Massive benefits cuts

alinwales

i've never been out of work, even during university holidays (a job is only ever a phonecall or two away). If i was and claiming benefits, i'd feel guilty, and possibly not be able to look at my neighbour who works in the eye as I know he's paying for me to sit on my tod.
I even have insurance that will pay if i do become incapacitated (i hope.. - the payouts that is, not the thought of incapacitance) so I don't become another burden for someone else to have to pay for.

However, we do get ctcs, though I think that is about to become zero. I claim tax relief on childcare vouchers, so I am taking something out of the system and happy to. If they took it away, I'd be disgruntled, but it'd wash over in a year as it's not a personal thing, everyone is affected.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Why not?.....

Pure capitalism would not broach interference with market labour rates by means of redistribution in the guise of welfare.

BertieUK

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Why on earth is it "sad", BertieUK? I also find it all amusing, and, moreover, highly instructional and educational. Plus I'm at home retired and I enjoy our little group and the "set pieces".

I cannot tell you how much I've learnt from this forum. Occasionally it gets to be a slanging match with ad hominem insults, but usually before then, some good info is traded.

As for PMQ, I tend to be out at that time during the day, but did see it today and, again, I thoroughly enjoy it, and believe that it is a great oppportunity to highlight issues and shed light on them. It's the one, short, regular slot when both PM and shadow PM go head-to-head.

For another view on PMQ, you could see Sir Robert Rogers' lecture on "An Insider's View" - a very erudite, genial, and witty man (BBCiPlayer?). Sir Robert is the Clerk of the House of Commons and is the one with the large white beard in wig and gown offering advice to the Speaker during Parliament. He's not there at the moment (I'm watching BBC Parliament now).

The reason that I said sad, was that at times words are said in discussions that go a little too far and become personal. I really think that a good old game of tennis is good to watch, many times on here and is good entertainment, also as you correctly said 'very educational'

I am like you retired and at this moment spending the majority of my time getting my property ready for sale. So this Forum has taught me so much about Politics and has certainly changed many of my old views that I once had.

I will certainly follow the points that you refer too. Thanks...:)

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

The reason that I said sad, was that at times words are said in discussions that go a little too far and become personal. I really think that a good old game of tennis is good to watch, many times on here and is good entertainment, also as you correctly said 'very educational'

I am like you retired and at this moment spending the majority of my time getting my property ready for sale. So this Forum has taught me so much about Politics and has certainly changed many of my old views that I once had.

I will certainly follow the points that you refer too. Thanks...:)

Agreed. It descends into slanging matches because some individuals cannot cope with disagreement or contradiction without resorting to personal attacks and abuse. This is probably due to :- immaturity, limited intelligence, and emotive thought processes in lieu of rational. I won't bring the proverbial political alignment into it, as such, save to say that such types do tend to paint predominantly with the same brush.

RevolvingDoor

Ionkontrol wrote: »

I read that it was only 3% the other day, it's weird how so many people seem to overestimate the number of people unemployed and claiming benefits.

geek1981 wrote: »

Agree with that 100%!! Also rather than putting 60k cap, CHB should be taken away for families who got more than two kids. You cannot rely on tax payer for having as many kids as you want. How ridiculous family who got 5 kids take all CHB where a parent who got only one kid who earn 60k lose everything, Because he did proper family planning and knows about managing his own finance? :question:

It's very unfair. Saying that I don't think high earners should get child benefit but I would rather they made the new system more equal. Earning £60k living in the London and the South East doesn't go far but people should plan their families carefully IMO and I'm not just saying that because I'm child-free.:D

pqrdef

epz wrote: »

The question i would ask is how we got into a situation where working people needed benefits at all.

It was an answer to the poverty trap problem, when many people said they'd be worse off working than on benefits.

The main reason for that was that economic wages for many jobs won't cover the absurd cost of housing.

pqrdef

Generali wrote: »

The 1% in the UK paid 24% of income tax in 2009 and the top 10% paid well over half. They don't have any more to give.

:rotfl:

Do you think that's a decent or indeed a workable way for a society to be run?

In a decent society the first priority would be to share out the work and make sure everybody had a job. Failing that, they would share out the food regardless.

Any small community of decent people will work that way. But the emergence of a caste system - which is what is now happening - allows the higher castes to justify greed by demonising the lower castes.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Pure capitalism would not broach interference with market labour rates by means of redistribution in the guise of welfare.

Just remind me how the sick and unfortunate would be catered for in the Capitalist model or aren't these allowed?

MouseTrap

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

epz wrote: »

The question i would ask is how we got into a situation where working people needed benefits at all.

/QUOTE]

Bingo. That is the key question. The answer to of course is : socialism.

You clearly know nothing about socialism.

Socialism advocates a fair wage for everybody. It is Capitalism which causes companies to pay their workers peanuts in order to maximise profits.

Linton

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That's sums up one of the prime fallacies of left-wing thinking -- that there is no benefit to society as a whole from rewarding enterprise, initiative, ability, effort, and risk-taking.

Does right wing thinking care about benefit to society as a whole? "There is no such thing as society". That presented here seems to regard a particular economic system as the purpose for existence and people's value being determined solely by the extent they advance that system.

A standard left-wing approach would regard the well-being of the whole population as being the objective, and economic systems judged by the extent to which they promote it. I would take a slightly more specific view - that an economic/political system is best judged by the well-being of the least privileged person in the society. However that's a detail.

Some rewards are necessary. The issue is their nature and level. I cannot see any justification for the difference between someone working hard for a Minimum Wage, and someone else working equally hard receiving say 50 times that amount. And 50 times Minimum Wage gets nowhere near the highest level of rewards in our society.

It is interesting that in some areas rewards for enterprise, initiative etc come in the form of gold medals, or perhaps small statues awarded by votes of their peers. These seem to be pretty successful in encouraging effort. Rewards of £Ms do seem to me far higher than necessary to achieve the objective.