10b more welfare cuts on the way.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

We went and invaded two countries and your suggestion is abandon them to anarchy and civil war. We spend 0.7% of our budget on foreign aid which among other things saves thousands of lives. But, of course you're right, cutting these so that the unemployed can have an extra few pennies each week is helping those least able to cope. :rotfl:

There's been nothing 'random' about welfare cuts so far and the idea that there isn't massive abuse and waste within the welfare system is naive at best.

Nothing random, must just be deliberate then. Collateral damage from poorly concocted policy that fails to hit the real problem.

One of many - same goes for DLA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/disabled-people-benefits-panorama

We shouldn't go and invade any countries. There was anarchy there before, we have wasted billions, little will improve.

molerat

Foreign aid and the bulk of benefits are the same. They both breed a "why should I get off my !!!! and do something when I can sit here moaning and get it given to me on a plate" culture with a big splodge of that money ending up in the pockets of an already wealthy few.

Kennyboy66

Conrad wrote: »

+ In 1950 a very poor Malaysia declined aid. By 2000 it was 16th richest nation.

+ S Korea largely declined aid, and went from dirt poor to top 10 in 40 years

+ Since 1985 the number of Afcricans living on less than $1.00 per day has doubled

+ Aid allows inefectual Government to persist

+ Aid is racist. White middle class missionaries infantalisng Africans who left alone would be as capable as anyone.

Utter tripe.

In 1960 Malaysia was the third biggest recipient of UK aid.
It was still receiving approx $200m per year (from all countries) in 2006.

If Malaysia was the 16th richest nation in 2000, what has gone wrong since, as it appears to be roughly in the 60's ranked by GDP per capita

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita


Likewise South Korea did not decline aid. It had huge US aid pumped into it after the Korean war.
Between 1946 and 1978 the USA gave South Korea approx $60bn in grants and soft loans - roughly the same as the US provided to the whole of Africa in the same period.

Undoubtedly Korea didn't squander this aid like many African Kleptocracies, but to suggest it declined aid is simply laughable.

Did Marshall aid infantilise Europeans after the second world war ?

robmatic

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Would anybody rather pay £10bn more in tax in order to keep welfare where it is ?

Not really. I already resent earning an average wage and paying a chunk of my income on tax so that people in London can live for free in housing that I could never dream of affording. Or paying for child benefit to be provided to people who earn multiples of my salary.

antrobus

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero 55BC

Some things don't change.

somethingcorporate

antrobus wrote: »

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero 55BC

Some things don't change.

:T:T:T:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Cut overseas aid an spending on wars first,. Then really tackle tax avoidance both corporate and personal. Then I would be more sympathetic to random welfare cuts, that often affect those least able to cope, not the targets.

Overseas aid is being progressively cut. The armed forces are scheduled to come out of Afghanistan in the foreseeable future.

Tax avoidance is being tackled. A proper purge on tax avoidance/evasion would also have to address the many self-employed, especially those who deal mainly in cash, in order to ensure they put everything through the books. Easier said than done I hear you say. Yes, but tacking the top end, corporate and personal is no easier. Armies of smart-a**e accountants and lawyers are constantly finding dodgy but legal wheezes to get round it.

I would also not want to see welfare cut for those least able to cope either, because that's who welfare should be for. But my idea of not being able to cope is not physically being able to work, as opposed to not being bothered to.

MacMickster

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Overseas aid is being progressively cut. The armed forces are scheduled to come out of Afghanistan in the foreseeable future.

Tax avoidance is being tackled. A proper purge on tax avoidance/evasion would also have to address the many self-employed, especially those who deal mainly in cash, in order to ensure they put everything through the books. Easier said than done I hear you say. Yes, but tacking the top end, corporate and personal is no easier. Armies of smart-a**e accountants and lawyers are constantly finding dodgy but legal wheezes to get round it.

I would also not want to see welfare cut for those least able to cope either, because that's who welfare should be for. But my idea of not being able to cope is not physically being able to work, as opposed to not being bothered to.

An interesting couple of points for debate.
Firstly corporate tax avoidance. If companies are able to avoid tax then they gain a competitive advantage over those who try to do the right thing, yet stamping out avoidance appears to be beyond HMRC and policy makers.
Perhaps we should reduce corporation tax to a minimal level for companies who employ at least 100 staff in the UK and agree to pay them a minimum of the living wage rather than the minimum wage. The treasury would get its pound of flesh as in-work benefits would be reduced for the employees of these companies. Smaller businesses could continue paying the minimum wage to allow them to compete with the bigger firms who have a tax advantage.

As for those who can’t be a!sed to work. Whilst we have millions unemployed – the majority of whom want to work, I believe that we should be offering a lower, basic subsistence level of benefits to the layabouts. House them in the sink estates and prohibit them from owning cars, but provide sufficient to feed them then let them rot watching Jeremy Kyle all day. Leave the jobs for those who actually want them in order to better themselves. After all, businesses would rather employ someone who wants to work rather than someone forced to take a job but who will look to skive at every opportunity.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There was anarchy there before, we have wasted billions, little will improve.

For all the issues in Afghanistan, and to a far lesser extent Iraq, one thing there certainly wasn't prior to they were invaded was anarchy. The fact that you're willing to say so shows your either terribly misinformed or you'd rather make things up and deceive to try and 'win' than have a real discussion.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

For all the issues in Afghanistan, and to a far lesser extent Iraq, one thing there certainly wasn't prior to they were invaded was anarchy. The fact that you're willing to say so shows your either terribly misinformed or you'd rather make things up and deceive to try and 'win' than have a real discussion.

You are quite right Anarchy was not the right word but then you know that.

They were countries that posed no immediate direct threat to this country other than "terrorism" and "oil stability".

The state of the various factions will be little different when we leave and the fate of the man in the street little improved.

We have wasted billions for very little and sacrificed many lives, we would probably have had more impact posting dollar bills to them individually.