***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Just wondering what the general feeling was with regard to the Gov's proposal to limit benefits to £26000 per year (tax free?).
And as a sub question, whether you think the various bishops who suggested an amendment in the Lords that child benefit should be excepted from the limit were being realistic (especially in the light of the fact (as far as I could determine) that vicars are paid between £20,000 and £28, 000 pa - before tax?)?
As you may gather, I feel that £26,000 is pretty generous especially since the state pension is way below that despite the fact that pensioners may have paid "their stamp" for 40 years or more and since the minimum wage gives you far less than £26,000 per year.
Or maybe I am just bigotted and unsympathetic to the plight of the unemployed?
Your views (to enlighten me!!)?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 27 Jan 12 at 00:48
|
If you are living in or near the centre of London £26k is not enough.
Everywhere else it's OK...
The Bishops of course are unelected, unrepresentative and under any normal constitution would not exist in the House of Lords. As many of their clergy are hardly paid £26k, they are as usual hypocrites..
As it stands, only a fool would work for less than £40k with our benefits system..
Given that the Government deficit is still £100bn (20% of its budget!) a year and is unsustainable and there will be little real growth in Europe's economies for years to come (until they sort it all out - so far after 3 years Greece is not - so it will take 10+ years at present rates), a £26k cap will have to be revisited . In about 2013..
The major areas hit will all be Labour supporting areas so politically it costs the Government nothing.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 25 Jan 12 at 19:36
|
|
I agree with it. An unelected chamber shouldn't be allowed to interfere, what kind of democracy is this ?
|
>>I agree with it. An unelected chamber shouldn't be allowed to interfere, what kind of democracy is this ?
It is a balance to an overwhelming majority.
I know an overwhelming majority might suppose to do as they wish as they have an overwhelming majority after all!
I think the Parliament Act (1911) stopped the House of Lords' power to reject a law for more than what amounts to two years.
|
The UK doesn't have a proportional democracy - it has a "choose your dictator for the next 5 years". The Lords can modify and slow legislation but not entirely throw it out as Zippy mentions.
Much as I hate politics I found the previous minority government very interesting at Holyrood - more stable than a typical coalition, less radical than an overall majority (which we now have when the system was designed to make it virtually impossible).
The Lords I find an interesting device, and I think it should remain but the creation of the Lords themselves needs to be independent - the fact Archer and Mandelson are there shows why.
|
the fact Archer and Mandelson are there shows why.
>>
Keeps the likes of them on a nice little earner, less likely to kiss and tell the truth.
|
>> The Lords I find an interesting device, and I think it should remain but the
>> creation of the Lords themselves needs to be independent - the fact Archer and Mandelson
>> are there shows why.
If you started with a blank sheet you'd never get anything like it. But actually it works incredibly well as a revising chamber. The wisdom and experience of life peers such as Lords Howe, Steele and Newton, Baronesses Williams, Scotland and Kennedy is too valuable an asset to chuck away.
|
>> As it stands, only a fool would work for less than £40k with our benefits
>> system..
With an average annual salary of £26k and an average household income of £33k and with just over 90% of households having a total household income of under £40k then we must be a nation of fools. The vast majority of these foolish working people in this country can only dream of a salary of £40k; 50% of the population earn less than half that.
|
>> If you are living in or near the centre of London £26k is not enough.
>> Everywhere else it's OK...
Try living in Oxfordshire. The cost of living matches that of London, but the wages paid don't.
|
The proposed limit is £26k pa tax free - so more like the equivalent of £35k otherwise. A lot of people must be against this.
I realise some will get 'more' because the rent where they live is high. But can't they move or be moved somewhere cheaper. If they can't or won't work then why should they say live in Westminster?
I don't think you are bigoted, unsympathetic, etc... the level of benefit is surely out of hand?
It would be interesting to know who does really support benefit at this level. No wonder people cannot afford to get a job. They probably can't get a job that pays so well. I know that as a teenager there were people in south Wales valleys claiming they couldn't afford to work and I used to assume benefit must be about the same as typical wage. But no it seems it can be so much more.
|
|
A street beggar on benefits gets more than my state pension, no sympathy whatsoever.
|
>> A street beggar on benefits gets more than my state pension, no sympathy whatsoever.
The IS rate for a single man is in order of £65pw. The basic state pension is £102.15.
Both may of course be affected by personal circs, additional cash for disability and money paid for rent etc.
|
Using an annuity calculator, to get £102/wk rising by RPI for a 65yr old single man you'd need a fund of around 130-140k.
I doubt all the basic NI payments made by the retired population added up to this amount - maybe we need to cut the basic state pension to balance the books.
;-)
|
>> The IS rate for a single man is in order of £65pw. The basic state
>> pension is £102.15.
>>
>> Both may of course be affected by personal circs, additional cash for disability and money
>> paid for rent etc.
>>
Income support £65, + housing benefit + council tax relief. Beats £102.15 any day.
Thats without any possible disability benefits.
The beggars I have pointed this out to seem quite shocked when I ask for money.
|
>> Income support £65, + housing benefit + council tax relief. Beats £102.15 any day.
>> Thats without any possible disability benefits.
>>
>> The beggars I have pointed this out to seem quite shocked when I ask for
>> money.
Not really because a pensioner with no other income gets the 'add ons' as well. Indeed, absent other income, Pension Credit turns £102.15 into £137.
|
Are you on the right benefits ON ?
www.turn2us.org.uk
|
>> Are you on the right benefits ON ?
>>
Thanks but my income and assets exceed the benefit limit.
I just like responding to aggressive beggars. :-)
|
>> I may try that myself.
>>
I find that saying "If you have your act together your benefits are more than my pension, how about you give me some money" tends to cause confusion and shock. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 25 Jan 12 at 22:00
|
Excepting child benefit from the cap would surely encourage breeding among those who cannot afford to look after themselves, let alone children.
I'd give more money to childless people and fine those who produce mewling cost centres for the rest of us to pay for.
|
|
Dangerous ground, Iffy - the great unspoken. I've wondered hesitantly about a thread to talk about the Chinese One Child policy, as a start, from time to time, but decided it would be likely to get over-contentious for one of my puerile threads.
|
...I've wondered hesitantly about a thread to talk about the Chinese One Child policy...
I don't support directives from the state, but what we should be doing is encouraging people to have children only when they can afford to do so.
At present, the reverse happens.
I'm not that old, but can remember when young married couples spoke of saving to have a child.
Seems to me many parents today do not understand that concept, let alone embrace it.
|
>> Excepting child benefit from the cap would surely encourage breeding among those who cannot afford
>> to look after themselves, let alone children.
I'm not saying that never happens Iffy but it's nothing like as common as the word in the Mail or down the pub would have you believe. As WdeB says in another thread policy founded on anecdote and media hysteria ain't going to succeed.
And even with an adequate income kids are hard work
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Jan 12 at 03:21
|
|
We all need some hysteria to keep sane
|
...I'm not saying that never happens Iffy but it's nothing like as common as the word in the Mail or down the pub would have you believe...
I've been to court one morning this week.
A woman to be sentenced for supplying a class A drug - morphine to her daughter during a supposedly supervised visit.
The woman has four children, all in care, and appeared in the dock pregnant with her fifth.
That's what we call a tactical pregnancy - prison was a feint possibility, so best to get another one going to emotionally blackmail the judge.
The woman looked genuinely relieved with the suspended sentence and supervision order so she can get: 'the help she really needs'.
Help? Sterilisation would be a good start.
|
Stable bolts rusted solid and the herd gone feral, too little far too late as usual.
There is a reason people who could get more money on benefits choose to work, its called self respect.
Trough feeders wouldn't know too much about that or honour, and social status means nothing as those at the top, MPs and their mates, had their noses deeply entrenched for generations, monkey see monkey do.
|
As someone who has always supported the safety net I find that the benefits system is crazy!
How can someone get the equivalent of £35k per year for doing sod all! I have only started to earn over that when I was in my late 30's and I am well qualified and in a senior position. I have also worked all my adult life and started working when I was 13 (paper rounds).
I have a friend who had up until last year worked all his life. He was made redundant. When he applied for benefits they effectively told him to go away as he had too much saved! He certainly is not wealthy. After an extended summer holiday, he started working again at a significantly reduced salary until a proper job comes up again. (One suited to his training, trade and skills.)
I think it is a real insult to pay £35k per year to anyone that does nothing. I would seriously encourage and vote for anyone that insists for a working wage policy. I.e. if you want benefits then work for them. Horrible jobs that no one else wants.
I think the extra cost in finding employment and proper supervision will soon pay for itself as the work shy won't get out of bed and then won't get paid.
As for the value of the payment in London. If there was a fair wage for the job in London then people will do the job. The state does not need to provide housing in one of the most expensive cities in the world when there are plenty of cheaper cities in the UK.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 25 Jan 12 at 20:07
|
Vicars are not well paid IMO and neither is the Archbishop of Canterbury!
Curates: £14,680-£15,820
Parish clergy: £16,420
Cathedral-based canons: £20,200
Junior bishops: £24,790
Diocesan bishops: £30,120
Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660
|
Thats not good Meldrew, how do they manage to keep those huge houses and palaces going.-;)
I was brought up in tied cottages by the way.
|
|
One of the reasons our housing market is so artifically expensive but that's a different thread completely :-)
|
Yesterday's Times Cartoon on £26K limit
Bishop's "we share your pain"
The Bishop was sitting a a vast hall of a Church Palace!
|
>>The Bishop was sitting a a vast hall of a Church Palace!<<
I bet the repayments on a place like that are absolutely horrendous.
|
>> Yesterday's Times Cartoon on £26K limit
>>
>> Bishop's "we share your pain"
>>
>> The Bishop was sitting a a vast hall of a Church Palace!
>>
Was he pointing a Bishops Finger?
:-D
|
>>Was he pointing a Bishops Finger?<<
I'll ave alf.
|
|
While that's what you'd call well paid, most I think get free or subsidsed accomodation don't they? That'd make quite a difference to the standard of living achievable on those salaries
|
|
That's NOT what I'd call well paid, at all. However, a vicarage or some sort of house is provided rent free SFAIK
|
I'm not saying the status quo is right or sustainable but the cap as proposed is just populist red meat for the tabloids. A far more nuanced tool is needed to deal with the long term dependent, whether they're scroungers or lacking in workplace skills.
Those affected are likely to be large families living in privately rented accommodation and in more expensive parts of the country. Perhaps more likely to be hard workers fallen from low/mid skill jobs than the feckless. Will make little difference in say Iffy’s neck of the woods but catch plenty in Zero land.
Ironically, the Mail's usual target - the 'single Mum' with a brood of 8 from different fathers - is likely to be in social housing and unaffected.
The government claims savings of £270m, however they've only a limited grasp of the consequences of this action even on its own. In combination with other measures in the WRA the saving could quickly be eaten up by spend on re-housing homeless and vulnerable families.
What state benefits would a large family in work and on a net income of £26k get? Child benefit and Child/Family tax credit for starters. Housing benefit ain't just for the workless either.
.
|
|
I wonder what would happen if benefit payments could only be collected in-person between 5am and 8am every morning?
|
|
I prefer 4am and 6am. It would cost a fortune in civil servants overtime though.
|
I think its fair.
I think those in work should be supported to continue to be so, however Im not convinced that it would be more expensive to commute into expensive areas for work than pay astronomical rents so someone can live on the doorstep of their employer.
Those who are not in work should be governed by the same constraints as those in work - ie if you cant afford to live somewhere, you move.
Nobody is offering to subsidise me so I can live in an expesive area, infact I moved 15 miles away from where I want to live because I couldnt afford to live where I wanted - my first instinct was not to expect the state to make up the difference, what a disgusting notion.
£26,000 a year is more than enough to be getting on with and if it wont stretch far enough where someone lives, they can move, Im sure they can stretch that cash to rent a van.
The social housing issue very much needs sorting however to take control of the rents the state has to pay, then these stories of massive rents wont be the issue that it is currently.
|
|
I sort of drifted into paid work recently, if I'd been on JSA and other benefits I would be getting a top up of 40 quid a week as a reward for finding work.
|
>> The social housing issue very much needs sorting however to take control of the rents
>> the state has to pay, then these stories of massive rents wont be the issue
>> that it is currently.
>>
It would cause panic amongst the BTL landlords.
|
There is a major error of connected thinking in the way governments put together their taxation and benefits policies.
On the one hand it is universally accepted that people's behaviour can be influenced by tweeks to the amount of tax they pay. If you increase a tax, people tend to do less of it. If you reduce a tax or pay a subsidy for something, people do more of it. That is natural and obvious, and policies using that principle must be presumed to be undertaken deliberately.
On the other hand however, governments pretend to be surprised when payments that encourage an excess of something undesirable produce the predictable result.
If you pay people to have children, they will tend to have as many as possible. If you subsidise rents, people will tend to live in more expensive accommodation. If you pay a shilling bounty for every rat's tail collected, people will breed rats.
What did they expect when they invented the system?
|
>> major error of connected thinking in the way [SOCIALIST] governments put together their taxation and benefits policies >>
>> What did they expect when they invented the system? >>
They expected the borrow, borrow, borrow, boom and no-bust, ponzi economics to pay for it all.
Remember that even the current "austerity" cuts that the ConLibs are implementing are only aiming to reduce the amount that Labour wanted to borrow.
UK's debt mountain is still growing and will keep growing for decades. For it to start to decline and go in to credit, we will first need to get to a point where the world buys more from us than we buy from them.
That will happen at some point where the likes of China and India get richer and too expensive to be our sweat shops and the UK becomes an attractive place to buy quality goods at a low price.
Removing many EU & UK regulatory obstacles (minimum wages, elf & safety, working hours, carbon taxes, etc.) to allow UK businesses to become sweatshops once again would help.
;-)
|
>> Remember that even the current "austerity" cuts that the ConLibs are implementing are only aiming
>> to reduce the amount that Labour wanted to borrow.
>>
>> UK's debt mountain is still growing and will keep growing for decades.
Err.. My sense of what is likely to happen - given the attitude of the EU rich states (Germany) to bailing out the poor (nearly everyone else) - is that borrowing limits are likely to be reached sooner than people think...
If we have to cease borrowing , a Benefits Cap of £26,000 is about £13k too expensive.
|
>> is that borrowing limits are likely to be reached sooner than people think.. >>
err.... But our current debt is so big (as is the case for UK) that you can only service it by borrowing even more - unless the lender agrees to take a haircut, ....
The solution is decades away until the UK economy becomes a net earner.
"Public sector net debt excluding financial interventions, such as bank bail-outs, rose to £1.004 trillion in December, as the Government borrowed nearly £14bn last month despite its continued austerity drive.
The £1 trillion figure was the highest since records began in 1993, and represents 64pc of GDP. The Treasury has not recorded an annual surplus since 2001/02, when it repaid £243m into the nation's coffers.
The Government has forecast that servicing Britain's debt will cost £47.6bn in the current financial year, rising to £65.5bn in 2016/17.
A Treasury spokesman said: "That our national debt has reached more than £1 trillion simply shows the unsustainable level of spending this country built up over the past few years, and shows why it is critical for our nation's future that we deal decisively with the deficit.""
Last edited by: John H on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 10:12
|
>> A Treasury spokesman said: "That our national debt has reached more than £1 trillion simply
>> shows the unsustainable level of spending this country built up over the past few years,
>> and shows why it is critical for our nation's future that we deal decisively with
>> the deficit.""
Isn't it funny what people quote and don't quote.
John H, Why did you feel you had to leave out the next line in that quote from the BBC web site
was it because
"Today's figures show that we are making good progress, with borrowing over £11bn lower than in the same period last year."
Thinned your argument a little?
Haven't any of you yet realised that success can sometimes be aided by a little positivity, rather than your incessant drain-hole gazing.
|
>> John H, Why did you feel you had to leave out the next line in that quote from the BBC web site
was it because >>
I didn't quote it from the BBC web site! :-0
>> Haven't any of you yet realised that success can sometimes be aided by a little positivity, rather than your incessant drain-hole gazing. >>
Agree. But some socialists need to be shown the drain hole to realise that they need to change their attitude to stop pulling us all down the drain with them. BTW, you too have been gazing down the drain-hole - forecasting FTSE drops
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=7201&m=164397
>> "Today's figures show that we are making good progress, with borrowing over £11bn lower than in the same period last year."
Thinned your argument a little?>>
Not an iota. It proves my argument. We are still borrowing, debt is increasing, will continue to rise, and we will continue to borrow for decades to come. Zero, it is zero or "negative borrowing" that will be our salvation.
salvation- Don't look to the church for help. "Two Church of England vicars conducted “hundreds” of sham marriages to enable illegal immigrants to stay in Britain, a court was told yesterday."
Even though the Church helped the Bill being defeated in the Lords, fortunately, "76 per cent of the public are in favour of the benefit cap, including 69 per cent of Labour voters".
|
>> "Today's figures show that we are making good progress, with borrowing over £11bn lower
>> than in the same period last year."
And what does that mean?
(a) that public (taxpayer) debt is £11bn lower than it was a year ago?
OR
b) That the additional amount borrowed so far this fiscal year is £11bn lower than was the addition to borrowings by the same point last fiscal year?
Correct answer = (b), as far as I can infer from the usual vague reporting. Borrowing is not lower, it is higher. The report was that borrowing had increased in a year by £127bn to 1 £trillion, not that borrowing had gone down.
It's like saying that someone on a wage of £50,000 a year spent £70,000 last year but only £65,000 this year. It's not progress at all.
The sooner we stop borrowing to spend, the less bad the cure will be. When you are up to your ears in debt, you don't fix it by borrowing more.
|
>> The sooner we stop borrowing to spend, the less bad the cure will be. When
>> you are up to your ears in debt, you don't fix it by borrowing more.
Couldn't agree more, unfortunately telling such truths at or near an election will not cut any ice with bought and paid for votes.
How you go about telling a brainwashed and often stupid electorate the real truth they seem incapable of understanding, and do not want ot hear, is the problem.
Meanwhile Santa is grooming from his socialist grotto with promises of free utopia if only you'd vote for him...come sit on my knee, here is my magic sack little ones its bottomless and contains a life of ease for free, and the rich will pay for it all....not rich socialists or ex PM's though.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 11:28
|
There are two problems at least that haven't been faced up to.
1. Housing benefit
- this is provided on a supposed "needs" basis, when it should be based (at most) on what a typical working person spends on housing - i.e. on a "what will the budget run to" basis, not "what does it cost". That would involve finding a cheaper area or, heaven forfend, children sharing bedrooms (as I and my brother did for years).
That is the way working people who pay their own way (as well as the benefit recipients' ways) have to do it. Working people's taxes are paying housing benefit for people in areas they can't afford to live in themselves.
2. Benefits are paid for children, but given to parents.
How can you turn benefits off when it's the children who suffer? Yet benefits have to be afforded - at the moment, we are spending more than our tax income. For those who want to live on benefits, there is no reason at all to consider how they will pay for children. The reverse, if anything, because they bring more entitlements with them.
If society is going to pay to look after the children, maybe they have to be separated from their parents? Or perhaps the parents and children can be kept together and maintained in a more efficient way? ( I think I have just invented the workhouse.)
I don't have the answer to the above - if it was easy, somebody would have done it by now - but a good start would be to accept that the budget has to balance, and some things have to give. And then to work on removing the incentives to live on benefits.
At the other end of the scale, I think there has to be more to come on public sector pensions, which are also unfunded benefits but paid to people whether they need them or not. Maybe as a start they need to be capped at say £30,000 a year, given that is about £2m worth of pension provision which is certainly inaccessible to the vast majority whose pensions have to be properly funded.
|
>>> provided on a supposed "needs" basis, when it should be based (at most) on what a typical working person spends on housing - i.e. on a "what will the budget run to" basis, not "what does it cost". That would involve finding a cheaper area or, heaven forfend, children sharing bedrooms (as I and my brother did for years).
Few misconceptions of the system here.
You seem to forget that it is not only the long term Waynes and Cheryls on benefits. These people will have had children while happily employed and able to support themselves - then along came recession and (hopefully short term) joblessness.
Benefit is based on the average rent for the area for the accommodation it is deemed you need. Therefore: 1/2 x parents + up to 3 same sex children = 2 bedrooms ; 1/2 x parents + 2 mixed sex children OVER 10 years old = 3 bedrooms
So, you will be paid a maximum contribution to your rent for the postcode average rent for that size of property - regardless of how big your home is or what you actually have to pay ie in BH postcode (includes Parkstone and other expensive areas) they will pay up to £171 per week, in SO (lots of docks etc but also expensive areas like Lymington) they will pay up to £154 per week for a 2 bed home.
The Council says an adult needs around £65 a week, so your council tax will be calculated to leave you with the £65 - this does not take into account topping up your rent. £65 will also have to cover your water rates as well as any other living expenses. Here my sewage/water rates work out at £13.75 a week; Gas £35 a week (winter) and £12 on electricity (last winter it was about £30 on each as we needed supplementary heating despite good thermals and lots of cashmere!); I would have to find another £55 a week for the rent on this property plus, I believe, some £8 towards the rates (student child would qualify one to single occupant discount).
The horror stories in the Daily Wail seem mainly to be 'refugee' families who are finding new homes in a new area, not the norm of someone claiming benefits for a home they are already in. The Waynes and Cheryls with several children will have been 'housed' and therefore will not need any topping up of the rent!
|
>> As you may gather, I feel that £26,000 is pretty generous .... >>
Yes, it is too generous.
It should be capped at 60% of average net (i.e. after tax) take home pay.
re. children: every human of reproductive age on the planet should be brainwashed in to thinking that it is their duty not to reproduce any more than needed to replace themselves on the planet.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 09:58
|
I refuse to get involved and wound up by this thread...I have too much work to do today:)
Will you please bear this in mind by what you post between now and 5pm when I look in here again!
I will just say one thing though.
What a miserable lot you are!
Pat
|
>> What a miserable lot you are! >>
This will cheer you up:
www.debtbombshell.com/
|
Unfortunately Pat the whole of this debate, whether in this forum or the wider media is conducted in (wilfull?) ignorance of the reality of life on benefits.
|
>> Unfortunately Pat the whole of this debate, whether in this forum or the wider media
>> is conducted in (wilfull?) ignorance of the reality of life on benefits.
Maybe. I don't want want to live on benefits, as an ablish-bodied person, either. I would detest myself too much, which would be worse than the privations.
Unfortunately, the current policy is conducted in ignorance of whether the money is there to pay for it, and whether it is fair to the people who are paying.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 10:28
|
>> ignorance of the reality of life on benefits. >>
more like many socialists and civil servants living in ignorance of where the money to pay for the benefits comes from.
"Civil servant" = someone who is an expert on how to spend taxpayer lolly.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 10:57
|
I know Bromp, and that's what annoys me, but I've just finished work and still haven't got time to contribute as a hungry mr pda stands here waiting to be fed:)
Perhaps in the early hours of tomorrow....
Pat
|
>>still haven't got time to contribute as a hungry mr pda stands here waiting to be fed:)
Perhaps in the early hours of tomorrow....
Good grief woman, how much does he eat?
;>)
|
Miserable is what sense Pat?
a. Concerned that people cannot live decently on the benefits they receive.
b. Concerned that the wrong people are being paid benefits.
c. Concerned that the rates of benefit are too high
d. Concerned that what is being paid is going to keep us in debt forever
e. None of the above
|
Mainly the remarks about children Meldrew.
Personally I prefer mine to come with a fur coat, four legs and a tail, but not everyone is like me!
Pat
|
>>Just wondering what the general feeling was with regard to the Gov's proposal to limit
>>benefits to £26000 per year (tax free?).
Absolute FURY.
Just say that slowly. TWENTY SIX THOUSAND POUNDS. (Or THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND GROSS SALARY.)
I think they should be limited to a tiny fraction of that. £5 per day, and living in a workhouse should be plenty for thsoe who have been claiming benefits for 24 months.
I have a friend or two, recent graduates from excellent Universities, living in London on salaries that are no more than the 26k. And do you know what, they live in shared houses. They share bathrooms and kitchens. Sometimes with complete strangers. Yet get yourself a child, and you're entitled to a 2 bed flat. Free. On us.
Finally the worm has turned and has the nation behind it. 26k will be revised down to more like 13k. The biggest problem IMO is the housing benefit which Gordon inflated so as to subsidise private landlords so as to subsidise house price inflation so as to keep the wheels on his waggon. Stop trying to live in Chelsea on benefits; move to Lincolnshire where there is plenty of work (harvesting vegetables, undertaken by Eastern Europeans with work ethic).
Oh yes, and I'd limit benefits to one child per family. And a one-off amnesty so that those with multiple children could kill the surplus so they could afford to keep one.
If you have 10 children, the state reportedly pays you £60k p.a. You could afford to educate some of them privately on that sort of money.
BTW a clergy stipend is about 20k - plus of course free housing (council tax, maintenance, fuel) and pension provision.
|
|
Clergy stipend is £16,420 plus a house and some other benefits. Considering the partner,, if any also helps and isn't paid and the consideration that the hours are irregular I would say that there is a financial case for being unemployed and a moral case for staying on and doing the Lord's work.
|
>> Clergy stipend is £16,420 plus a house and some other benefits. Considering the partner,, if
>> any also helps and isn't paid and the consideration that the hours are irregular I
>> would say that there is a financial case for being unemployed and a moral case
>> for staying on and doing the Lord's work.
Clergy of any persuasion, are parasites on the credulity of superstitious, brainwashed people.
|
|
Each to their own Roger! I have my beliefs which you don't share. Clergy are a lot less parasitic and do a lot more overall good in the broad reaches of society than drug dealers, burglars, benefit cheats, the 80,000 people living in confined luxury in our prisons etc.
|
Why not just make the minimum wage £100.000 pa with a yearly bonus of 100% of wage for everyone including welfare pigs.
That would give a welcome kick up the rectum to the economy.
Simples!
Last edited by: Dog on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 11:11
|
If there is to be a benefits cap, how about a politicians expenses cap and pay by results scheme?
Some of them are corrupt, fiddle their expenses and housing allowances and they are in a jobs for their pals cartel.
They have run up colossal debts for the country , taken us into illegal wars and wars that are none of our business at huge financial and human cost.
They retire on fat pensions, leaving Joe public to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 11:40
|
>> They have run up colossal debts for the country , taken us into illegal wars
>> and wars that are none of our business at huge financial and human cost.
>>
>> They retire on fat pensions, leaving Joe public to suffer the consequences of their actions.
All part and parcel of the one party with three heads state, till things get bad and people no longer believe all they are told i see no change.
Electorate keep putting the same bunch of crooks in so they must be quite happy with things.
|
|
Not really GB! Nobody I know voted for the worst of two worlds = Coalition
|
The worst would have been if Gordon Brown had managed to convince Nick Clegg to form a coalition with him.
|
As someone who accepts benefits, heres a few thoughts from my side on a non-political basis:
They do help, it takes the sting out of winter energy bills for instance.
I dont like claiming them, the forms are mind-numbing and easy to get wrong, but the people who answer the phone when you have questions are very good at answering questions and explaining things.
I claim them because government policy is lumped on me as a whole, so if I am to pay higher 'green' energy bills, suffer decisions like immigration policy which has slashed my income, I see taking the money as their way of paying me off, rough with the smooth so to speak. Its hush money, in the best socialist tradition.
Working Tax Credits arent that generous and you have to be on a fairly low household income to qualify.
If you have children, the benefits are rather better - if I give up work on the start of parenthood, my wife will qualify for very generous benefits if she stays in work, to the extent that its not worth me going to work - childcare is so expensive that for a low-wage household having one parent stay at home with kids is the only sensible option money-wise.
If you dont have any children, with WTC its still better off to be in work.
Benefits are generally spent in the local economy, so they are a way of stimulating the economy - its like direct quantitive easing and perhaps preferrable to funding the banks who dont seem to filter the money down so quickly.
The state DOES encourage you to claim anything your entitled to, there is a certain keeness.
I feel guilty about the £2k a year the state gives me, I always worry ill get a letter asking for it back, I dont trust the state to get these things right. Speaking to an advisor, she told me that what I claim is 'nothing' compared to many.
Id still rather stay in work than be on benefits completely, it hasnt killed my motivation to work, but just feels like a steadying hand when the world seems to be getting so incredibly expensive on all fronts.
|
>>I feel guilty about the £2k a year the state gives me<<
You shouldn't do, if you're entitled to it - it's hardly £26k is it.
>>Benefits are generally spent in the local economy, so they are a way of stimulating the economy<<
I've thought that for quite some time - it all goes back into 'the system', mostly.
I'm typing this on my Laptop = hate the blimmin things!
|
>>You shouldn't do, if you're entitled to it - it's hardly £26k is it.<<
My principles dont like handouts. I dont like the handout culture full stop, but I came to the conclusion that principles wont pay the bills and the State doesnt share my principles, so much like the Chinese, if I want to get along ok, I must play the game the State requires.
>>I've thought that for quite some time - it all goes back into 'the system', mostly.<<
Billy Bragg was banging on about giving the money to individuals on This Week some months ago now, rather than bolstering the bank balance sheets.
In a way, he has a point ( its not often ill agree with that joker either ) as if you take the lowest paid out of tax ( as they are doing now ), then pile on some extra government subsidised income, that then gets poured directly into the pockets of lower paid consumers, funded mainly by the better off.
Its actually a good idea if seen through the vision of redistributing wealth, Robin Hood style.
Last edited by: FoR on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 15:15
|
>>My principles dont like handouts. I dont like the handout culture full stop<<
Perhaps that's the wrong way of looking at it then, see it as an entitlement - our kind fought so hard for it 100 years or so ago.
I'd rather except a bit of welfare than end up in the workhouse :)
"Robin Hood style" - like it!
|
My mothers mother eneded up here and I shall never forget visiting her in the late 1950's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newington_Workhouse
Funny ole life!
|
>> They have run up colossal debts for the country , taken us into illegal wars and wars that are none of our business at huge financial and human cost. >>
Blair has run away to "recoup" some £millions for himself from the Arabs.
>> They retire on fat pensions, leaving Joe public to suffer the consequences of their actions. >>
The majority of Joe Public are socilist/liberals who vote for socialist Labour and Liberal policies, and the promises that those MPs make to spend to help the "poor".
>> They have run up colossal debts for the country >>
Some people need to told to look in to the abyss, but they prefer keep their blinkers on.
Just for Zero, here is a simple graphic (OBR figures) showing how our £1 trillion debt is forecast to increase by 25% to £1.25 trillion in three years - even after allowing for ConLib spending cuts.
www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_15200/7600308/1_fullsize.png
Spending has to be slashed drastically, to real austerity and real poverty levels, where the people resort to living like L'escargot used to as a child, to reduce the debt to zero. A debt of £1.25 trillion in 2015 means that if we stop borrowing to zero and on top we repay the debt at a rate of £100 billion a year, it will take until 2028 to have zero debt. But Zero expects not to live much beyond then, so unfortunately he won't see the benefit.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=8395&m=185704
Last edited by: John H on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 12:00
|
|
Thats it you just keep talking us down the crapper.
|
Zero - You can keep your blinkers on, and put in the ear plugs too!
BTW, re. what I said earlier about EU - breaking news:
"David Cameron: stop the madness of Europe red tape
David Cameron has attacked the "madness" of European regulations and taxes in a speech to global business leaders in Davos, Switzerland. "
Last edited by: John H on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 12:10
|
>> Yawn Yawn Yawn
maybe you can afford to bury your head in the sand, as you are part of "Generation V" who have been proclaimed as the luckiest generation alive.
Not everyone can rip off customers as easily as this:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=8865&m=195878
|
Oh we are getting deep and personal now, are we not.
Go on carry on you make me laugh.
|
Cameron is a good talker.The problem is will anybody listen to him in Davros.?
|
|
Only if he takes the Doctor with him.
|
|
Doctor Who! to see Davros!
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 12:46
|
This chart says it all:
www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=2000_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20Public%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP
UK spending as a % of GDP is still rising.
Unsustainable.
Government spending is still rising and GDP is STILL below 2008 Levels.
And we have no growth - or very little likely this year.
Anyone who thinks current spending levels are sustainable is either an optimist or Ed Balls.
If things go badly - and there is a 50% chance in my view - expect emergency cuts of 20% in UK Government spending across the board. (and the major spends are health, education and benefits - so all WOULD be affected)
|
Ok we are up to our necks in debt and unlikely to get out soon.
But how far can the cuts go.If there is social unrest and people loose everything they loose it.
Let's look forward to the Olympics only 12 billion so far at cost.It's only money.
|
Expect UKgov to go cap-in-hand to the IMF before the dog days return
Prepare for more civil unrest in towns and cities this year
Take to the hills (I'm already there!)
|
Wow! - thanks, the ole woman will want that on her ipod now :)
We don't deserve this planet Dutchie, not really :(
Last edited by: Dog on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 16:54
|
But take a historical view of the same data;
tinyurl.com/6rso4p2
|
>> But take a historical view of the same data;
>>
>> tinyurl.com/6rso4p2
>>
Yes : It was high in the mid 1970s.
And guess what happened? The IMF were called in, there were big spending cuts and the NHS had its budget cut in real terms.
Then Mrs Thatcher became PM and the ratios plummeted..
I am sure that is not a message any Labour supporter would like to read...
|
>> And guess what happened? The IMF were called in, there were big spending cuts and
>> the NHS had its budget cut in real terms.
>>
>> Then Mrs Thatcher became PM and the ratios plummeted..
>>
>> I am sure that is not a message any Labour supporter would like to read...
The absolute peak on that chart occurred before the end of 1974 with the spike starting in what's probably 72 or 73. Labour took office in Feb 74.
I'm going for the end of the 'Barber Boom' and an oil/commodity shock as the cause.
Bit like now really.
World economic shocks are no respecters of elections on one of Europe's off islands.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 14:49
|
>>World economic shocks are no respecters of elections on one of Europe's off islands.
I know you're an apologist for the last lot, Brompton ;)
But I find it difficult to believe that even you really think it's none of our fault. We could have taken the last decade of *boom to pay down the public sector debt so we would have been well placed to weather the world downturn. Or we could have increased public debt so as to create a crisis by 2012.
And where did the "world economic shock" come from, eh? Over-borrowed governments and individuals, particularly in nations with *lax monetary policies that gave rise to excessive asset-price inflation.
____________________________________
*was it boom or smoke-and-mirrors?
|
That chart is spending as % of GDP.
I merely suggest that it doesn't show the correlation with changes of Gov implied when it was posted.
|
I find it hard to examine whether Labour would have been doing any better at this stage as they were spending cash on the very realistic notion that the Eurozone would have taken more effective action by now.
If back in 2010 someone told you the Eurozone would still be in turmoil, they prob wouldnt have believed you, which is why Labour wasnt worried about their long-term spending plans.
Problem is, it didnt work out as expected, unless your name is Farage that is, but thats a whole other discussion.
|
So the Archbishop of Canterbury earns £55,660 ..........
You would think he could afford a visit to a decent barbers then .....
|
All kinds of fringe benefits for clergy - including a right old bung on discounted Council Tax if they use part of their home as a business as well as er..
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16743949
|
'The majority of Joe Public are socilist/liberals who vote for socialist Labour and Liberal policies, '
Really, not many socialist goverments in the post few decades. Not sure where you get that idea from.
|
>> 'The majority of Joe Public are socilist/liberals who vote for socialist Labour and Liberal policies,
>> '
>>
>>
>> Really, not many socialist goverments in the post few decades. Not sure where you get
>> that idea from.
>>
Labour Governments post WW2 1945-2010
1945-51 6 years
1964-70 6 years
1974-79 5 years
1997 -2010 13 years
Total 30 years out of 65 years or 46%.. Not "little" in my book. Only 2.5 years short of 50%..
Last edited by: madf on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 16:39
|
|
97-2010 were in no way recognizably socialist
|
>> 97-2010 were in no way recognizably socialist
>>
I disagree.
Full of hypocrites, money chasing, pass loads of laws, autocratic and intolerant of others, tax the poor and screw up the economy...
Sounds like a Socialist Government to me.
|
Sounds like a Socialist Government to me.
:-)
|
>>
>>
>> Sounds like a Socialist Government to me.
>>
I think you need to look at what socialism means.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 17:24
|
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like a Socialist Government to me.
>> >>
>>
>> I think you need to look at what socialism means.
>>
Socialism means an initial idealism aimed at doing the best for people, screwing it up because idealists are rarely practical, finally realising you have screwed it up and then deciding to use power to enrich yourself and your friends and sod the country.
See: Tony Blair.
Jim Callaghan,
Neil Kinnock,
Peter Mandelson
Joseph Stalin
as a few examples.. :-)
Edit:
Gordon Brown was an exception.. He did not enrich his friends as he had none...:-)
Last edited by: madf on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 17:58
|
|
I don't think GB enriched anything, anybody or any institution with which he was involved. A decent man out of his depth.
|
Well, he did say 'Socialist' governments. I think the 1945 government could have been called 'Socialist'.
The most recent Blair governments? Most certainly not!
Edit. Snap!
Last edited by: Duncan on Thu 26 Jan 12 at 16:47
|
'1997 -2010 13 years'
Hardly socialist though, so about 25 years ago. Not far off.
|
>> '1997 -2010 13 years'
>>
>> Hardly socialist though, so about 25 years ago. Not far off.
>>
It's strange. Lots of Labour supporters claim the last Labour Government were not socialist..
But when pressed they still voted Labour.
Proves the "hypocrisy" bit..:-)
|
>> That chart is spending as % of GDP.
>>
>> I merely suggest that it doesn't show the correlation with changes of Gov implied when
>> it was posted.
???
Labour make country bankrupt. GDP drops, spending as % of GDP rises in order to pay for problems?
|
Mapmaker...I think you're a closet Vicar!
Pat
|
I've seen benefits threads on other forums which always seem to descend into outright nastiness, flounces, bans and often obliteration of the thread.
This is post number 113 and there's been little more than a couple of tetchy exchanges.
I think we've done well.
|
Just an innocent question re benefits! - madf
