Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ckn

£12bn in welfare cuts

Recommended Posts

As for the guys that liked your post well the wiganer what do you expect that town would return a labour MP if Saddam Hussein stood as their candidate,a bit like St.Helens were they just elected a northern irishman who'd never been to the town previously and an ex Council leader(67 years old) who had alledgedly dodgy dealings whilst in office and is currently facing charges of assault on a woman at the scottish referendum.

 

For your information I don't now, and never have lived in Wigan (I have worked there though for the towns largest employer). It shows you know all about me and gives us a good indication of how well informed, or rather not, all your posts are.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your information I don't now, and never have lived in Wigan (I have worked there though for the towns largest employer). It shows you know ###### all about me and gives us a good indication of how well informed, or rather not, all your posts are.

Fair do's i was mistaken maybe because your a pie liker

Now what about a rebutal about your heartless tories post that Derwent made mincemeat of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair do's i was mistaken maybe because your a pie liker

Now what about a rebutal about your heartless tories post that Derwent made mincemeat of

I'd rather concentrate on Harriet Harmen's gutless reaction to the budget welfare cuts if it's all the same to you: Anger after Harriet Harman says Labour will not vote against welfare bill

I mean, what's the point of being in opposition if you don't oppose? I don't mean for the sake of it, but to hold the government to task and make them fight every step of the way by proposing viable alternatives.

Edited by Griff9of13

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather concentrate on Harriet Harmen's gutless reaction to the budget welfare cuts if it's all the same to you: Anger after Harriet Harman says Labour will not vote against welfare bill

I mean, what's the point of being in opposition if you don't oppose? I don't mean for the sake of it, but to hold the government to task and make them fight every step of the way by proposing viable alternatives.

Why oppose something that makes sense?

As this will only come in later in this parliament,people on benefits will have a choice,have 2 kids and the state will help or keep knocking out and you pay for the rest.

Why should the state pay for irresponsible parents,family planning is the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather concentrate on Harriet Harmen's gutless reaction to the budget welfare cuts if it's all the same to you: Anger after Harriet Harman says Labour will not vote against welfare bill

I mean, what's the point of being in opposition if you don't oppose? I don't mean for the sake of it, but to hold the government to task and make them fight every step of the way by proposing viable alternatives.

A party dying on its backside, responding to everything the Tories do and failing miserably.  Harman is just pathetic, Labour went 18 years out of power then came back with a fantastic set of clear red water policies that so grabbed the nation that they blew away the Tories in 1997.  This is a Tory party that should have gone backwards in this general election but Labour were so set on not upsetting the right-wing people who might be able to give them some donations that they ballsed it up entirely.  They're now set on destroying what's left of Labour in the pursuit of not upsetting right wing voters.

 

The only reason Labour didn't do a Lib Dem self-destruction is that there's nowhere else for their core vote to go.  If I could vote SNP here in deepest Suffolk then I would, and not for their independence policies either.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could'nt be happier Labour are dead and buried to the electorate for years and years to come and if they are that stupid to vote in Corbyn(the Communist) decades in the duldrems awaits.I do hope they do,ive had my 3 quids worth :shout:

I dont hate anyone especially the geniunely needy they should be helped no doubt,what i am against is the bone idle social security scroungers who play the system,have no intention of looking nevermind getting work and believe the state should look after them.

I know loads of these in my area who constantly keep knocking out kids willy nilly which the taxpayer has to support.

As for the guys that liked your post well the wiganer what do you expect that town would return a labour MP if Saddam Hussein stood as their candidate,a bit like St.Helens were they just elected a northern irishman who'd never been to the town previously and an ex Council leader(67 years old) who had alledgedly dodgy dealings whilst in office and is currently facing charges of assault on a woman at the scottish referendum.

Craig i'm surprised at as i thought he was quite smart,but i was mistaken.

And finally lefty Rhino well what can you say about someone who follows looney left minority parties,he's probably one of the ones i made reference to earlier.Aint got owt but wants a share of what someone else has worked hard for.

 

Hey Back to the future Weary Rhinos not that much of a Socialist / Labour man , as he supports The rich Conservative 

Rhinos instead of the downtrodden cash strapped Huns so don't say he's a socialist , he's a tory in disguise give him a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Back to the future Weary Rhinos not that much of a Socialist / Labour man , as he supports The rich Conservative 

Rhinos instead of the downtrodden cash strapped Huns so don't say he's a socialist , he's a tory in disguise give him a break.

and Leeds do play in blue!


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather concentrate on Harriet Harmen's gutless reaction to the budget welfare cuts if it's all the same to you: Anger after Harriet Harman says Labour will not vote against welfare bill

I mean, what's the point of being in opposition if you don't oppose? I don't mean for the sake of it, but to hold the government to task and make them fight every step of the way by proposing viable alternatives.

To be fair to them, 3 of the 4 leadership candidates came out immediately after those comments and said they'd vote otherwise. You can guess which one of them has stayed quiet.


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather concentrate on Harriet Harmen's gutless reaction to the budget welfare cuts if it's all the same to you: Anger after Harriet Harman says Labour will not vote against welfare bill

I mean, what's the point of being in opposition if you don't oppose? I don't mean for the sake of it, but to hold the government to task and make them fight every step of the way by proposing viable alternatives.

I am not particularly bothered about who ends up leading the Labour party but Harman has a point. Being the opposition isn't about opposing everything for the sake of opposing, which really is what Labour did during the last parliament and clearly to no good effect since the Tories increased their vote and seats and won the election with a majority.  Opposition is good when it selects based on honest principles and actual values rather than simply shouting 'boo' at everything and anything, including those things upon which the electorate want action.

 

According to comments made by individuals from Labour and the Tories, the electorate is concerned by the size of the welfare budget and also about the unfairness of it.  After all, why should a family on benefits or very low income feel comfortable having lots of children, knowing the state will support them, when those who are on higher wages (but possibly not very much higher wages) have to make decisions about family size because they are unable to afford to support a large family?  Everyone should be taking the creation of a family responsibly. 

 

As for tax credits generally, they were a Brown invention brought in with the forecast costing of £600 million a year.  Last year tax credits cost the taxpayer £3 billion according to reports.  They are clearly unsustainable and all they have done is create a false environment.  This government, rightly, wants to reverse that trend back to when work was work and benefits were for the unemployed - ie those needing a safety net.  They want to make work more attractive, hence the risky policy of introducing a higher minimum wage as well as the rise in tax threshold, and benefits less attractive.  I cannot understand how anyone can argue with that given the original purpose of the formal welfare system in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now IDS wants to force workers to save for their own sickness and unemployment benefit. Not sure where we're supposed to get the money from to do this but, hey ho. Cameron is, apparently, "open to the idea".


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now IDS wants to force workers to save for their own sickness and unemployment benefit. Not sure where we're supposed to get the money from to do this but, hey ho. Cameron is, apparently, "open to the idea".

 

Hasn't that been done already, he's describing National Insurance.

 

Here's an idea, why don't companies insure their workforce so that they can continue to pay them if their sick? Before someone shoots me down, this is exactly what the company I work for do. This allows them to pay full pay for the first 6 months of sickness and then 78% pay for the next four and a half years. 

 

Edit to add:

 

And yes, I'm well aware that NI is no longer ring-fenced to specifically pay for social security, but the idea remains, people who work contribute to the state via income tax and NI and in return the state helps those in people in their time of need. 

Edited by Griff9of13

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And yes, I'm well aware that NI is no longer ring-fenced to specifically pay for social security, but the idea remains, people who work contribute to the state via income tax and NI and in return the state helps those in people in their time of need. 

 

If the government (of any colour ) has the balls to admit National Insurance doesn't exist and announces everyone is going to face an income tax rise of 20% then I'll start saving for my sickness.  Until then, I'm paying my stamp as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford investigate benefits system: We found no scroungers and no-one living comfortably

 

Of course that doesn't mean no one is working the system, just that the perception that many are is wrong.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not particularly bothered about who ends up leading the Labour party but Harman has a point. Being the opposition isn't about opposing everything for the sake of opposing, which really is what Labour did during the last parliament and clearly to no good effect since the Tories increased their vote and seats and won the election with a majority.  Opposition is good when it selects based on honest principles and actual values rather than simply shouting 'boo' at everything and anything, including those things upon which the electorate want action.

 

According to comments made by individuals from Labour and the Tories, the electorate is concerned by the size of the welfare budget and also about the unfairness of it.  After all, why should a family on benefits or very low income feel comfortable having lots of children, knowing the state will support them, when those who are on higher wages (but possibly not very much higher wages) have to make decisions about family size because they are unable to afford to support a large family?  Everyone should be taking the creation of a family responsibly. 

 

As for tax credits generally, they were a Brown invention brought in with the forecast costing of £600 million a year.  Last year tax credits cost the taxpayer £3 billion according to reports.  They are clearly unsustainable and all they have done is create a false environment.  This government, rightly, wants to reverse that trend back to when work was work and benefits were for the unemployed - ie those needing a safety net.  They want to make work more attractive, hence the risky policy of introducing a higher minimum wage as well as the rise in tax threshold, and benefits less attractive.  I cannot understand how anyone can argue with that given the original purpose of the formal welfare system in this country.

No she doesn't because the policy is removing benefits from the working poor.  And it's the working poor that Labour was created to help politically.  If all those who've been disadvantaged by the Tories over the years, voted the Tories would never get in. But one of the false "truths" put about by the Sun etc is that "they're all the same."  They're not Labour did more for those on low wages in its 18 years than the Tories ever did or ever will do. It missed its target on child poverty but still reduced it.  This lot are changing the rules on child poverty. The current campaign against benefits is to row back the re-distribution that Gordon Brown did in his years in office.  The least well off are going to cure the deficit, in particular the young because of course they're least likely to vote..  Whereas my generation do and of course Dave wants to make sure they vote Tory.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No she doesn't because the policy is removing benefits from the working poor.  And it's the working poor that Labour was created to help politically.  If all those who've been disadvantaged by the Tories over the years, voted the Tories would never get in. But one of the false "truths" put about by the Sun etc is that "they're all the same."  They're not Labour did more for those on low wages in its 18 years than the Tories ever did or ever will do. It missed its target on child poverty but still reduced it.  This lot are changing the rules on child poverty. The current campaign against benefits is to row back the re-distribution that Gordon Brown did in his years in office.  The least well off are going to cure the deficit, in particular the young because of course they're least likely to vote..  Whereas my generation do and of course Dave wants to make sure they vote Tory.

The benefits for the working poor as you phrase it were introduced in 2003 or 2004 so they are not exactly fundamental to the benefits system given that a whole raft of people functioned perfectly well before tax credits were introduced.  Their loss will be felt by some but not others but they were brought in under the false premise that their cost would be £600 million per year when in fact last year the cost to the taxpayer for tax credits was £3 billion. 

 

Which would you prefer to have: someone's wage being topped up by a handout or someone earning a higher wage for the same job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits for the working poor as you phrase it were introduced in 2003 or 2004 so they are not exactly fundamental to the benefits system given that a whole raft of people functioned perfectly well before tax credits were introduced.  Their loss will be felt by some but not others but they were brought in under the false premise that their cost would be £600 million per year when in fact last year the cost to the taxpayer for tax credits was £3 billion. 

 

Which would you prefer to have: someone's wage being topped up by a handout or someone earning a higher wage for the same job?

I's prefer the latter. But those that get the "living wage" will also lose tax credit, so they'll be worse off anyway.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I's prefer the latter. But those that get the "living wage" will also lose tax credit, so they'll be worse off anyway.

They will also gain more tax though as the threshold is going up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits for the working poor as you phrase it were introduced in 2003 or 2004 so they are not exactly fundamental to the benefits system given that a whole raft of people functioned perfectly well before tax credits were introduced. Their loss will be felt by some but not others but they were brought in under the false premise that their cost would be £600 million per year when in fact last year the cost to the taxpayer for tax credits was £3 billion.

Which would you prefer to have: someone's wage being topped up by a handout or someone earning a higher wage for the same job?

Tax credits don't cost £3billion, it's £30billion. £500 per person and despite earning a low salary I don't get a penny whilst middle class people often do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford investigate benefits system: We found no scroungers and no-one living comfortably

 

Of course that doesn't mean no one is working the system, just that the perception that many are is wrong.

Good god you are scraping the barrel with that

I'll show them 30-40 families locally to me who are professional scroungers,2 of the families went to Las Vegas last year.

Not bad when you've never worked a day in your life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god you are scraping the barrel with that

I'll show them 30-40 families locally to me who are professional scroungers,2 of the families went to Las Vegas last year.

Not bad when you've never worked a day in your life

I think the only people who do well out of benefits are either the small percentage who work illegally and sign on, plus the people who have lots of children and then spend the money on themselves rather than properly looking after their children with it. If you don't have children or a disability then benefits are not much money at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only people who do well out of benefits are either the small percentage who work illegally and sign on, plus the people who have lots of children and then spend the money on themselves rather than properly looking after their children with it.

 

Nailed it

I was in the local shop the other day,the village bike came in, 4 kids under 8 years old by different(well i wont say fathers)sperm donors,current beau is the local handyman(jack of all trades master of none)officially he does'nt work

Wainetta in her designer shellsuit with her mispelt tatoos and her braid hairstyle bought 20 cigs,3 scratchcards and put a fiver each on gas and leccy.Kids looked like a good wash and feed would be the order of the day.

This is just one example of benefits britain,i know 3 brothers in their early forties who's last job was milk monitors at school.Officially

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will also gain more tax though as the threshold is going up again.

Well I'd rather believe the IFS than you or George, and they say that most people on low incomes will be worse off not better off under the new arrangements


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god you are scraping the barrel with that

I'll show them 30-40 families locally to me who are professional scroungers,2 of the families went to Las Vegas last year.

Not bad when you've never worked a day in your life

 

No one wants to see people defrauding the system, but I don't want to see everyone who is genuinely struggling hammered just because a small minority are fiddling the system.

 

If you genuinely know people who are committing fraud don't you think you have a duty to do something about it? Here you go, fill your boots: Report benefit fraud. I suspect however that you actually know as much about these people's finances as well as you know about where I live, in other words, nothing at all.

 

From Full Fact Org: Is benefit fraud at a “record high”?

 

"While this has seen a concurrent growth in fraud in cash terms, the level of fraud as a proportion of the size of the benefits bill has actually remained fairly constant between 0.6% and 0.8% in the past five years, and actually fell in the most recent year."


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to announce my candidency for Prime Minister of Benefits Britain.

 

Instead of wasting Hard Working TaxpayersTM money on the Office for National Statistics, I will be basing all of my policy decisions on anecdotes provided to me by my Minister for Curtain Twitching - "back to the future".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely reducing the society's dependancy on benefits is a good thing for the country as a whole.

 

Benefits should only ever be be for a short term need to help out those people who for whatever reason (redundancy, ill health etc.) can no longer look after themselves. Unfortunately we've become a society where people automatically expect benefits, regardless of whether they've ever contributed to the system or not.

 

Its right & proper that we protect those most in need who cant look after themselves but its fundamentally wrong to make benefits universal and with a system thats so open to abuse the Government agencies have lost all control (every political party has played its part in creating this over the last few decades).

 

I used to work with a young lady who at 18 earned a resonable wage (£16K for an 18 year old with next to no qualifications). She had her 1st child and returned to work 6 months later. After her 2nd child she gave up work all together and now 8 years later she has 5 kids, lives entirely on benefits and has no intention of returning to work. She claims every possible benefit she can, has a partner who works every now & again (when he can be bothered) and also claims every benefit he can. 

Now i'm sure there will be many of you reading this thinking, wow she must have it tough bringing up 5 kids and having to 'survive' on benefits.

Well she lives in a nice 4 bedroom semi, has a foreign holiday every year, every one of her kids has an i-pad (including the 1 year old) and boasted on facebook only a few weeks ago how she had just spent £300 on a Prada handbag to take away on holiday.

 

I bet there are millions of hard working people & families who would love a lifestyle like this but can only dream of it. I challenge anyone to claim the benefits system in this country isn't broken ! There is a fundamental need to redress the balance that rewards the workers and only helps those that really need it. 


This is captain Juncker speaking. The EU gravy train is about to enter Brussels, so will all Brits please exit at the next stop

To all remaining passengers, thank you for your continued custom and contributions to my pension fund

Kind Regards - YOUR PRESIDENT !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...