Fantastic comment piece from the Times on the giveaway to mortgage holders

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Oh hell, it's Christmas. I was expecting prep to be counting the proportion of young ladies aged 20-25 in bikinis:one pieces or something interesting like that. Oh well, here goes. I warn you, red wine has been drunk this evening and it is gone midnight......



The trouble, Old Bean, is that you're conflating separate things.

What do you want to do? Do you want the 'Poorest'n'mos'vunner-rubble' to be richer? Or have an income closer to that of nigh income earners? Or to ensure that the 'Poorest'n'mos'vunner-rubble' have wealth similar to that of the average wealth?

For instance, the minimum wage has worked jolly well thus far as the employment market has sailed along since it began. What has happened is that poor people that were being stitched up by their employers can now say to their boss, "You should give me $x.xx/hr and no less".

Now we appear to be entering a recession so what happens now? Lots and lots of people will be laid off and times will be hard for many sadly.

Should 'hard working family members' who seem to be temporarily unable to get a job be paid benefits at the level equivalent to the minimum wage? After all, the current PM as Chancellor said that was the minimum amount that a person/family could live off. Of course if someone is given the minimum wage for doing nothing then why work if all you can earn is the minimum wage? If so, why should someone on the minimum wage (being the least someone should earn) face higher taxes to pay for more benefits?

Anyway, I need to lie down in a dark room for a bit I think. I'm on Facebook now old chap so please contact me through there if you would like to.

It may seem like that in some areas, but there are others where the employers have used this to decrease wages and the attitude (where unemployment is high due to a lack of jobs - and there are such areas) is that even those that should be able to expect higher than minimum wage for their line of work being forced to accept the minimum wage or be jobless.

I also think that benefits should then be slightly less than the minimum wage, and that they should not have so many "additional" payments to make them better than the minimum wage.

In view of the poor dietary health of the nation I would also make free school meals an "across the board" entitlement to all children in state schools (I see just as many kids from affluent families getting rubbish packed lunches as I do those from poorer families) and would make these meals of less choice but better content than is current.

I also think we need to look at the actual cost of "helping" parents to both work, which costs a vast amount of money in assisted nursery places. My own preference would be that each person in a relationship (be it married or living together) gets their own full tax allowance, and where one decides to be a stay at home parent then their full tax allowance is transferred to the other partner. This would work (probably better) for the better paid but I think it should be possible to still reduce the cost to the tax-payer if sahm with minimum or little higher wage earner partners could receive a WTC type payment until their children reach school age - which would certainly still be less than the very high costs per head of nursery care, especially since this would be a flat rate amount and would not increase for those with more children.

ETA: I mean the benefits for those just not working - not for carers or the truly disabled.

Guy_Montag

moggylover wrote: »

I also think we need to look at the actual cost of "helping" parents to both work, which costs a vast amount of money in assisted nursery places. My own preference would be that each person in a relationship (be it married or living together) gets their own full tax allowance, and where one decides to be a stay at home parent then their full tax allowance is transferred to the other partner. This would work (probably better) for the better paid but I think it should be possible to still reduce the cost to the tax-payer if sahm with minimum or little higher wage earner partners could receive a WTC type payment until their children reach school age - which would certainly still be less than the very high costs per head of nursery care, especially since this would be a flat rate amount and would not increase for those with more children.

I'm a big fan of this too, it seems to make perfect sense to transfer the tax allowance of the carer to the breadwinner.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

To an extent I agree, the danger in my yes would be to equate low paid workers with the group currently labeled as 'benefit scum/undrclass/lifestyle scroungers' , which couldn't be further from the truth. I also feel the currnt system enforces bad feeling, as could this, to people who ar on benefits but not 'lifestyl scroungers'- for example I cring that a full time mothr like Sue with a history of employmnt has said she feels uncomfortable. The point is NO ONE IMO, should live in this country without a roof and food and basic comforts and access to eductation, but equally poor is poverty of ambition, morality and self reliance.

I think I have probably addressed that in my later post. And I too dislike the fact that the genuine benefit claimants get tarred by many with the same brush as the scroungers.

I agree about your definition of poverty: I only question how a civilised society (and actually a very wealthy one) could allow the poverty of despair to continue for so long that people have fallen into this. I do also think that we have to address the lack of morality throughout out society before we will encourage an improvement at the bottom: thus we need to get rid of the double standard of it being "okay" to fiddle the taxes but "dreadful" to fiddle the benefit system. Both are equally bad to my mind. I suspect, having read the article I linked to several posts back about the lack of input that small children receive, that ambition is a word that no-one ever brings to some peoples vocabulary, and that the lack of self-reliance is brought about as much by fear and a justified feeling of having been betrayed by society during the last 20 to 30 years (i.e. those that found themselves left to sink or swim in the rapid changes that happened in what had been proud industrialised areas). I think that will take quite a bit of input to turn around - but I also think that if we stop just condemning and work towards understanding and helping that it can be turned around.

I have to pop off now! Christmas concert tonight and some jobs to do! Will pop back later to see if I have been burned to a frazzle:D

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I think I have probably addressed that in my later post. And I too dislike the fact that the genuine benefit claimants get tarred by many with the same brush as the scroungers.

I agree about your definition of poverty: I only question how a civilised society (and actually a very wealthy one) could allow the poverty of despair to continue for so long that people have fallen into this. I do also think that we have to address the lack of morality throughout out society before we will encourage an improvement at the bottom: thus we need to get rid of the double standard of it being "okay" to fiddle the taxes but "dreadful" to fiddle the benefit system. Both are equally bad to my mind. I suspect, having read the article I linked to several posts back about the lack of input that small children receive, that ambition is a word that no-one ever brings to some peoples vocabulary, and that the lack of self-reliance is brought about as much by fear and a justified feeling of having been betrayed by society during the last 20 to 30 years (i.e. those that found themselves left to sink or swim in the rapid changes that happened in what had been proud industrialised areas). I think that will take quite a bit of input to turn around - but I also think that if we stop just condemning and work towards understanding and helping that it can be turned around.

I have to pop off now! Christmas concert tonight and some jobs to do! Will pop back later to see if I have been burned to a frazzle:D

Well, I agree...again to a degree. I'll start by saying if anything I have always been overautious in returns, overpaying. I DID put my savings half in DH's name at one point, partly because he was studying and partly cause at that time I wanted to put it in Premium bonds and wanted more in that (we actually got a decent return for a long run on smaller wins). All legal though.

I find it slightly strang that it is ASSUMED morality is missing for the top rung by so many. a very small eg is that I was the recipient of a benefactor for a substantial part of my privat treatment. Furthermoe, the situaton was xplained to th doctors who also in many cases rduced fees (a full statement of my worth was considrd, they wer not swindled, but I could not have afforded the risk of prolongued/lifelong treatment not available in UK let alone on NHS. With out this benefactor I'd be a goner in all liklyhood. I think that is a less useful use opf resource however ...I sometimes wonder how many mor people could hav been helped with that on UK drugs for less expensive conditions. But I cannot not be grateful and relived. Do I think it likely my bnefactor avoids 'tax overpayment': yes I do, but I not suspect illegality.

I also think these top mployers feel let down in many occasions, that they are hampred by mploymnt systems that negatively impact on profitability (and their tax paymnts) for example.

lostinrates

Aw flip, I hadn't finsihed but prssed post and have lost my train of thought

I'll further it later:o

DirectDebacle

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I said "many immigrants". It seems obvious to me that this doesn't exclude other, and older, immigrants.

2.3% sounds reasonable, bearing in mind that many immigrants are very recent (last 10 - 15 years).

Of course this was in the context of the proportion of immigrants who are MPs. Many of the recent immigrants you refer to would not be British citizens and would be disqualified from standing for Parliament even if they wanted to.

According to the ONS in 2004 14.7% of British citizens were non-white.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/PT126Gask.pdf

Hence I disagreed with you on 2.3% being a reasonable amount. I don't wish to turn the debate into a tennis match with statistics as the ball.

From my point of view, collectively our MPs do not reflect the diveristy of our society and neither does Govt.

We voters must share the responsibility as we are governed by a party that about 70% of the electorate didn't vote for. We reap the rewards of our own apathy.

Of course I agree with lostinrates view that we need intelligent, fair minded people blessed with an abundance of common sense to look after the nation. A bit like saying I want world peace and for everyone to be happy. Easier said than done.

I disagree with her view that broadening the base from which our MPs are drawn is not a good idea. I would like to know her ideas on how the present system could be improved, if she thinks that it should.

Guy_Montag

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Of course this was in the context of the proportion of immigrants who are MPs. Many of the recent immigrants you refer to would not be British citizens and would be disqualified from standing for Parliament even if they wanted to.

According to the ONS in 2004 14.7% of British citizens were non-white.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/PT126Gask.pdf

Hence I disagreed with you on 2.3% being a reasonable amount. I don't wish to turn the debate into a tennis match with statistics as the ball.

From my point of view, collectively our MPs do not reflect the diveristy of our society and neither does Govt.

We voters must share the responsibility as we are governed by a party that about 70% of the electorate didn't vote for. We reap the rewards of our own apathy.

Of course I agree with lostinrates view that we need intelligent, fair minded people blessed with an abundance of common sense to look after the nation. A bit like saying I want world peace and for everyone to be happy. Easier said than done.

I disagree with her view that broadening the base from which our MPs are drawn is not a good idea. I would like to know her ideas on how the present system could be improved, if she thinks that it should.

Make serving in parliament a bit like jury service, but for 5 years :rolleyes:

silvercar

From my point of view, collectively our MPs do not reflect the diveristy of our society and neither does Govt.

We voters must share the responsibility as we are governed by a party that about 70% of the electorate didn't vote for. We reap the rewards of our own apathy.

But do we want the likes of Shannon Matthews mother as our MP?

Guy_Montag

silvercar wrote: »

But do we want the likes of Shannon Matthews mother as our MP?

Interesting question - would putting someone like that in power, or at least giving her the potential of power change her outlook & make her more responsible?

DirectDebacle

silvercar wrote: »

But do we want the likes of Shannon Matthews mother as our MP?

If her constituency was Holloway, North Wing, why not?