Question Time

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't buy the "everyone will turn to crime of you cut benefits" argument I'm afraid. It's just the equivalent of "if we tax bankers they will all leave".

I think.

cant get a job, not enough money to live on. what other option is there? taxing bankers doesnt make it a necessity to leave. so its not the same at all.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

cant get a job, not enough money to live on. what other option is there? taxing bankers doesnt make it a necessity to leave. so its not the same at all.

What do you think is the minimum benefits should provide for?

donnajunkie

Sapphire wrote: »

One thing that hasn't been raised here is that it is working taxpayers who are having to pay the benefits of people who are not working – many of whom have never paid any taxes themselves.

It's little wonder that working people who are subsidizing the non-workers are feeling resentful.

they will feel alot more resentful if they lost their jobs and found the safety net was no longer there. alot of people think it will never happen to them. if they did then maybe they wouldnt be so keen on alot of the benefit cuts.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It's not my list. I was responding to someone else's original list. Like I have admitted I don't watch the programme any more so can't answer the question. I am commenting really on the institutional BBC leftist bias which induces them to put on such a programme.

yeah they are so leftist. that is why alot of the time when there is a demonstration against benefit cuts it isnt even mentioned on the news. when the woman spoke on qt the panel hardly said anything in defense of claimants.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think is the minimum benefits should provide for?

it is not possible to think up a figure very quickly obviously. it would need looking into. there are some things that are obvious like a couple with 2 kids doesnt need more than double what they would get if they had no kids.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

it is not possible to think up a figure very quickly obviously. it would need looking into. there are some things that are obvious like a couple with 2 kids doesnt need more than double what they would get if they had no kids.

I wasn’t asking for monetary figure but what physical things should they provide for.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I wasn’t asking for monetary figure but what physical things should they provide for.

home, food, gas, electricity, clothing etc. the obvious things.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

cant get a job, not enough money to live on. what other option is there? taxing bankers doesnt make it a necessity to leave. so its not the same at all.

i don't believe that if you cut benefits people will not have enough to live on, basically. they will just have less, but since many people on benefits can afford things like cars, pets, alcohol and cigarettes, i do not accept that cutting benefits will result in a big horde of criminals wandering the streets mugging people because that's the only way they will be able to afford to eat. (furthermore cutting benefits like housing benefit just means they will have to live in a smaller house, which isn't logically a trigger for a crime wave).

what is your solution for dealing with the deficit.

remember:

£440 billion of tax revenue

£565 billion of public spending

how are you going to close the gap between tax revenues and public spending without cutting the single largest expenditure item (benefits)?

please don't trot out the milliband line of "i would go for growth" because you need growth of >25% of GDP (without any increase in public spending) to bridge the gap.

do you think it is feasible and sustainable for benefits to continue to increase by CPI/RPI every year whilst tax revenue is static / falling?

do you think that all of the pain should be lumped onto taxpayers and that benefit claimants should be ringfenced from the impact of government cuts?

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

yeah they are so leftist. that is why alot of the time when there is a demonstration against benefit cuts it isnt even mentioned on the news. when the woman spoke on qt the panel hardly said anything in defense of claimants.

Perhaps that's because it's so ridiculous. No society can withstand ever- increasing benefits, so that there is no incentive to work versus staying at home -- it's a recipe for penury for everyone. Those who believe that not working whilst having children indiscriminately is an acceptable lifestyle choice that should be funded by the rest of society have a point of view so preposterous that it does not bear airing among intelligent people.

Conrad

donnajunkie wrote: »

cant get a job, not enough money to live on. what other option is there?

Eastern Europeans are still arriving here and finding a way. Most eventualy build good lives, so if they can..........