Welfare state costs £473 BILLION!!!!

kabayiri

Arcaine wrote: »

So what are we going to cut and by how much to reduce the bill?

That's an easy one.

Given the size of deficit we face, the next Parliament or 2 are going to have to cut everywhere they possibly can. To try and reduce the deficit through tax increase alone would be political suicide.

The last time the country had to pull us out of such a serious position we had just come out of a world war. There was a sense of cohesion at least. Everyone knew they were in it together.

I don't feel we have anywhere close to a similar cohesion now. In my view, we need a major change in outlook.

StevieJ

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

While StevieJ goes to check which toilet he dropped his pair of brain cells in, for anyone interested here is a meaningful dataset for house price data that actually takes general inflation into account.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/downloads/UK_house_prices_adjusted_for_inflation.xls

But as usual, a one eyed view in an attempt to prove a point I notice it ignores the issue of affordability and ignores the fact that interest rates are not only lower now but have been lower for a considerable time scale. The bottom line is if potential buyers can't afford to buy a property, the property will fall in price until they can, this is the way it was in 1970 and the way it is now.
Just out of interest do you think that when people bought a house in 1950 or 1970 or 1990 they found it very easy ?

dave4545454

vaporate wrote: »

sweeping generalisation at work.

Are we talking about ppl refusing to work (albeit there is no work: recession) or legitimate jobseekers?

Maybe also benefit fraudsters? Moreover, the BBC should produce a new advert with MP's fraudelent claims instead of joe public lol

Can imagine it now, some toff in a 'caught you' surprise mug shot lol

yes!! i'd love to see those benefit fraud adverts with MPs. still no MPs have been arrested and jailed for benefit fraud even though there is all the evidence avaialble to show them claiming for mortgages that don't exist

donaldtramp

Perhaps you may wish to have a go at those people that cheered on the demise of the union movement who did their bit for protecting employment conditions :eek: I notice that the decimation of worker rights doesn't appear to have materially inproved the UK performance compared to other European countries, who have maintained much stronger worker protection, maybe all the gains have found their way into the back pockets of characters like Tramp above

Unions protecting employment conditions my backside.
Look at their history... British Leyland spent more time on tea breaks and voting for strikes that they put themselves out of business. They did so much "protecting" that they folded the company.
The Royal mail in the present day is led by a man who has a picture of Lenin on his wall. They wont stop till they have killed the royal mail. They are so busy "protecting" the workers rights to job and finish (finish whenever their little section of work is finished instead of helping others around them) and fighting the need to move over to new machinery which will make the Royal Mail viable etc etc etc
But no, they are trying to strangle the Mail in the days of the internet and leaner and hungrier competitors.
There is only so much "protecting" that cab take place. That is, if you actually WANT your job to still exist in the morning.
Isn't it funny that the only place these 70s style unions still exist is in the public sector?
The "protecting" carries on unchecked in the public sector as there is no bottom line and the cost gets carried by the taxpayer who is treated as if they have a never ending supply of cash.
Get a grip. If you don't like your job. GET A NEW ONE! It's what all the rest of us have to do.
We don't have the option of holding the country to ransom......

custardy

donaldtramp wrote: »

Unions protecting employment conditions my backside.
Look at their history... British Leyland spent more time on tea breaks and voting for strikes that they put themselves out of business. They did so much "protecting" that they folded the company.
The Royal mail in the present day is led by a man who has a picture of Lenin on his wall. They wont stop till they have killed the royal mail. They are so busy "protecting" the workers rights to job and finish (finish whenever their little section of work is finished instead of helping others around them) and fighting the need to move over to new machinery which will make the Royal Mail viable etc etc etc
But no, they are trying to strangle the Mail in the days of the internet and leaner and hungrier competitors.
There is only so much "protecting" that cab take place. That is, if you actually WANT your job to still exist in the morning.
Isn't it funny that the only place these 70s style unions still exist is in the public sector?
The "protecting" carries on unchecked in the public sector as there is no bottom line and the cost gets carried by the taxpayer who is treated as if they have a never ending supply of cash.
Get a grip. If you don't like your job. GET A NEW ONE! It's what all the rest of us have to do.
We don't have the option of holding the country to ransom......

i would love to finish on my time but what would i know

StevieJ

donaldtramp wrote: »

Unions protecting employment conditions my backside.
.

The simple question is, are the workers better off now than they were when unions were strong How big is your back pocket BTW

Isn't it funny that the only place these 70s style unions still exist is in the public sector?

Mmmmm, is that the place where they still have decent pensions

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

Mmmmm, is that the place where they still have decent pensions

Or should for many that be the PROMISE/EXPECTATION of decent pensions?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Mmmmm, is that the place where they still have decent pensions

Nah, it's the place they've been promised decent pensions without funding being in place to pay them.

Perhaps the unions in the public sector are strong but not that bright.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Nah, it's the place they've been promised decent pensions without funding being in place to pay them.

Perhaps the unions in the public sector are strong but not that bright.

So they will not receive a better pension than most of the private sector
Tell you what, let us wait and see

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

So they will not receive a better pension than most of the private sector
Tell you what, let us wait and see

As you imply, time will tell.

I would be very surprised if 40 y/o state employees end up with the pension they are entitled to contractually.