How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

Pete111

StevieJ wrote: »

But part of the reason the marginal tax rate is high is to pay the wages in the new doctors contracts, mmmm a bit of a ( what did Churchill call it ?) ah yes a conundrum wrapped in an enigma

Those costs will have (surely to goodness) been considered and budgetted for well before the new rate came was announced - the 'new' contracts have been in place for years.

The only real reason they put the tax rate up is to attempt to screw over the Tories. The chances of this bringing in vast swathes of cash is very minimal. It may in fact lose the country money in the medium term.

beer_tins

Blacklight wrote: »

This reflects my sentiments entirely and I think most other people would agree this is common sense.

The problem comes back to these smack head, depressed, single mothers with bad backs on every benefit under they can scrounge to fund their drug dealing and stolen goods enterprises, also have a vote.

Not only that. If you have any safety net for the most needy - and most will agree a civilised society needs this to some degree - it will be open to some level of abuse. Ultimately it has to be doctors who decide when a person is or isn't fit to work full time. It can't be any other way.

And if you don't help the smack head, won't they just fund their habit through crime? Should we not try to get the smack head back into mainstream society, where they can make a contribution?

Finally, if you want to help people on low income to have kids (we will need someone to support our pensions), invariably some silly girls are going to see this as an "easy" way to be independent without having to work. I assume this is the kind of single mother you mean?

It grates all of us to see people abusing these support networks, but the only alternatives are to get rid of them (only the most foaming mouthed extremists suggest this) or to reform them. Politicians of all hues like to tell us they will reform these institutions. None of them seem to be very clear about how they will achieve this.

In short, most people agree with your sentiments. But changing things effectively isn't as easy as some imagine.

nickmason

(At risk of sounding like a participant in one of these tv debates) I was out canvassing the other day, and met someone, a perfectly respectable shopkeeper, who insisted on discussing the problem of scroungers - it turned out she effectively wanted to grass up her sister for being a scrounger off the state: false claims of long-term ill health, false claims for special needs in her children, bizarre medical grants for holidays, etc.

I was struck not simply by the fact that this is becoming a recurrent story, but that her anger was no longer directed at "A N Other", but to a blood-family member. I have a feeling this could get very nasty.

beer_tins

nickmason wrote: »

(At risk of sounding like a participant in one of these tv debates) I was out canvassing the other day, and met someone, a perfectly respectable shopkeeper, who insisted on discussing the problem of scroungers - it turned out she effectively wanted to grass up her sister for being a scrounger off the state: false claims of long-term ill health, false claims for special needs in her children, bizarre medical grants for holidays, etc.

I was struck not simply by the fact that this is becoming a recurrent story, but that her anger was no longer directed at "A N Other", but to a blood-family member. I have a feeling this could get very nasty.

I agree. And DC want's to end it.

But how are you going to end it, Mr. Cameron?

MissMoneypenny

There was an interesting topic recently about having to work for certain benefits at less than minimum wage. When the talk turned to everyone having to work for any benefits they took, suddenly some weren't so keen on the idea. Strange how some moan about benefit scroungers, but don't see themsleves as a scrounger even they they claim some sort of benefit too.

C_Mababejive

Blacklight wrote: »

This reflects my sentiments entirely and I think most other people would agree this is common sense.

The problem comes back to these smack head, depressed, single mothers with bad backs on every benefit under they can scrounge to fund their drug dealing and stolen goods enterprises, also have a vote.

Oh yes...if these lot can be bothered to peel their lazy backs off their sweaty,stained bedsheets...they will go out and vote Labour.

And why?

Because they know that Labour will continue to wipe their wortheless backsides and they also fear the Tories becuase the Tories will kick their asses.

Also..and its hard to believe..but people like these think they are "working class" but they actually bring tut working class into disrepute.

They are not working class...they are The Underclass...parasitic on us all.

beer_tins

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Oh yes...if these lot can be bothered to peel their lazy backs off their sweaty,stained bedsheets...they will go out and vote Labour.

And why?

Because they know that Labour will continue to wipe their wortheless backsides and they also fear the Tories becuase the Tories will kick their asses.

Also..and its hard to believe..but people like these think they are "working class" but they actually bring tut working class into disrepute.

They are not working class...they are The Underclass...parasitic on us all.

The "non working" class.

Please explain how the tories will "kick their asses". I have seen now suggestion of how this is to be achieved.

C_Mababejive

beer_tins wrote: »

It grates all of us to see people abusing these support networks, but the only alternatives are to get rid of them (only the most foaming mouthed extremists suggest this) or to reform them. Politicians of all hues like to tell us they will reform these institutions. None of them seem to be very clear about how they will achieve this.

In short, most people agree with your sentiments. But changing things effectively isn't as easy as some imagine.

Get rid as in execute? No,i would get rid of them as a cost to the state by cutting back their beneifts gradually and introducing them to the world of work/payback.

Reform..? Yes,i would reform them in reformatories.

Someone has to take control of welfare state Britain becuase it is spiralling out of control.

beer_tins

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Get rid as in execute? No,i would get rid of them as a cost to the state by cutting back their beneifts gradually and introducing them to the world of work/payback.

No, I meant get rid of the whole benefits sytems. (not that I'm suggesting that, of course).

We already have one of the lowest rates of benefit payments in the western world (despite what the Daily Hail suggests). Lowering payments alone doesn't seem to change things.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Reform..? Yes,i would reform them in reformatories.

Are you the white horse in disguise?

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Someone has to take control of welfare state Britain becuase it is spiralling out of control.

Yes, yes, I know. Everyone keeps saying this, but how?

C_Mababejive

beer_tins wrote: »

No, I meant get rid of the whole benefits sytems. (not that I'm suggesting that, of course).

We already have one of the lowest rates of benefit payments in the western world (despite what the Daily Hail suggests). Lowering payments alone doesn't seem to change things.



Are you the white horse in disguise?



Yes, yes, I know. Everyone keeps saying this, but how?

I dont know about the lowest rates but I'll hazard a guess that as a proportion of total population we have one of the highest levels of claims and this,coupled with the fact that we give it out so readily,is what is crippling us.

I know for certain that in Spain for eg,benefits are hard to come buy,all bureaucracy is in the Spanish language,and therefore there is less money paid out. Single parents are expected to live with their families.


http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=662300