The Game Group Shares (GMG.LSE)

Neverland

I am coming round to the scarily Tory point of view that all these benefits given to the middle classes (child benefit, tax credits, winter fuel allowances, bus passes for the pensioners) are just a total administrative waste of time to give money to people who don't really need it but justifies a big government

Just axe it all, have less people to administer it and reduce the government spending that has to be funded through borrowing and taxes

On the child benefit for fags and sky argument I think it all started when Brown and Blair wanted to reduced the number of children growing up in poverty in the 90s...so the aim was quite noble but it didn't really take into account how some people would abuse the system

Personally I like the Brazilian bolsa familia (sp?) system where the lower paid have to meet certain targets (e.g. children's school attendance and vaccinations) to get their social security payments

But I'm obviously turning into a Norman Tebbit style reactionary

wazza24

Neverland wrote: »

Personally I like the Brazilian bolsa familia (sp?) system where the lower paid have to meet certain targets (e.g. children's school attendance and vaccinations) to get their social security payments

reactionary

What a scary place it would be if Neverland run the country :eek:

yeah cause the shanty towns of sao paulo look like a great place......

gadgetmind

wazza24 wrote: »

What a scary place it would be if Neverland run the country

Only for the work-sky and !!!!less, and perhaps they need a right good scare from time to time.

grey_gym_sock

actually, means-testing benefits isn't is clever as is made out. it's expensive to administer. it creates poverty traps (when you have just too much money to qualify for the benefit). and it makes claiming the benefit so difficult that many people who it's meant for won't bother to claim.

i'm not saying no benefits should be means-tested. but look at the trade-offs involved.

child benefit works very well as a universal benefit. of course some people waste it - that applies to any benefit or tax relief. you might as well say that we should tax the rich more heavily, because they will only spend the money on cocaine and prostitutes. getting back to child benefit, the general idea that, if you give the money to the mother, there is more chance it will be spent on the children, is perferctly valid.

also, the proposed way of withdrawing child benefit, i.e. you lose the lot when your income rises £1 higher and cross the line, is ridiculous.

Neverland wrote: »

Personally I like the Brazilian bolsa familia (sp?) system where the lower paid have to meet certain targets (e.g. children's school attendance and vaccinations) to get their social security payments

i agree with that. in fact, we *had* something similar to that: EMA, which was conditional on having a perfect attendance recored at school. and the torylition abolished it, even though it will save no money at all (according to their own study). many of those 16-18 year-olds will end up NEET instead of at school, being paid JSA instead of EMA (at a similar cost).

Neverland

wazza24 wrote: »

What a scary place it would be if Neverland run the country :eek:

yeah cause the shanty towns of sao paulo look like a great place......

In Brazil the improvement in wealth of the country over the last decade has gone disproportionately to the poorest half of the population

In the UK the improvement in wealth of the country over the last ten years has gone disproportionately to the richest 10% of the population

Pretty soon I think we will have our own slums to rival brazil and south africa

Neverland

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

actually, means-testing benefits isn't is clever as is made out. it's expensive to administer. it creates poverty traps (when you have just too much money to qualify for the benefit). and it makes claiming the benefit so difficult that many people who it's meant for won't bother to claim.

i'm not saying no benefits should be means-tested. but look at the trade-offs involved.

child benefit works very well as a universal benefit. of course some people waste it - that applies to any benefit or tax relief. you might as well say that we should tax the rich more heavily, because they will only spend the money on cocaine and prostitutes. getting back to child benefit, the general idea that, if you give the money to the mother, there is more chance it will be spent on the children, is perferctly valid.

Once you start giving universal benefits that aren't means tested like child benefit, old age pensions, winter fuel allowances free bus passes, the NHS etc.

- you automatically have high taxation and a big state

- you create a sense of entitlement (witness students rioting that they actually have to pay for a unversity education that on average earns them a c.40% lifetime post-tax earnings advantage over their working lives)

- I'm actually pretty happy taxing the rich heavily, being a socialist, but even before the 50% income tax rate was introduced, the top 1% of earners paid 25% of all income tax receipts and the top 10% paid 55% of all income tax. I think thats enough

Credit-Crunched

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

I am off to Cheltenham on Friday - chuck me your money and I will put it on a 100-1 three legged donkey, more chance of a return there!

Game has no future:

- Cant compete with digital downloads like steam , psn
- Can not offer the loss leader prices Tesco etc do on COD and other main sellers
- Major games companies not selling through their stores
- Has ever increasing strains from rents that are rocketing in PRIME commercial locations
- This negative press was the nail in the coffin, people pulling money out at a rate of knots will smash their cap/debt ration to smitherines
- Would rather take a punt on THomas Cook!

My 4:30 at Cheltenham, did pretty well!

Better than your share recommendation, currently you sit behind 300,000 other creditors as they are now in administration!

http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=201203210730037614Z&fe=1

please dont give up your day job, this just highlights the true dangers of share dealing

chris_m

Just saw this on the BBC - hope no-one here is saddled with them.

Credit-Crunched

chris_m wrote: »

Just saw this on the BBC - hope no-one here is saddled with them.

Following on from the comments on this page I think there will be, also the green eyed monsters on https://www.iii.co.uk seem to have been burnt

gadgetmind

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

this just highlights the true dangers of share dealing

A total loss is always possible, so you just need to ensure that higher risks are always more than compensated for by potentially higher rewards.