- This topic has 50 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paul / Simon .. the question still remains unanswered as to what all of these people are going to do?
A friend of mine who has been out of work for ages went on a work experience effort last year, he was cleaning grafitti off walls in soe scheme up in Kilmarnock along side people doing community service. Needless to say it hardly inspired him to take a job on the minimum wage and be worse off.
The economy shrunk by 0.2% in Q4 2011 which means less jobs to go around.
Despite the libcon obsession with the disabled and less fortunate in society there simply aren’t the jobs to go around. Hence why the OPs question is a nonsense as the government proposal is utter bollokspeak.
If my remark is any more obnoxious than allowing over 250 British Servicemen to be needlessly killed in the Falklands Conflict so that she could retain political power then I apologize.
This an oft-quoted fallacy – that Thatcher saw an opportunity to increase her popularity by invading The Falklands.
That’s not what happened.
In fact, she was endlessly warned against it by the military, the foreign office and her own party, who’s senior members all believed it would be the nail in the coffin in her already waning popularity.
The idea that she ‘knew’ the outcome would enable her to retain power was absolute nonsense. The overwhelming feeling was that this was the end for her.
Until Britain regained the islands of course…
Mike
Paul / Simon ..
the question still remains unanswered as to what all of these people are going to do?
A friend of mine who has been out of work for ages went on a work experience effort last year, he was cleaning grafitti off walls in soe scheme up in Kilmarnock along side people doing community service. Needless to say it hardly inspired him to take a job on the minimum wage and be worse off.
The economy shrunk by 0.2% in Q4 2011 which means less jobs to go around.
Despite the libcon obsession with the disabled and less fortunate in society there simply aren’t the jobs to go around. Hence why the OPs question is a nonsense as the government proposal is utter bollokspeak.
No, it doesn’t, it’s been said – a large percentage of the 1.5 million plus people who claim they are disabled will be given opportunities of work-like experience to help them understand that they can rejoin the labour market, should they take them they will then simply have to sign on once a fortnight to carry on receiving their benefits and shold they not take them they can provide for themselves.
There is no obsession with disabled people and ‘disabled’ is a tag that shouldn’t be used these days – when the word is used many think of people in wheelchairs and those physically incapable of working but in benefit terms, disabled is somebody who hasn’t worked for 26 weeks because they have a bit of back pain or feel a bit stressed, etc.
As I’ve already said, I have great admiration for the truly disabled people I have worked with – people in wheelchairs or completely blind – the sort if you took their wheelchair or dog away could not move, let alone get to the post office to cash a giro, but they work.
The government proposals are simply to address the anomaly that we and previous administrations have created in that all it requires to ‘make yourself disabled’ is to convince your GP to sign you off for six months and GPs feel encouraged or pressured into dishing out certificates.
There are far too many people claiming benefits as sick or ‘disabled’ and the proposals are simply designed to get people onto the right benefits, if they are entitled to any.
The definition of "disabled" seems to be crucial.
All the Welfare Reform Bill seems to say about that (clause 40) is:
<<“disabled” has such meaning as may be prescribed>>.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p … 4_en_1.htm
What is the present definition of "disabled", and what (if any) change is proposed to that definition?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the intended "austerity" measures the coalition would introduce, there has been a basic flaw in the policies of recent governments in assuming that (for whatever reasons) a life on benefits is somehow "acceptable" for a large section of society and their families. Both Labour and Conservatives (but especially Labour) fail to understand that camping people on benefits demeans them and leads to a poverty of aspiration; a sense of dependency and hopelessness; an under-class.
The welfare state has ceased to be a safety net but has become a safety blanket where those on it for any length become too frightened or lacking in confidence and self-respect to let go of it. In doing so, they often unitentionally, condemn their children and their communities to a sad, wasteful life.
No one is suggesting (not even the evil, baby slaughtering, kitten-crushing Conservatives that some on here would have it) that those truly physically or mentally incapable of work should have that safety net withdrawn. Those who can work should. As for the argument that there aren’t the jobs to go around? Some merit in that, but I know a local businessman who’s been trying to employ two people to do part-time jobs for £7.50 an hour x 15hrs per week . In the end he employed two Polish teenagers; the English applicants attitude was that it wasn’t worth them losing chunks of benefit to get out of bed to do the work. That’s a very common scenario. A poverty of ambition a poverty of aspiration, a poverty of self-worth, fuelled by politicians too afraid to be "cruel" to be kind, until now perhaps. But don’t expect those on the benefit comfort-blanket and their apologists in the Independent, Guardian, BBC and CofE bishops to acknowledge that.I agree with most of what you say Insomniac we should get people out of "Cradle to Grave" benefits dependency. We are inching towards 3 million unemployed again though, so where are the jobs going to come from to employ those forced off benefits?
Personally I think that community work should be a condition of receiving benefits (for all that are able,) and the severing of the link between the size of the family and the size of the benefit handout. A flat rate "family allowance" regardless of the size of the family may make people more diligent in their use of contraception.
With regards to community work, the people themselves should be allowed to have a say what projects are undertaken in their area (rather than from a Westminster or Borough Council edict,) and that they should be supported, even if it was something as simple as turning waste ground into a community allotment garden where the local unemployed could tend the fruit and veg and share it out among themselves when ready or sell them at farmer’s markets and return the profits to the treasury whichever gives the general taxpayer a better deal.
Those who refuse to take part should have their benefits cut by degree until they get nothing. If individuals within society want to continue to support them in doing nothing they could do so through charitable donations.
While I would not wish illness upon anybody, I do have a great belief that you life treats you as you treat others.
Not a comment worthy of you EF. Go as far to say a stupid comment.
Don’t know what my grandmother did to deserve alzheimers. You could not wish to meet a more caring person before the disease hit.Value Is EverythingSome excellent posts, particularly by SBerry and Insomniac.
There’s a village near me named Enham Alamein where disabled have worked for many years under Enham Industries. Giving rehabilitation hope and showing what work they can do.
Value Is Everythinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
Probably 40k a year gross all in, obviously everyone on here earns much more than that and money doesn’t come into thoughts where having children are concerned.
Good to see they’re able to cover their SkyTV, internet, mobile phones, 24 cans of lager, 200 cigs and a couple of ounces of baccy a week from their meagre gratis.
Maybe Corm should start a forum sponsorship going so we can see if we can get them away for a sunny holiday or two before they bang another kid out?
Does anybody think it would be wrong to at least expect people to have to turn up somewhere and do something like work in exchange for this?
Bipolar disorder, mood swings, depression = disabled/can’t work!
Here’s a copy of James Delingpole’s blog from the
Daily Telegraph
regarding the article on the BBC website that Sberry refers to in previous post:-
… this glorious piece of unintentional comedy from the BBC News website is too good to miss. (H/T Nicholas Jones)
It analyses what BBC reporter Julian Joyce seems to believe is the heartrending plight of a family in Wales struggling to get by on benefits. Apparently – claims unemployed father-of-seven Raymond ("not his real name" – love that detail!) – if the Government manages to enact its heartless scheme to impose a £26,000 per annum cap on welfare benefits, then it could be a "choice between heating or eating."
Unfortunately, all sympathy for this family evaporates when Joyce goes into more detail about their budget. We learn, for example, that their weekly shopping bill includes "24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco." They also spend £32 a week on mobiles and £5 on their Sky TV subscription. But all this is now threatened by the heartless fascist Coalition government: why, if it gets its evil way, then this family’s £30,284.80 annual benefit package will shrink by £82.40 a week!
In case we fail to see why this is very sad, the reporter whips out an onion:Unemployed father-of-seven Raymond (not his real name) and his family rent a former council house on a social housing estate in north Wales. They do not own a car or take a regular annual holiday.
Raymond, a former educational software writer, has been jobless since 2001. His wife Katherine suffers from bipolar disorder with an anxiety disorder and is unable to work.
Says Ray: "The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago – there’s a total lack of work in my area of expertise."The whole piece is such a textbook case study of a) why Britain is completely screwed and b) the prevailing BBC-fomented left-liberal cultural assumptions which explain why we got into this mess and why it’s going to be so hard to get out of it that you almost wonder whether Julian Joyce is in fact not a right wing plant parachuted into the BBC by the Conservative party’s black ops department.
It’s worth reading some of the 600 plus comments below to realise just how badly this sob-story jars with the national mood. Or at least the national mood among that part of the country which actually works for its living.
"They do not own a car or take a regular annual holiday"? I should ruddy well hope not if we’re footing the bill.
"The market for my skills dried up 10 years ago"? Then retrain, you workshy sod.
"Father-of-seven?" Meanwhile in the private sector, hardworking couples think long and hard before having another child, recognising as they do that kids cost enormous amounts of money which they – as respectable people with a work ethic – fully expect to have to pay out of their own income, rather than as the feckless underclass do by spongeing off the state.
"bipolar disorder with anxiety disorder". Know the feeling, love. I too find myself daily crippled with anxiety about the fact that our economy is tanking, in part at least to the massive burden being placed on it by people with convenient mental problems which render them "too ill" to work. That’ll be why, for example, you never, ever see Stephen Fry on TV do you? Hmm. Stephen Fry whatever happened to him? Oh yes, that’s right. He’s a depressive. He’s got bipolar disorder. He can’t work, can he? Hasn’t done for years…I am not a Torliberal but happy to provide some balance to the argument.
I’m also not any apologist for benefit fraud or those lack lazy or dysfunctional who choose to defraud the system. I do think that this kind of demonization of welfare recipients represents an easy target when you take some perspective on what it actually costs this country. The majority of people who will be affected by this £26k cap are often decent families, often on low wages who receive a few thousand pounds per annum quite legally in welfare payments to top up their earnings.
I understand that something like £30bn of fraudulent activity takes place each year in the UK and benefit fraud accounts for around £1.1bn. Reportedly tax fraud, which receives negligible coverage in the mainstream press, accounts for £15.2bn. How about more resources put into tackling tax evasion rather than using benefit fraud as a cover for cuts to genuine claimants. I do not see any political grandstanding about or press demonization about the “acceptable” crime of Tax fraud. But of course I am being a leftie by pointing this out.
If you want a bit more perspective you could consider the amount of money saved from taking the surplus over £26k balanced away from these families against the cost of the £850bn banking bail out. Or balance against Mr. Goodwin’s pension pot and the fine bonus packages that our financial institutions will be paying out this year. I suppose we all have to tighten our belts in this recession.
I also understand that Citizens Advice Bureau research suggests that as much as £16bn in benefits goes unclaimed by those legally entitled to it.
There’s a subtle difference between Benefit Fraud and Tax Fraud:
Benefit Fraud is an attempt to get something that wasn’t earnt
Tax Fraud is an attempt to keep something that was earntBenefit fraudsters don’t contribute to societal wealth and take what isn’t theirs by right
I want what isn’t mine
Tax fraudsters do contribute to societal wealth and take what isn’t theirs by right
I want to keep what is mine
Which is quite possibly the reason that so many – including the government it would seem – find the former more vexing than the latter
I, however, tend to think that in earning a gross salary/wage you do so on the understanding that a percentage is held on trust on behalf of HMRC and as you are privileged to live in a democracy in which the dustbins are emptied every week, the motorways maintained and health care free it’s your civic duty to declare the percentage held on trust as tax at the going rate
Hence I side with Kevin above. Benefit fraud is viscerally irksome but relatively inconsequential; tax fraud less blood-boiling but far more consequential
Whilst tax avoidance is fine, tax FRAUD is clearly wrong. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with claiming benefits but benefit FRAUD is wrong.
It is, intentionally or othewise, an oft used argument to try and diminish one wrong by comparing it with another, larger wrong. It’s easy to do (I do it quite a lot) but I know it’s disingenious and intelectually sloppy.
To say something like "call off the hounds from the benefit cheats ‘cos tax fraudsters cost more or more in benefits goes unclaimed" might, at first reading. seem a reasonable point. However, take it a bit further. Imagine someone you loved had just been attacked or raped, how much credence would you give to the defence barrister saying, "go easy on him your honour, he never actuallykilled
her."
It is quite clearly acceptable to say "stop benefit fraud" and "stop tax fraud" – the two opinions are clearly compatible and attempts by some of the more intelectually challenged media pundits to say that the coalition (or evil right-wing neo-nazi puppy -strangling Conservatives) only go after benefit fraudsters is plain wrong. But a crime is a crime is a crime.
Trying to defend benefit FRAUDSTERS by showing their crime (for that is what it is) in a more favourable light is no defence at all.BTW I’d rather think that, whatever the fraud (tax or benefit), the people who suffer most from it (if you assume that with every crime there’s a loser) are the poorer people in society, the very people lefties would have us believe they are trying to help.
(Although one could argue that the depressed areas of cities like Liverpool and Glasgow haven’t exactly improved in spite of, for the most part, left-wing / liberal councils and MPs.)The analogy about rape is just silly. I am not defending benefit fraud or any kind of fraud.
"Tax avoidance is fine". A matter of opinion and a fine line between avoidance and fraud. I
"Philip Green is not a non-dom. He lives in the UK. He works in the UK. He pays tax on his salary in the UK. All seems to be in order. Until you realise that Philip Green does not actually own any of the Arcadia group that he spends every day running. Instead, it is in the name of his wife who has not done a single day’s work for the company. Mrs Green lives in Monaco, where she pays not a penny of income tax.
In 2005 Philip Green awarded himself £1.2bn, the biggest paycheck in British corporate history. But this dividend payout was channelled through a network of offshore accounts, via tax havens in Jersey and eventually to Green’s wife’s Monaco bank account. The dodge saved Green, and cost the tax payer, close to £300m. This tax arrangement remains in place. Any time it takes his fancy, Green can pay himself huge sums of money without having to pay any tax."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s … ce-network
Tax avoidance costs UK economy £69.9 billion a year
Posted by Mark Jenner – 25 November 2011 09:15
New report from the Tax Justice Network highlights the staggering extent of global tax evasion.Protesting against tax avoidance is about to become a much more mainstream activity. Photo: Getty Images
In March earlier this year The Spectator published an article ‘Debunking UK Uncut’ over their campaign against tax avoidance. The author — Nick Hayns from the Institute for Economic Affairs — pleaded with readers not to let "UK Uncut get away with throwing all logic out of the window." But as nations across Europe feel the sting of reduced living standards, the true extent of global tax avoidance — as revealed today by the Tax Justice Network — will act to bolster feelings that such injustice can no longer be swept aside with the kind of insouciance Hayn displays.
The research, based on data from 145 countries, shows that tax evasion costs those nations $3.1 trillion annually. In the UK’s case £69.9 billion is lost on a yearly basis in what the Tax Justice Network call the "shadow economy." That figure, they point out, "represents 56% of the country’s total healthcare spend."
On the back of this report the Tax Justice Network has launched its campaign to Tackle Tax Havens. An initiative aimed at propelling tax avoidance up the political agenda by highlighting, in simple terms, the sheer scale of the sums involved and how they translate into increased cuts in public services for the rest of us.
But is tax avoidance immoral? Toby Young wrote for The Telegraph back in February that "Tax avoidance isn’t morally wrong. It’s perfectly sensible behaviour." While it might be true from a purely business point of view that tax avoidance is a great way to boost profits, Young conflates what is logical for a business to do, with what is the right thing to do from a societal or moral point of view.
Curiously while parts of the rightwing commentariat insist that deficit reduction is the number one task, they seem little interested in measures that might actually reduce the deficit, namely ensuring companies pay the tax they owe.
"Tax evasion is morally repugnant…It’s stealing from law-abiding people, who face higher taxes to make good the lost revenue." This quote could well come from one of the much derided Occupy LSX group, but no, it’s our very own Conservative chancellor. The Institute of Directors’ have also supported proposals from QC Graham Aaronson to implement a general anti-avoidance rule that would "deter egregious tax-avoidance".
So could the tide finally be turning for those who cheat the system? Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK, that undertook the research for the Tax Justice Network, says: "If only more had been done to tackle rampant tax evasion, Europe would not be facing a crisis today." Adding that to compel both business and the tax havens themselves to be transparent in their dealings would "shatter the secrecy of tax havens for good." Nothing, he goes on, "could make a bigger contribution than this to solving the world’s financial crisis".Great posts from you Kevin .. nothing like a bit of reality to wake the chumps up lol !!
http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/cover/news/2 … -macmillan
the libcons also hate people with cancer, might as well starve them to death, they will probably die anyway?
yeah we have looked
at the top and the bottom
of society and both
are trying to crank
some advantage.
Moralities change
but what interests me
is…
what decides
what stimulates
what motivates
what endures..So come and dance with me Jai Ho
You and me its destiny(JAI HO)
baila baila
baila baila
JAI HO
baila baila
JAI HO
JAI HO
JAI HOsorry Dave
if it is an oddossey
and if it has to taste like this
I don’t care if my electrolytes
are imbalanced or not
the dance above beats
the dishonest stick and
sister sledges
the affluent
evasive prick
off its balance sheetWE ARE
JAI HO
baila
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.