Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 9:30:13 GMT
Recipient of high rate DLA care & mobility components £6,800 JSA claimant aged 25 to 62 £3,700 JSA claimant aged 18 to 24 £2,900 Unemployed and aged 16 or 17 £0 That's not really a true picture is it? while it might be for some I'm sure, for others when you add on all the other benefits that can be claimed, there will be some who are better off staying at home than going to work. Its even more the case based on the number of children in a family and I know that as a fact. But it is not a fact, Dave. People who claim they are better off out of work just haven't taken the trouble top find out what is available. While people on basic subsistence benefits (JSA, ESA, and a few who still get Income Support) can also claim Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit plus Tax Credits all of these are also for people in low paid work. The benefits system has been specifically designed to include financial incentives to work and to make the situation you describe impossible, which would be fair enough except for two things: 1 There are too many people chasing too few jobs so inevitably thousands miss out through no fault of their own. They want to work but simply can't find any. 2 Disabled people are left at a disadvantage even though they are incapable of performing most kinds of work. They would love to be fit for work but they just can't because of their condition. People in both categories are statistically more likely to become depressed, get divorced, die early etc so it would hardly be a sensible lifestyle choice in spite of the rhetoric we hear from politicians and read in the press. If someone who smokes fags suddenly loses his/her major source of income then it's a bit much to expect them to go cold turkey. In any case anyone who buys fags or ale immediately contributes a large amount to the taxman as soon as the pennies leave their wallets/purses. A person on benefit who likes a f*g and a drink will not only have too little for sweeties but also, whether s/he smokes and drinks or not, too little for the pleasures which the rest of us enjoy like going to a football match, to the pub or the pictures, taking a train ride, stopping in a cafe for a Devon cream tea, replacing goods when they wear out etc. The government has announced that the DWP will expect benefits to be paid on line and will check people's cookies to make sure they are applying for jobs, which indicates that they expect claimants to have access to a computer. So a laptop or a PC is not a luxury item but an essential even for folk who can't afford to pay the lecky bill. Alec Shelbrooke MP, whose idea it is to give vouchers instead of real money, complained that unemployed people might spend their money on Sky TV. I don't have Sky myself but I am told there is a packeage available which allows cheap broadband and phone as well as television in which case I'd have thought claimants should be encouraged to sign uo for it. I expect your friend with the shop prefers people to be able to choose for themselves what they spend their dole money on, since otherwise his takings would drop so much he might find himself in the same boat as what would now be his ex-customers. There is also an argument that a job which consists of selling addictive items like tobacco, alcohol and scratch cards to people who can't afford them is morally a lot worse than no job at all. Don't forget also that the names at the top of the above list also make a lot more than their riidiculous salaries through advertising, promotional activities, TV appearances etc. Not forgetting those tax-avoidance schemes which ensure that they can continue to scratch around for something else to spend their millions on rather than using some of it to help pay for public services for the plebs. And now, here's the weather forecast..........................
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 22, 2012 11:13:35 GMT
I expect your friend with the shop prefers people to be able to choose for themselves what they spend their dole money on, since otherwise his takings would drop so much he might find himself in the same boat as what would now be his ex-customers. There is also an argument that a job which consists of selling addictive items like tobacco, alcohol and scratch cards to people who can't afford them is morally a lot worse than no job at all. He sounds like a classic petit bourgeois to me.
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Dec 22, 2012 14:03:38 GMT
I expect your friend with the shop prefers people to be able to choose for themselves what they spend their dole money on, since otherwise his takings would drop so much he might find himself in the same boat as what would now be his ex-customers. There is also an argument that a job which consists of selling addictive items like tobacco, alcohol and scratch cards to people who can't afford them is morally a lot worse than no job at all. He sounds like a classic petit bourgeois to me. I think Lambeth is really a devout Tory living in middle class suburbia with his W.I. President wife and 2.4 children and a Labrador called Maggie, but he just likes to impress us that he studied The Dark Side of Politics in his student days and that like all Tories can always see the other point of view. Probably enjoys a Sunday cycle South of the river with 'Call Me Dave' and other such peers from his university debating group.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 22, 2012 14:52:28 GMT
I think Lambeth is really a devout Tory living in middle class suburbia with his W.I. President wife and 2.4 children and a Labrador called Maggie, but he just likes to impress us that he studied The Dark Side of Politics in his student days and that like all Tories can always see the other point of view. Probably enjoys a Sunday cycle South of the river with 'Call Me Dave' and other such peers from his university debating group. ;D Sorry to disappoint Stefano, but I never went to university. I opted instead for the largest employer in town, which was a textile factory. That was more enlightening than a university lecture theatre could have been. It wasn't until some years later that I made the discovery that Marx reached the same conclusions in Capital as I did when I was still reading the Beano
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 22, 2012 19:26:04 GMT
I know Dave is not alone with his views, but I find it incredible that he chooses to air his (seemingly uninformed) grievances about people who are far closer to him economically than the people who are doing very well out of the current crisis. Why nothing about the multi-national companies who receive tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies, the landlords and mortgage lenders who pocket the fruits of people's labour and time, the companies who benefit from government schemes to top up low wages because companies won't pay their workers enough to lead a decent standard of living?
There is NOTHING noble about being a mug and selling your labour and time for less than its value.
It's no good saying you're "not political and never have been", Dave. Open your eyes and see who really benefits from people like you getting angry with benefit claimants and ignoring those who really are doing very well in the current situation.
|
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Dec 23, 2012 5:59:48 GMT
A question for the Marxist goons like lambie. Here's a list of current and former marxist states en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countriesHow's it getting on? I'm sure the people of Cambodia would love to express their love of marxism, well at least 2 million of them would if they hadn't been murdered. Name one successful marxist state from history. Marxists/Socialists/fascists are murdering scum. Only a completely ignorant tw@t (that would be you lambie) could think otherwise.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Dec 23, 2012 8:08:31 GMT
I know Dave is not alone with his views, but I find it incredible that he chooses to air his (seemingly uninformed) grievances about people who are far closer to him economically than the people who are doing very well out of the current crisis. Why nothing about the multi-national companies who receive tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies, the landlords and mortgage lenders who pocket the fruits of people's labour and time, the companies who benefit from government schemes to top up low wages because companies won't pay their workers enough to lead a decent standard of living? There is NOTHING noble about being a mug and selling your labour and time for less than its value. It's no good saying you're " not political and never have been", Dave. Open your eyes and see who really benefits from people like you getting angry with benefit claimants and ignoring those who really are doing very well in the current situation. I find it incredible Lambie that you seem to think I have some grievance against those living on benefits, if you had taken the time to read and digest everything I have ever written on the TFF on this subject, then you would know that was not really the case. There are many genuine people who have lost their jobs and want to work, there are people who genuinely can’t work due to illness and they do need support and should be given it. But there are also those who do not want to work, those who know how to work the system to ensure they never need too, those who make false claims to also ensure they are far better off claiming benefits than going to work. Benefit fraud is rife in the UK. The government pretends it costs us £1.2bn annually. But the real figure is probably at least £5.5bn a year. Figures showed that 9,861 benefit cheats were convicted in 2011-12, up by 40 per cent on the 7,040 tally of 2009-2010, the last full year of the Labour government. Over the same period, around 7,000 people a year received ‘administrative penalties’. Almost 16,000 were given cautions in 2011-12, up by around 900 on 2009-10. You asked why I have said nothing about the multi-national companies who receive tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies, the landlords and mortgage lenders who pocket the fruits of people's labour and time, the companies who benefit from government schemes to top up low wages because companies won't pay their workers enough to lead a decent standard of living? Simple answer Lambie this thread was about rises in benefits being frozen for three years and in my first post I just said so what, many workers have not had any pay rises for years now. My eyes are open believe me and I do not see myself as some NOBLE FIGURE or some MUG (but it does feel that way when I do look around sometimes) for selling my labour for less than its worth according to you. Do I think I’m worth more than I’m paid? Yes when I do look and see the ridiculous sums others are paid, but I can’t do anything about any of that and I choose to try and support myself and pay my own way in this world. It’s the way I was brought up and if nothing else it gives me a sense of pride I know the real pressure my boss is under right now just trying to keep us all in a job, he is not conning me in anyway nor taking advantage of me as I have seen so many other companies that we deal with, go under in the last five years. I have seen so many lose their jobs in the companies I call on, I also know its going to be even harder for us to keep going next year and I do fear for my own job right now. But being honest I also know if that were to happen, I will be far worse off trying to live on benefits as I won’t be looking to scan what I can from the system. The person I mentioned who once owned a shop did not tell me what he did because he had some grievance against those living on benefits, they were after all spending money in his shop. He himself worked seven days a week to try and keep the shop going, even had to remortgage his home to try and pay all the overheads. But he went under in the end and lost everything including his home and when he had to go and sign on, found there was no real help for him. I do not do ANGRY Lambie, I learnt a very long time ago the world I live in is not always very fair, I also learned there is very little I can do about that, But I do have a right as far as I’m concerned to have the odd moan or two about such unfairness and about those who cheat the system to live off the backs of others. I feel sorry for the real genuine people who do want to work who have to try and live on next to nothing. Times have changed Lambie and sadly the power has now switched back to the bosses due to the situation this country is now in. While I have never been a lover of trade unions, they did do so much to ensure workers got their rights and a fair wage. But at times they used that power the wrong way and used it to hold the country to ransom. For many workers its now a case of having to put up with no pay rises, having to give that bit extra for free to ensure they stay in a job. I’m not talking about those working in those super big companies, but the likes of me who work for a very small one finding life very hard at the moment. Maybe it’s not the way it should be, but I do live in the real world and have a brain that has been able to work out the true situation and the consequences of what life would be like if I was not able to stay in a job, even a low paid one. Yes I would love to see those tax breaks stopped, companies like Tesco's not taking advantage of the unemployed and all the other things you have mentioned, but as I said I can’t stop them, all I can do is try and live a decent honest life myself so I can hold my head up as high as possible.
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 23, 2012 10:15:44 GMT
That's a well considered post there, Dave. And I should begin by saying that I know you have never said that welfare shouldn't exist for those who need it. I don't say that you don't have a right to the odd moan or two about people who live off people's backs. My question is why do you single out people who illegitimately claim benefits? Even if your figure of £5.5 billion were true (and you haven't posted sources), it would be dwarfed by the state's expenditures in other areas. What about the £800 billion it cost to bail out the banks, the £40 billion a year the government spends on "defence", the £10 to 25 billion it cost to host the Olympics (much of which went straight into the pockets of private companies), the £3 billion "private" companies receive every year from the government to run rail franchises, the billions and billions the state pays in subsidies for private companies and landlords in the form of tax credits and housing benefit? Why bang on about a group of people who constitute a relatively tiny part of the state's expenditure? More to the point, why is the media always banging on about it? Could it be that they don't want people asking too many questions about who really is benefiting from state welfare? I don't know the company you work for, so I can't comment on that. But the "niceness" or "decency" of your boss is irrelevant I'm afraid. Even if the company you work for was a co-operative which split its profits equally among the workforce, you would always, ultimately, end up in a situation where you either grew to the extent that some other nice fellow's company when bust along with his workers, or you worked harder for less pay. That's the way it is. You are right that the power is swinging in the bosses favour. It's been that way since the 1970s (and despite what people will tell you about the trade unions being responsible for this, not just in this country either). And you know what? The pendulum still has a long, long way to swing in that direction.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Dec 24, 2012 8:35:41 GMT
Can only once again repeat that this thread was about benefits and as a low paid worker, it does grate a bit knowing there are some who cheat a system set up to help those who have genuinely fallen on harder times. The system is flawed as far as I’m concerned and some are doing very nicely from it, while others are having to try and live on almost nothing. How you fix it I have no idea, how you ensure that those getting extra money because they have children spend the money on those children, I have no idea also.
As far as bailing out the banks are concerned, I did my best to try and understated the reasons given why it had to be done, most of it seemed to make some sense, but yes I do have some strong feelings about how the most poorest in this country are the ones really now paying the price for the greed of the all ready rich people.
We do need to spend money on defence, how much that should be I also have no idea, I’m sure if we just stuck to defending our own shorelines and not sending our troupes to fight in wars that have very big question marks over them, then we would not need to be spending as much as we are right now.
As far as the Olympics are concerned they did for a short while give this country a feel good factor, also one run down area of London was knocked down and all that was built to host the Olympics can now be used to house people along with providing some excellent facilities for people living there to use. There was no benefit to the area I live in, but I did feel good about our country when the games were on, was that feel good factor worth the cost? Did we really put Britain on the map? Will we see some inward investment as a result of the games? Once again I have no idea, but we held those games, did a first class job and can be proud of the achievements of our competitors
As far as the £3 billion "private" companies receive every year from the government to run rail franchises, I do not know why that happens, I never use trains myself, but do feel for all those who are faced year on year with even more rises. Some of the ticket prices seem so very expensive and as long as rail travel is so dear, people will still choose where possible, to use their cars instead.
I have done my best to try and understand the arguments for and against spending our way out of trouble, or making cutbacks, but I do not have the right knowledge to know what the best way forward is. I do feel its madness to be spending so much more than is coming in, but then my only real experience of budgets etc, is the one I have to try and stick to that ensures I pay my way and do not have to worry who comes knocking on my front door.
I look at our town council and see the vast sums some are getting paid along with super rich pensions, I listen when I get told you have to pay that much to ensure you get the very best people for the job. Really? I do not think so and one only have to look at the money that gets wasted, how much of the council tax gets spend on those wages and pensions. Look at how much more you are being made to pay while all the time the only word you hear is CUTBACKS. Look around the streets and you will see neglect, look and you will see services being cut and then cut again, but why is that when you are being asked to pay more.
I have a choice in life, while I see so much that I believe is wrong, so much unfairness, so many greedy people who are just making sure they line their own nests, do I spend my life letting all that effect mine? Yes I know it will have some impact on me, it will keep me poor while others are getting rich, but the bottom line for me is that I know I can do nothing myself to stop that happening.
So I do my best to go to work and earn an honest living, ensure I live within my means and not spend too much time worrying about what is really going on around me. Yes it’s called burying one’s head in the sand, but at my age I just want as happy and peaceful life as possible. Will the peasants one day rise up and fight to restore the balance in this country? Maybe they should, but I can’t see that happening I’m afraid.
If I’m lucky I may have 20 or a few more than that years to live on this earth, since I was able I have worked all my life and paid in my fair dues( well more if I’m honest) into this country. I do not feel I have ended up getting the best deal, but I am happy and contented with what I have got and the life I lead. It could always be better, I would love to have just a bit more money to spend, but that’s not going to happen and I only see harder times ahead.
I will deal with them as and when they happen and just try and focus on all that is good, ensure I continue to enjoy life’s simply and free pleasures such as going on walks etc. Nothing is ever going to be perfect Lambie, I only wish it could be, but money so often brings heartbreak and misery to people and not real happiness. We can find that in the warmth and kindness of others around us, sharing in their joy and happiness and knowing that they care about us. We can find it in trying to help others and do our good deeds for the day, simple things that can mean so much to others with no real cost other than giving a bit of our time.
The end of the world did not come last Friday, it might end one day and if it does it will be the fault of the people living on this planet, but we are here now and have to try and make the best of what we have got.
Hope you have a great Christmas Lambie and a happy New Year mate; look forward to many good debates with you next year.
All the best
Dave
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Dec 24, 2012 12:45:48 GMT
We can find it in trying to help others and do our good deeds for the day, simple things that can mean so much to others with no real cost other than giving a bit of our time. Amen to that. Happy Christmas and New Year to you too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2012 14:04:59 GMT
The government pretends it costs us £1.2bn annually. But the real figure is probably at least £5.5bn a year. I'm always interested in figures, their sources and how they are calculated. Consequently the discrepancy quoted by Dave caught my attention. It's certainly a massive gap between £1.2 bn and £5.5 bn.To be honest I've no idea if either - or neither - figure is correct. But Dave appears to be pretty certain even though - as Wildebeeste points out - no source of the information is offered. So I turned to the web and saw that the exact same words, as highlighted above, can be found on a site called Benefit Fraud: www.benefitfraud.org.uk. They've also been repeated verbatim on other sites. Now, as with so many of these Internet trails - which are so easy to "cut and paste" - it's hard to identify the original source. In this case I'll make the assumption that these figures derive from a page on the Benefit Fraud site entitled "£5.5 bn rather than £1.1 bn". This consists of an unsigned series of extrapolations and estimations which the author - whoever that may be - does their level best to pass off as "cautious" estimates. The exercise may be, for all I know, an incredibly accurate piece of guesswork. But I'm not sure if it is worthy of being considered as fact. As for who is behind the "Benefit Fraud" website, perhaps somebody could throw some light? A cursory glance revealed no clues. For all we know it could be Alpine Joe. But it probably isn't. Now I have another problem with figures such as £1.2 bn and £5.5 bn. Both, of course, are enormous amounts. But how do they relate to the total amount spent on benefits? I'd appreciate some context. Are we suggesting that 50% or 75% of the amount paid in benefits - or the number of claims made - are fraudulent? Or are we saying, for example, that the figure is less than 5%? Is it a case that a large number of claimants fiddle relatively small amounts? Or that a small number of people are responsible for nearly all of the fraud? To ask such questions is not to condone abuse of the benefit system; more a case, perhaps, of wishing to see the wood from the trees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2012 8:51:20 GMT
This consists of an unsigned series of extrapolations and estimations which the author - whoever that may be - does their level best to pass off as "cautious" estimates. The exercise may be, for all I know, an incredibly accurate piece of guesswork. But I'm not sure if it is worthy of being considered as fact. As for who is behind the "Benefit Fraud" website, perhaps somebody could throw some light? A cursory glance revealed no clues. For all we know it could be Alpine Joe. But it probably isn't. The Benefit Fraud website was discussed on the Urban75 website during 2010. The suggestion then was that it was run by somebody involved in the debt management business. I'd imagine too much benefit money in circulation must be bad news if you are in the loans trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 10:38:53 GMT
“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries: hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir”.
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not”.
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. I’m very glad to hear it”.
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned – they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. "
And in the New Year Scrooge awarded himself a £1 million bonus and received a knighthood for services to the banking industry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 15:44:14 GMT
Barton Downs ;D Certainly isn't me. In fact in 2013 I may attempt to 'Embrace my Inner Lefty' and rejoice in Britain's accomplishment in achieving 'Scroungers Paradise' status. We can take on anything Europe or America has to offer, and when it comes to rolling out the red carpet for the worlds scroungers we can out do virtually anyone. This has taken years to achieve. Whole careers have been dedicated to assembling the mountain of benefits, handouts etc etc that await the worlds poor should they decide to roll up in 'Blighty'. Granted a lot of our own pensioners are dying in squalor in the filthy NHS hospitals, but we need to look at the bigger picture and realise a good proportion of cash just has to be held back for 'Disability handouts' as well as remembering that if the world can't come to us to collect the benefits we've got lined up for them then we'll just have to send the dosh over to them and label it 'Foreign Aid'. My new year's resolution is to give up the Daily Mail. I gave it a trial run on Boxing day by picking up a copy of the Express in a Plymouth newsagent. So far I'm coping with the adjustment very well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:53:33 GMT
Excellent stuff, Alpine Joe. It certainly looks like that spending on disability payments is, er, Britain's Achilles Heel.
All manner of statistics turned out by the OECD and each nation's media outlets are keen to show off - or bemoan - their particular performance.
Over in South Korea the Yonhap News Agency appears pretty proud to say that local spending on welfare benefits is the 2nd lowest amongst OECD nations. No surprise there.
And the Yonhap fingers the big spenders: France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Finland. Oh dear, no place on the medal podium for the UK there.
Elsewhere a character called Bruce Bartlett, writing on the New York Times blog, boldly makes the "conservative case for the welfare state". Most helpfully he provides a link to an OECD report (it could be the same one. Or another one but who cares?) which contains a couple of interesting statements. Mind you, it's all rather technical so you'd better concentrate:
"Part I of this paper first presents information on trends and composition of social expenditure as in the OECD Social Expenditure database for the years 1980 – 2007.....Part I also presents social expenditure indicators that account for the effects of the tax system as well as indicators on private social expenditure. Including both of these features alters country rankings by level of social spending and leads to a convergence of spending-to-GDP ratios across countries.
Based on this broader measure net total social expenditure as a percent of GDP at factor costs in 2007 was highest in France and Belgium, at 30% of GDP, and between 22 and 28% of GDP in Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States."
Bugger. Back amongst the also-rans on that one. We really need to catch those pesky South Koreans. Still top ten mind, so there's hope.
Do we fare better in Part 2? Apparently not:
"Part II of this paper presents the OECD SOCX Manual. It starts with a discussion of methodological, classification and data issues regarding the gross spending items as in SOCX... Accounting for the effect of the tax system and private social expenditure leads to greater similarity in social expenditure-to-GDP ratios across countries and to a reassessment of the magnitude of welfare states.
After accounting for the impact of taxation and private benefits, social expenditure amounts to over 30% of GDP at factor cost in Belgium and France; social expenditure also ranges within a few percentage points of each other in Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States."
Confused? You bet! But that sounds a pretty mediocre Europa League performance on Britain's behalf; banished to Channel 5 on a Thursday night. Sort it out, Osborne!
Yep, selective use of data. We can all do it. Especially certain newspapers.
But let me see. Would I prefer Britain to spend above-average amounts on welfare benefits? Or below-average? Well, put it like that.....
|
|