 40%. .... Looking down is easier than looking up.... Funny how the "I`m on £26,000 benefits a year and I dont care" story came out a week before these.. Benefit fraud, terrorism, bad ass dictators (with oil), immigrants, Cheryl Coles hair.... it takes the heat off themselves and makes you look at other stories like this?.... They turn your heads and Its called politics, its been going on for a few thousand years..... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Time will tell. It might be a bit rough on those with 10 kids already who thought they were set for life but hopefully it will stop people popping out babies every 2 years just to stay on the gravy train. This is another strong argument, that this is not compassionate, there are people (rightly or wrongly) living off high benefits, then you are going to just take some of this money away. There doesn't seem to be any consideration that they may need this money. Any reform should be conducted at the same time as a benefits freeze, if you implemented a benefits freeze now and said that nobody currently on more than 26k will receive an increase in benefits and for the rest their benefits will increase up to 26k, then at least you will not be taking money off those that have come to rely on it, then a secondary proposal to look to reduce the high end benefits earners. The vast majority of people will not be getting anywhere nearly £26k a year. The vast majority will get around £90 a fortnight and £200(ish) a month housing benefit. Hardly the lap of luxury. Benefits, whilst a cultural problem in the UK, are not the reason that the finances are shot. It was spending too much (on stupid ****ing wars amongst other things) and receiving too little (tax avoidance etc). It's always easiest to pick on the bottom rung of society. This was brought up on Question Time last night, it is divide and conquer rule by the Conservatives, get the working poor at odds with the working poor, drive a wedge between the poorest of society whilst distracting from the issues at the top end of society (Vodaphone, RBS etc)
Guest MattP Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 This was brought up on Question Time last night, it is divide and conquer rule by the Conservatives, get the working poor at odds with the working poor, drive a wedge between the poorest of society whilst distracting from the issues at the top end of society (Vodaphone, RBS etc) To be fair that was only an opinion produced by "comedian" Mark Stone, someone who until very recently was a member of the SWP.
FoxyPV Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 To be fair, they're implementing enormous defence cuts too. They haven't stopped Trident and whilst (as always) it's the ones on the ground that are getting shafted, that won't stop the govt joining in another pointless war if it's politically beneficial.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 What about if you have Quads or more? Einy meeny miney... Abort Abort Abort Abort! Anyway, I think the comments in this thread backs up my theory.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Some people just don't have your will-power though. I think a lot of women should have their front bottoms plugged to be honest. Bumming is going to be huge one day, you'll see.
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 To be fair that was only an opinion produced by "comedian" Mark Stone, someone who until very recently was a member of the SWP. He may be a "comedian" but he speaks more sense than some of the politicians, what does it matter he was a member of the SWP?He is right. The outrage being caused by this is from the workers who don't earn more than 26k, getting angry that people who don't work get more than them, (even if in real terms this is not the case). I think the best point was made by the woman in the audience who talked about benefits being currently means tested, if after assessment it is determined that you need this much money then that is what you need, if you don't need that money then the means testing is wrong and that is going to affect every single person on benefits and by addressing this issue they will save more money than by implementing a cap which only affects those that need it the most.
Webbo Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 "Fvck everyone else's benefits as long as I get mine", eh?! Brilliant - hypocritical, much? I don't get £26k and I work. I don't know what your problem is, a few years ago you were saying that we needed mass immigration to fill jobs because the white working class were thick, lazy useless wankers.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 I don't get £26k and I work. I don't know what your problem is, a few years ago you were saying that we needed mass immigration to fill jobs because the white working class were thick, lazy useless wankers. Daggers is clearly racist.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 To be fair that was only an opinion produced by "comedian" Mark Stone, someone who until very recently was a member of the SWP. A possible actual socialist? Whenever I see one I write it down in a little book. I don't spot them very often, so I'm still on the first page
Webbo Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 The vast majority of people will not be getting anywhere nearly £26k a year. The vast majority will get around £90 a fortnight and £200(ish) a month housing benefit. Hardly the lap of luxury. Benefits, whilst a cultural problem in the UK, are not the reason that the finances are shot. It was spending too much (on stupid ****ing wars amongst other things) and receiving too little (tax avoidance etc). It's always easiest to pick on the bottom rung of society. Nobody said all benefits should be stopped, nobody begrudges genuine cases, the sick and disabled, people who have lost their job and are looking for another, people on a low wage who need a helping hand, I've no problem with that.Welfare should be a hand up not a way of life. As I've said before, the money saved isn't going to make a massive difference to the deficit.You're right it is a cultural problem and this is a cultural change. I don't see how you can change this any other way.
Webbo Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Daggers is clearly racist. No, but a little bit hypocritical. He's a grouchy old bastard but he still makes me laugh.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Benefits, whilst a cultural problem in the UK, are not the reason that the finances are shot. It was spending too much (on stupid ****ing wars amongst other things) and receiving too little (tax avoidance etc). Nobody said they are but that doesn't weaken the case for getting them in hand. The truth is the problems we are currently experiencing have very little to do with the decisions of our political leaders. For the most part, and particularly at the moment given the state of the Euro-zone, domestic legislation probably has about enough potency to make perhaps 0.5-1% difference to our economy - unless of course we were to adopt Labour's (one and only) policy of deviating from the agreed deficit reduction plan, increasing borrowing and alienating the financial markets & credit rating agencies. I think then we could expect to see more than 1% damage. Until Greece and the banks can agree upon a mutually acceptable haircut and an orderly default can be initiated we may as well just accept that we are at the mercy of the financial markets. However, there is a reason we have the lowest borrowing costs in Europe and that is credibility. Getting on top of inefficiencies and excesses in welfare, as a small part of the wider review into profligate government spending (thanks again Labour), can only help to cement the view that Britain at least, virtually alone in Western Europe, is serious about taking responsibility and addressing her own problems. Personally, I'm beginning to wonder that since politics these days seems to be about little more than economics - morality and other such normative considerations are rarely even discussed any more when weighing up the desirability of a proposed policy - is it time for us to reconsider the way we select and elect our politicians? Given that money seems to matter above all else, shouldn't we be asking serial entrepreneurs, CEOs of multinationals and other successful business people to represent our interests as opposed to supposedly ideologically motivated ex humanities students who lack both understanding and interest in complex financial issues? Surely it's either that or we somehow try to get back to a place where money doesn't talk quite so loud? The current system is riddled with so many contradictions and premised on such ill-conceived logic that it's little wonder we find ourselves in such a mess.
Master Fox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 No, but a little bit hypocritical. He's a grouchy old bastard but he still makes me laugh. I want to have his babies.
Captain... Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 Nobody said all benefits should be stopped, nobody begrudges genuine cases, the sick and disabled, people who have lost their job and are looking for another, people on a low wage who need a helping hand, I've no problem with that.Welfare should be a hand up not a way of life. As I've said before, the money saved isn't going to make a massive difference to the deficit.You're right it is a cultural problem and this is a cultural change. I don't see how you can change this any other way. There have been a number of suggestions on this thread on how to make a farier change, whether it is food stamps or providing more affordable nurseries, or addressing the root cause which is a chronic lack of jobs. Other suggestions include making rich households not eligible for child benefits. One of the main factors is rent, which is why the majority of these cases are in London and why the a large amount of benefits ends up in the hands of landlords. Re housing is an option, but then you run the risk of creating slum areas for poor people and ghettoisation. Another point made on Question Time last night was the creation of a regional cap, not something I agree with, but at least it is a fairer reflection and affects people equally. You say you want a cultural change, but how is a cultural change going to occur when you can quite happily live off benefits in one area of the country, but not another, you can quite happily life off benefits with 2 children but not 5, people will just have less children if they want to live off benefits. People will still have the disincentive to work. At the moment any benefits reforms are going to struggle because the opportunities to get off benefits, finding a job, are so limited.
danny. Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 There have been a number of suggestions on this thread on how to make a farier change, whether it is food stamps or providing more affordable nurseries, or addressing the root cause which is a chronic lack of jobs. Other suggestions include making rich households not eligible for child benefits. Every time I walk to work I walk past agencies that *always* have quite a few jobs advertised. They aren't great jobs, they probably don't pay much more than staying on benefits, or maybe less - but there are jobs out there.
Leicfox Posted 27 January 2012 Posted 27 January 2012 All benefit "customers" are all getting a 5.2% pay rise from April. I don't doubt for one moment that there are families who have realised that they can coin it in and do nothing. But nobody on this board - and probably not even in government - knows the true extent of whether benefit scrounging IS a real problem in this country or not. But lets be honest. Its an incredibly easy political play to make with people's lives and it will always be seen as 'fair' by the middle ground.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.