Question Time

chucknorris

Conrad wrote: »

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

A Polish couple that were my tenants for 3 years bought a house in Bromley a couple of years ago, they are certainly building up a successful future for themselves over here in the UK.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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).

how do you know people wont be left with not enough to live on? when they decide to make a cut it is a sweeping cut and no thought is put into it at all expect in regard to how much money it will save.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

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.

one of the demonstrations i am thinking of was disabled people who were against cuts to disability benefits. they are ridiculous are they? even if they are why does that not make it news worthy? should they only feature news stories about things you agree with?

donnajunkie

Conrad wrote: »

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

they are in the can get a job bracket. i was talking about those who cant get a job.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

one of the demonstrations i am thinking of was disabled people who were against cuts to disability benefits. they are ridiculous are they? even if they are why does that not make it news worthy? should they only feature news stories about things you agree with?

Do you really think all the people claiming disabillity benefits are disabled. Admittedly things have swung to far the other way but something had to be done and hopefully they will fall back to a point where people who deserved them will get them and those who don't won't.

grizzly1911

Does anyone know if there are any reliable figures plotting the number of unemployed v. actual jobs available on a region by region basis.

There seems to be an assumption that if you cut benefit the unemployed will suddenly find work. Is this actually possible?

In many cases benefit is paid to those in employment to top up wages that are insufficient to provide a minimum standard of existence.

When benefits are cut in and around London, one of the hotspots, what will happen to those that will end up being displaced? If they actually have a job but are displaced and lose that job and can't replace it does that help matters? What impact will it have on the localities they move too increasing the burden on services and infrastructure?

Whilst housing costs will drop in the extremities it is likely that the cost of living will actual increase for many.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

how do you know people wont be left with not enough to live on? when they decide to make a cut it is a sweeping cut and no thought is put into it at all expect in regard to how much money it will save.

So you are fundamentally opposed to cutting benefits and your only argument appears to be that it might result in a crime wave (how do you know this will happen anyway, it's just you scaremongering by te looks of it).

Are you then prepared to pay 30% more tax to fund these benefits that you insist may be maintained. If not, how do you propose we pay for them?

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

So you are fundamentally opposed to cutting benefits and your only argument appears to be that it might result in a crime wave (how do you know this will happen anyway, it's just you scaremongering by te looks of it).

Are you then prepared to pay 30% more tax to fund these benefits that you insist may be maintained. If not, how do you propose we pay for them?

Perhaps if those that should pay more tax, but "avoid" it, rather than simply bashing the PAYE club we wouldn't need a general 30% increase.

Even if we "all pulled together";) and balanced the annual budget the politicians would come up with some other spurious expenditure to push us into deficit.

I think that the point dj is making is that Whitehall bean counters take a thick felt pen and simply draw aline on a spreadsheet. For those that happen to fall the wrong side it is simply tough. Child benefit being an example. For others that have resulted in U turns recently, the political ill will just isn't worth the benefit.

Savings need to be made but the line needs to be flexible in implementation.

There are career benefit dependents but the current proposed actions will do little to improve that but will hurt many at the periphery who will become the "squeezed middle".

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps if those that should pay more tax, but "avoid" it, rather than simply bashing the PAYE club we wouldn't need a general 30% increase.

Even if we "all pulled together";) and balanced the annual budget the politicians would come up with some other spurious expenditure to push us into deficit.

I think that the point dj is making is that Whitehall bean counters take a thick felt pen and simply draw aline on a spreadsheet. For those that happen to fall the wrong side it is simply tough. Child benefit being an example. For others that have resulted in U turns recently, the political ill will just isn't worth the benefit.

Savings need to be made but the line needs to be flexible in implementation.

There are career benefit dependents but the current proposed actions will do little to improve that but will hurt many at the periphery who will become the "squeezed middle".

Trouble is that the amount of tax avoided by the rich is relatively small compared to the cost of benefits and/or the deficit. There isn't £250 billion of untaxed income out there waiting to be taxed at 50% if only the govt could pull its finger out. The rich bogeyman is an invention of the left who who have use believe that if we just tax bankers (those they allege to be wholly and exclusively responsible for the mess we are in) then the problem is solved. It's bollox.

The reality is that both benefit claimants and taxpayers will have to take the pain, the solution is arbitrary and benefit cuts and tax rises. Trying to find a solution which somehow scientifically targets specific people who can afford to give up some of their income is just not practically viable. It's impossible to avoid causing pain in this situation. Well that's if you actually want to solve it rather than just keep borrrowing almost 10% of GDP forever of course.

Zekko

donnajunkie wrote: »

and they will also have to cut back on food, heating, applying for jobs etc.

Let them cut back on cigarettes, alchohol, sky TV and mobile phone contracts. Then there is a real incentive to work.