Benefits and the deficit: what would you cut?

baileysbattlebus

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Depends on whose kids they are. Most kids born to chav filth will just grow up to be more chave filth and future benefit claimants, not future tax payers.

The more child benefit you pay, the more the parents will spend it on alchopops, booze, fags and drugs.

These people need to be stopped from having children, not encouraged!

Perhaps we need to move away from paying any benefits, except child benefit to under age mothers and let the parents' take responsibility, financial and otherwise for the mother & child. The parents will already receive child benefit for children under the age of 16 - let that be enough.

So child benefit for the new child paid to the new mother and child benefit for the existing child paid to the parents of the new mother.

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

Can we just be clear here...who exactly are you speaking about?

All those who claim benefits and who are not working, or just a specific type of benefit claimant?

What is your definition of decent?

Don't be drawn in Sue, I have time for some of the posters who have a knowledge of the system and a certain amount of empathy but most haven't got a clue past the front page of the DM

SingleSue

Oh, I'm not being drawn in....I just want him to think a little more about his views and maybe break them down a little.

I'm in too good a mood, going to start decorating soon, paint purchased, a new (well to me, it's second hand via a charity) sofa just been delivered and after a little pushing and shoving of the sofa through the front door, me and eldest managed to get it in the front room door and into place.

The sense of achievement is amazing, I always relied on ex hubby to do things like that!

michael1983l

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Tell you what. Keep on ignoring reality and tell yourself whatever bedtime stories you like whilst the rest of us discuss things that actually happened.

In reality debt as a percentage of GDP had been falling after its early 90s spike and Labour kept that going post 1997. Remember the fuss about pensioners getting pennies? That was Brown keeping Tory spending plans going, keeping relative austerity going for the whole first term.

Its only post 2001 that Labour spent any money. And even then the net effect was a FALL, yes a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP in the 10 years between being elected and the Northern Rock crash.

Ahh good old statistics, just as the unemployed fell under Labour but the incapacitated exploded. Statistics are easily manipulated to tell us the story we all want to hear everybody knows that. Lets look at the evidence instead, where is the money now? Why do we have a 2 trillion shortfall on our pensions, why were we still borrowing and selling off 50% of our gold reserves during a time that was supposed to be our economic boom.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece

Why are we in more debt now than we have been in many many years?

The labour party are not exactly renowned for their honesty now are they but you poor souls seem to be suckered in by their lies anyway. The reality is Labour borrowed when they should have been saving to fund an NHS that has been very wasteful due to labours target policy. We have all been sold a kipper and the sooner people realise that the better.

michael1983l

StevieJ wrote: »

I think Michael should revise his reading habits

Taken directly from this source

There were 219,064 staff providing NHS Infrastructure Support, an increase of 6% from 2007, the largest increase since 2004. Within this group, numbers of managers have increased by 5,000 since 2007, an increase of over 5%.

By the looks of those figures I think its safe to say that managers are balooning at the top. Also It might be a myth that there are more managers than nurses but these figures still show that for every 3 nurses there are 2 managers. That is what you call inefficiency and that is why our NHS costs so much and doesn't give us value for money in which Labour have created.

Andy_L

michael1983l wrote: »

Also It might be a myth that there are more managers than nurses but these figures still show that for every 3 nurses there are 2 managers.

No there aren't, try again. Hint: Not everyone in infrastructur support is a manager.

PS, your link to your source doesn't work

abaxas

Andy_L wrote: »

Urban myth - it doesn't

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/workforce/nhs-staff-numbers/nhs-staff-1998--2008-overview

Actually both are urban myths.

I cant comment on now, but 2005 (last time I worked in the NHS) we had about 20% of the workforce as contractors, even managers were contractors!

Why... a contractor isnt headcount.

Rochdale_Pioneers

michael1983l wrote: »

Ahh good old statistics, just as the unemployed fell under Labour but the incapacitated exploded. Statistics are easily manipulated to tell us the story we all want to hear everybody knows that. Lets look at the evidence instead, where is the money now? Why do we have a 2 trillion shortfall on our pensions, why were we still borrowing and selling off 50% of our gold reserves during a time that was supposed to be our economic boom.

I think that you are too busy frothing to check some of the things you are saying. The explosion in Invalidity Benefit (as it was then) claimants was in the last recession - doctors were writing to the press complaining about people being sent to their surgeries directly from the Job Centre. The numbers have fallen since, still too high but falling. If you want to talk about the whys and wheres of Incapacity benefit and how easy it is to get it feel free - as my Dad is one of the genuinely incapable I have plenty of real world experience of how claimants are treated. Do you?

As for pensions its simple. People are living longer thanks to expensive medical treatment. People are living in ever greater luxury, with expectations that they can retire at 55 and maintain that lifestyle. There will never be enough money in the system to pay for that, which is why the pension deficit keeps on growing. Any policy you like can be applied and it still doesn't change the basic triuism that pensions as most people think of them are unaffordable.

michael1983l wrote: »

Why are we in more debt now than we have been in many many years?

The labour party are not exactly renowned for their honesty now are they but you poor souls seem to be suckered in by their lies anyway. The reality is Labour borrowed when they should have been saving to fund an NHS that has been very wasteful due to labours target policy. We have all been sold a kipper and the sooner people realise that the better.

I think the crash and the need to bail out banks to save our financial system probably had something to do with why we're in so much debt. Before the start of the crash and our bailout of Northern Rock we had less debt than we had when Labour took office. Don't believe me? Go ask the EU, or OECD. Its a fact mate, and I know it doesn't fit in with your ramblings but never mind.

As for the NHS I quite agree that its been very wasteful. Hugely wasteful in fact, with too many changes of policy direction. However, the results have been good. Compared to 1997 how many fewer years do patients have to wait to be seen? How much has the cancer survival rate gone up? How many new hospitals and surgeries have been built? You want to take all of those away? And I take it that you like targets when its missing the target to cut MRSA deaths?

Happy to discuss things all day. You might not light half of what I say, but its the truth. If you want to discuss paranoid fantasies, go debate with Wookster.

StevieJ

michael1983l wrote: »

Ahh good old statistics, just as the unemployed fell under Labour but the incapacitated exploded.

.

That was a Tory trick just out of interest when was Incapacity benefit introduced


Then again who cultivated the state dependence culture ?

THE legacy of unemployment during the Thatcher era has left Britain overly dependent on benefits, a right-leaning think tank warned yesterday.
Civitas says that neither Labour nor the Conservatives have dealt with the problem since the height of unemployment in the 1980s.
One in three households across Britain depends on state benefits for at least half its income, according to the report.
Civitas says the figure is far higher for single-parent homes, with 61% relying on state support compared with 9% of two-parent households.
The report, in the current issue of Civitas Review, states that the level of households dependent on benefits was as low as 5% in the 1960s but rose during the 1970s and 1980s, particularly because of the mass unemployment of the Thatcher era.

StevieJ

michael1983l wrote: »

Taken directly from this source



By the looks of those figures I think its safe to say that managers are balooning at the top. Also It might be a myth that there are more managers than nurses but these figures still show that for every 3 nurses there are 2 managers. That is what you call inefficiency and that is why our NHS costs so much and doesn't give us value for money in which Labour have created.

But aren't some nurses classed as managers now ?