Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ckn

£12bn in welfare cuts

Recommended Posts

Just reminds me of A Christmas Carol.  IDS is a very modern day Ebenezer Scrooge although he's just the latest in line.

"Are there no prisons?"

"Plenty of prisons..."

"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"Both very busy, sir..."

"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."

"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"
"They are Man’s," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!"

 

Nailed on proof for me of ignorance is the Remploy factory closures because they weren't profitable, it's still a subject that's ignored by most of the media that there's just not the opportunities any longer in the areas where factories were closed.  That isn't a party political point as it was Labour who started the rot in 2007 but ably continued and privatised by stealth a few months ago.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really do have to stop thinking of the world in terms of you as a sample of one. Teenage pregnancy rates are the lowest now since records began in 1969. The data just do not confirm what you think. The difference is in the way society 'solves' the problem. Young mothers are encouraged to keep their babies these days whereas they were encouraged into adoption 40 years ago.

And to address your last sentence - the rate of conception amongst 15 to 17 year olds is 2.5% which is hardly not exceptional is it?

But I aren't thinking of a sample of one. I'm applying what I know to be true. I could have gone 'oh they're all getting pregnant these days for a council house' but I am only stating some of what I know to be true based on where I grew up.

If this place were a quirk then I would accept that it's just an anomaly and leave it at that. But it isn't and more to the point wasn't like this before, so what changed?

There's a row of new (housing assoc)houses I go past, built on where there used to be flats. Of this row, there are many occupied by young single parents. This simply wasn't the case in the past, and whether studies show it or not this is a common scenario. The problem is, or at least part of it, is that this is seen as *the* goal in life for many and it's this mentality that needs addressing.

By the way, do those pregnancy figures include abortion numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I aren't thinking of a sample of one. I'm applying what I know to be true. I could have gone 'oh they're all getting pregnant these days for a council house' but I am only stating some of what I know to be true based on where I grew up.

If this place were a quirk then I would accept that it's just an anomaly and leave it at that. But it isn't and more to the point wasn't like this before, so what changed?

There's a row of new (housing assoc)houses I go past, built on where there used to be flats. Of this row, there are many occupied by young single parents. This simply wasn't the case in the past, and whether studies show it or not this is a common scenario. The problem is, or at least part of it, is that this is seen as *the* goal in life for many and it's this mentality that needs addressing.

By the way, do those pregnancy figures include abortion numbers?

 

 

You are simply wrong and like most of your reactionary views it is based upon anecdote, prejudice and misconception (sic!). You also seem to have a complete block on learning anything new if it challenges your narrow viewpoint. Teenage pregnancy rates are the lowest now since records began in 1969. Rate of conception is 2.5% with 1.3% of those being aborted. The crux of the issue is that the number of babies born to teenage mothers who are then adopted is 1.5% of what it was 40 years ago.  So, yes that means that there are more teenage mothers WITH their babies but there are NOT more babies. I would have thought that as a civilised society we want to give young mothers and their children all the support we can instead of turning them into social pariahs like we used to in the 'good old days'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unacceptable and I'm sure Field has the evidence. hes maybe the only Labour MP with any credibility in this area.

It's true though, what you say about an organisation and is membersfollowing the lead of the top man. Past examples: Foot, Blair, Brown, Miliband. What does That tell you about yourself?

But I never worked for any of the above.  Those who asked terminally ill patients when they think they'll die must have received their instructions from somewhere. The buck stops with IDS.   And unlike you John I certainly never voted for him or his ilk.


“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

Teenage pregnancy rates are the lowest now since records began in 1969. Rate of conception is 2.5%

 

Considering the population has grown by around 10 million since 1969 then this would mean that there are more babies born to teenagers than previously (i.e. the total number, not as a percentage or a 'rate') so Johnoco's observation could well be valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are simply wrong and like most of your reactionary views it is based upon anecdote, prejudice and misconception (sic!). You also seem to have a complete block on learning anything new if it challenges your narrow viewpoint. Teenage pregnancy rates are the lowest now since records began in 1969. Rate of conception is 2.5% with 1.3% of those being aborted. The crux of the issue is that the number of babies born to teenage mothers who are then adopted is 1.5% of what it was 40 years ago.  So, yes that means that there are more teenage mothers WITH their babies but there are NOT more babies. I would have thought that as a civilised society we want to give young mothers and their children all the support we can instead of turning them into social pariahs like we used to in the 'good old days'.

I was trying to be polite but balls to that, you clearly can't stand anyone to disagree with your 6th form politics. I prefer to base my views on what I know to be true rather than what you or the media try to tell me is true.

I'm pretty sure that UKIP could produce a report that showed all the darkies were stealing the jobs but I would be surprised if anyone took it seriously, similarly you can throw as many statistics as you like at me - I aren't going to stop believing what I believe. So jog on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are simply wrong and like most of your reactionary views it is based upon anecdote, prejudice and misconception (sic!). You also seem to have a complete block on learning anything new if it challenges your narrow viewpoint. Teenage pregnancy rates are the lowest now since records began in 1969. Rate of conception is 2.5% with 1.3% of those being aborted. The crux of the issue is that the number of babies born to teenage mothers who are then adopted is 1.5% of what it was 40 years ago.  So, yes that means that there are more teenage mothers WITH their babies but there are NOT more babies. I would have thought that as a civilised society we want to give young mothers and their children all the support we can instead of turning them into social pariahs like we used to in the 'good old days'.

I think the point that was originally made was that there appear to be more teenage mothers now than previously rather than more teenagers getting pregnant and I would support that view but it would be anecdote from me also.  I think you will find an awful lot of people would agree with the view that there are more teenage mothers around these days than, say, 30 years ago.  I would also guess that most of them are supported by the state: that is my taxes and your taxes as invariably they won't have paid a penny over VAT into the system themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we defining teenage? There were probably more married 18 and 19 year olds having children in the 1970s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we defining teenage? There were probably more married 18 and 19 year olds having children in the 1970s

They were married though and so had support.  Generally speaking in the 1970s the male would be working.  Teenage parents today are often on their own, especially the younger ones.  They are provided for by the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit where it's due the minimum wage rise is very good news

Except it's a cut on where the Living Wage is now. And take into account the cuts in Tax Credits it's a major reduction in the income of the poorest members of the workforce. Smoke and mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it won't be a living wage with the other cuts. And it's only for over 25's.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it's a cut on where the Living Wage is now. And take into account the cuts in Tax Credits it's a major reduction in the income of the poorest members of the workforce. Smoke and mirrors.

The living wage now is meaningless. This will actually be the minimum wage employers have to pay by law, rather than a well meaning suggestion by a think tank that has no effect on the real world.

 

Low paid workers without children will be better off (as the threshold to get tax credits is absurdly low) and those with one or two children may be better off once you remember that whatever is cut in tax credits they will get 65% of back in increased Housing Benefit eligibility. It's not good news for people with lots of children, or just below average earners getting tax credits though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Is there an increase in housing benefit eligibility?....thought it was being reduced

What happens is income for housing benefit purposes included tax credits, so above a certain threshold each extra £1 of income (after tax) sees you lose 65p in Housing Benefit. Therefore each £1 less you have in tax credits, you'll lose 65p less Housing Benefit.

There were proposals to cut Housing Benefit by 10% but these appear to have been axed as they've decided to cut benefits over 4 years not 2 and frozen Housing Benefit instead.

There will be cuts for 18-21 year olds with exceptions such as having children, a disability or not being able to live with their parents. Personally I think this is a big mistake and will actually cost more as it costs at least twice as much to house someone in a homeless hostel as it does with a private landlord in a shared house, say

Edited by bowes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the BBC give a good thumbnail sketch of the benefits element of the budget here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390

 

I'm not sure what is so controversial about any of that?

 

(And I speak as someone who has just, yet again, become unemployed thanks to being unable to secure a permanent job instead of an endless series of temporary ones!)

 

From the same site here are the key points of the budget (as defined by the BBC):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33440315

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the BBC give a good thumbnail sketch of the benefits element of the budget here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390

 

I'm not sure what is so controversial about any of that?

 

(And I speak as someone who has just, yet again, become unemployed thanks to being unable to secure a permanent job instead of an endless series of temporary ones!)

I'm sorry that you're unemployed again.  Seriously, it's never a nice thing for someone who wants to work not being employed.

 

Effectively, benefits have been cut with the freeze as things will go up in price.  Domestic fuel is expected to rise again this year, food prices can't go lower as the supermarket price war is now causing pain to all the majors, insurance is going to go up due to tax increases, rents will go up and so on.  Then there's the other kicker that if you're disabled, that little extra you had to provide for your needs is gone.  How is that going to address the real needs of society, especially the continued growth of food and now energy banks?

 

Where are these people supposed to get jobs?  If the incentive is to get someone working who hasn't worked for a while then how will that work?  I've seen in both private and public sector where people get discriminated against if they've been out of work.

 

I was going go on for a bit longer but then I doubt I could convince you, you're obviously right, the Tories giving businesses YET ANOTHER large corporation tax cut and cutting the bank levy is the right thing to do and to fund that the poorest people in Britain should doff their caps and be grateful that they can help pay for it.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can gather (and feel free to correct me where appropriate) the general premise is this:

If you don't have a job, you're stuffed as your benefits will be reduced.

If you're on low income you'll receive less in benefits but that will be partially compensated by the introduction of the living wage and elevation of the income tax threshold....though the latter two will inevitably come after the former, potentially crippling many.

The "burden" of the living wage introduction will be alleviated for small businesses by the reduction of corporate tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£47 billion in Tax rises... not sure that was in the manifesto...


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you're unemployed again.  Seriously, it's never a nice thing for someone who wants to work not being employed.

 

Effectively, benefits have been cut with the freeze as things will go up in price.  Domestic fuel is expected to rise again this year, food prices can't go lower as the supermarket price war is now causing pain to all the majors, insurance is going to go up due to tax increases, rents will go up and so on.  Then there's the other kicker that if you're disabled, that little extra you had to provide for your needs is gone.  How is that going to address the real needs of society, especially the continued growth of food and now energy banks?

 

Where are these people supposed to get jobs?  If the incentive is to get someone working who hasn't worked for a while then how will that work?  I've seen in both private and public sector where people get discriminated against if they've been out of work.

 

I was going go on for a bit longer but then I doubt I could convince you, you're obviously right, the Tories giving businesses YET ANOTHER large corporation tax cut and cutting the bank levy is the right thing to do and to fund that the poorest people in Britain should doff their caps and be grateful that they can help pay for it.

There are plenty of jobs around ck.  I know that because I look at four websites daily!  I can't get a permanent one myself because nobody wants me permanently these days :cry: (I know, I can't believe it either).  As for long term unemployed, there have always been people out of work long term and for many years there has been assistance available to them.  But there will always be some who will genuinely want work but for whatever reason will struggle to get it, regardless of who is in parliament and how much they are given from the taxpayer.  There is no such thing as actual full employment, only technical full employment.  But you knew that anyway.

 

Yes, I am in support of reigning in benefits.  Apparently once these cuts are implemented the spend will return to 2007/2008 levels.  I am not sure why that is a bad thing, especially at present when inflation is at 0.5%.  Even though I am unemployed again myself now, I know that it is right that unemployment should not be comfortable.  It was never meant to be comfortable.  The welfare state was created to provide a safety net, not a comfort blanket. 

 

What some on the left don't appear to appreciate is that in order for businesses to create jobs, they have to make profits so that they can re-invest into the business.  Taxing businesses at the rate they have been taxed in the past is not going to create the environment in which businesses will be inclined to invest either in jobs or in better pay (and you have missed out the reference to the increase in the minimum wage that is coming, a cost that companies are going to have to bear).

 

Overall I think the budget is a good one.  I thought it would be harsher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can gather (and feel free to correct me where appropriate) the general premise is this:

 

Let me pick apart your points:

 

 

If you don't have a job, you're stuffed as your benefits will be reduced.

Incorrect.  I have just applied for the new Universal Credit. Although it is now paid monthly rather than fortnightly as JSA was when I was last unemployed (a year ago), I will be given £2.00 more in unemployment benefit than I was last year.  I don't have children or a live-in partner.

 

 

If you're on low income you'll receive less in benefits but that will be partially compensated by the introduction of the living wage and elevation of the income tax threshold....though the latter two will inevitably come after the former, potentially crippling many.

Don't they all come at the same time?  I haven't checked but I thought they were all due in April next year? The advantage to the increase in the tax threshold of course is that everyone will benefit, including people like me in my last job where I earned only £7.00 per hour and received no benefits at all.

 

 

The "burden" of the living wage introduction will be alleviated for small businesses by the reduction of corporate tax.

As it should be.  Small businesses invariable have small profit margins.  Why would you want increased unemployment due to small businesses failing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a nothing less than a cynical attempt to destroy the welfare state.

Tosh.  It is bringing the welfare state back to more reasonable proportions.  It was out of hand.

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...