Osborne to cut benefits

[chadded]

What they do want to achieve is to get the shiftless off their collective arses.

Government hit squads. It's the future.

Alternatively, compulsory sterilisation and vasectomy's for those who fail to get 10 GCSE's at 16.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Government hit squads. It's the future.

Alternatively, compulsory sterilisation and vasectomy's for those who fail to get 10 GCSE's at 16.

With the current exam standards, a single-celled organism could get ten C grades or higher. If you can't manage that, you should be put down rather than sterilized.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

What you call fraud, some people call 'tax planning', an area of expertise that creates jobs and tax revenues in itself. These 'evil corporations' also employ millions of people all over the world, who also pay taxes. They might not contribute everything that you're loathsome little socialist mind would like (ie 99% of their profits), but they do contribute something. Which is more than can be said for you and the loafing classes who feel that the world owes them a plasma TV and Sky plus.

You're being slightly unkind here. It'll be 20% VAT on plasmas and the tax on cigarettes is huge.

 

[osymandus]

In the main I am referring to New Deal which took lots of of under 18's out of the unemployment figures.

A point a lot are missing is that while the Government want to institute benefit cuts, it's where they want to cut. They won't IMO for instance reduce the basic rates of Jobseekers Allowance nor that of Incapacity Benefit. What they do want to achieve is to get the shiftless off their collective arses. Labour in Government created a class totally dependent on the benefits system, and therefore they would be in turn reliant on their votes, assuming of course that many of these can spell X.

I've said this before Labour with unprecedented good will missed a trick when Blair bottled out of his much vaunted promise to think the unthinkable on social and welfare reform. It's the current Government that reap the whirlwind of Blair's cowardice and Brown's intransigence.

Sosman : Tsk bringing facts and historical accuracies to an argument in shrimperzone tsk (top an )

CS : Totally agree 2 big tricks missed in that the 18 year olds who we're not of academic abaility but say in need of apprenticeships in more hands on skills or vocations were not given enough backing or help . And Frank field removed from sorting benifits .
But then if you had home grown cheap labour whats teh point in shipping them on mass and keep other countries in the world at a lower rate of economic wealth taht you can use as a multinaitonal to help sell your product ;)

If you have an educated work force some might start questioning business ethics and motives and not just blindly want profit year in year out (some might even want a balance of life and work , and job share to ensure other peopel have job's as well !!!) Crazy idea's like that

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, you are not talking about the same thing at all. Brigadista appears to be making reference to tax evasion, whereas you are talking about tax avoidance. The latter is legal and is supported by the industry that you refer to. It involves ways (some of which are somewhat inventive) of minimising tax to be paid within current legislation. Tax evasion is deceiving the taxman and unlawfully not paying what is due.

Brigadista refers to fraud, which of course is a reference to tax evasion. He makes a very legitimate point in that whilst the government have talked hard about action on benefit fraud, where is the similar tough talk on tax evasion, the consequences of which dwarfs benefit fraud many times over? It would be far more sensible and economical to concentrate energies on combatting tax exasion rather than benefit fraud, given the numbers are so much greater. However, that doesn't tie in with Osborne and his chums, nor does it play so nicely with the Daily Mail et al.

(Incidentally, the suggestion that the tax avoidance industry pays for itself in tax on the benefits earned is ridiculous. If you think about it, the tax saved by them must exceed their earnings, otherwise the industry would be uneconomic, so it follows that their tax receipts, no more than 40% of the earnings in question, must be a tiny fraction).

And you seriously think that little scrote has the slightest inkling on the difference between avoidance and evasion? All he wants is for anyone who has worked hard and achieved success to be fiscally crucified so that he can feel better about his wretched existence. I also never claimed that the tax planning industry might pay for itself, I merely stated that it contributed something, rather than just taking.

What we really need to address (other than douchebag liberal know-nothings in cardigans and sandals) is not so much benefit fraud, but the entire benefits culture. We have spawned an underclass of feckless worthless layabouts who think that the world owes them a good living and will punch Johnny Taxpayer in the gonads to get it. These people contribute nothing but filth, violence and moral degradation to our society, and yet they get a free pass because you're more concerned about someone who has the sense to put some of his money offshore because he doesn't feel like handing it over to the Government's latest multicultural spending spree.

As for your 'Daily Mail' blast? Wow, that was good. Child please.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sosman : Tsk bringing facts and historical accuracies to an argument in shrimperzone tsk (top an )

You're mistaking 'facts and historical accuracies' with a load of tripe that you happen to agree with. As well as your mutilation of the English language, you have a hard time distinguishing facts from your opinions. I post my opinion and you post your opinion. As well as about fifty three indecipherable 'wrods'.

 

[osymandus]

You're mistaking 'facts and historical accuracies' with a load of tripe that you happen to agree with. As well as your mutilation of the English language, you have a hard time distinguishing facts from your opinions. I post my opinion and you post your opinion. As well as about fifty three indecipherable 'wrods'.

I believe you will find you project your annoyances as fact's "And you seriously think that little scrote has the slightest inkling on the difference between avoidance and evasion?" You gave various test's to asses his level of understanding of the differnce of Tax evasion and Avoidance ? Sosman has repeated what has been stated as historical fact of the early 80's . It is exactly what the Conservative goverment did . Along with the removal of Disabled people from the last and those ejected from the system.

Though in your last rant... reply to Sosman you do state , on which i think we all agreed about ... on page one of this discussion that the Benefits system need's reforming . Aside from stereotypical personifications of deep seeded hated, towards a fantasy liberal(though as you seem to label anyone not on the right side of "blue" the same i have no idea how you differentiate ) . Are you actually offering anything to this topic ?

I believe we were getting to the point of reform in benefits , tax and social ideology as a whole , most likely the only sensible formula is with a cross political spectrum agreement , as history show's one shade after sod's it up. Much like your ran... i mean replies

 

[DTS]

First off we have seen there are jobs out there. Sadly a lot of British people think certain jobs are beneath them and a life on benefits pats more than busting a gut for 35 hours a week in a low paid job.

Secondly if the governent hadn't got to pay for all these people that are unemployed long term then maybe they could start to invest in business or start to offer tax breaks to new business or to attract foreign investment.

I firmly believe in support for people out of work but that help should not be indefinate and if a fit member of society cannot or will not find work I would like to see them put to work on community projects to repay back some of the support they are being given.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You're right, steveo - it can be done. My illustrious careeer is a prime example - from the rigours of domestic assistantry at Runwell ('Dirty Jobs' by The Who anyone?) to round the clock hours on Social Work call just shows what can be done with 'pull yourself up by your boots-strappery.' But I couldn't have done it without the support of the dear old welfare state along the way. I am more than a bit worried about the cuts though.

But you're "illustrious career"also includes a long spell at WHSB and a batch of O and A levels along with an Upper Second Degree.You could perhaps be deemed to have underachieved but I suspect you're happy enough "cleaning windows."
I agree with your comments about the welfare state and the cuts BTW.

 

[osymandus]

First off we have seen there are jobs out there. Sadly a lot of British people think certain jobs are beneath them and a life on benefits pats more than busting a gut for 35 hours a week in a low paid job.

Secondly if the governent hadn't got to pay for all these people that are unemployed long term then maybe they could start to invest in business or start to offer tax breaks to new business or to attract foreign investment.

I firmly believe in support for people out of work but that help should not be indefinate and if a fit member of society cannot or will not find work I would like to see them put to work on community projects to repay back some of the support they are being given.

!) Yes there are and this is why we needed the review to make it finical viable to get off the benefits here . Some people on here are forgetting you work to get money to pay for things . The reason why they seem like scroungers is because they buy consumer products to keep themselves occupied . The incentive is to exist as a consumer not as a productive individual .

2) Business has already had the tax breaks which is how it got to the stage it did pre finical crisis . The entrepreneurial idea is great don;t get me wrong , but remember the existing businesses don;t relay want serious competition . It's not as if New Labor were evil socialists brow beating the private sector .

WE need to know the reasons why . If they cannot do a specific job we need to know why the specific reasons , not generalised concepts. Better medical interaction as aside from vague list of pointless tests that don;t diagnose, of which they also state the don;t diagnose when you do the test (having just done the ESA medical test i know what they ask and do it is vastly generalised and they don;t consult with your GP or get permission to access your medical records ????)

 

[Winkle]

Firstly, Benefits should be a safety net...Not a way of life, which for to many people I'm afraid it is. D.T.S says "Sadly a lot of British people think certain jobs are beneath them and a life on benefits pats more than busting a gut for 35 hours a week in a low paid job" Agree 100% simply because this is why so many Eastern Europeans do menial jobs because to many Brits wont work for less than £10 an hour. Personally My thoughts are that Benefits should not be given to any single mums until they are 21 years of age. No one should be allowed to claim benefits if they have not worked in this country for a period of 5 years. You should only be allowed to claim unemployment benefit for a period of six months, and then it should be stopped. Food and clothing vouchers would then be issued so you would not starve but everyday living expenses would be your responsibility and not the states. The time as come I think where we have to force the long term benefit scroungers to make a choice, work or starve...All a bit radical but we have to make a stand and winkle(lol) out the B******s who want a free ride on you and me.

 

[steveo]

and not just blindly want profit year in year out

But Osy you miss this time and again. Without profits a business will not survive. Its fine having great ideals but if you were to run your own business and your first concern was not profit, you wouldnt last five minutes. Then you wouldnt be employing anyone at all.

 

[osymandus]

But Osy you miss this time and again. Without profits a business will not survive. Its fine having great ideals but if you were to run your own business and your first concern was not profit, you wouldnt last five minutes. Then you wouldnt be employing anyone at all.

You missed out the point where i have said short term and also the blind profits , i .e achieved at any cost . I have no problem with making a profit . But as farmers once did you learn to leave your crop's follow every few years to get a greater yeild . For way to many reasons to go into , each and every morsel is squeezed out . Take the organic view point here , preadotrs (Lions , Tigers pick what you like ) , don't decimate their food supply / product . Guard jealously the parts they don;t use and wipe out all opposition (they will scare it off) so nothing else can grow or develop to challange it. (And before you buisness studies peopel leap on me yes its simplified but you get my analogy)

Your first concern can;t be profit mind ;) Has to be well though out crafted organisation (isn't it nigh impossible for a first year business to bring in profit im sure there's some statistic that shows this ;))

Im not some die hard socialist that say all profit is bad , what i am is someone looking at balance in these things . We have areas of the world utterly under the control of profit seeking individuals who don;t care about the society they are based in . This causes for more long term issues then any short term profit .

The UK in the late 80's dedicated itself to product/service based economy . This is the result . We need to do away with the idea that natioan's provide a set product and just look at the individuals in teh countries and what they can do . Not what ideal we would like to have but what is obtainable . That comes from knowledge and education not a 5 year business plan alone. (That comes afterwards when you have identified those who can do it )

 

[brigadista]

plus they built a Public Sector full of non jobs at incredible salaries,

the average salary for a civil servant is less than 20k, which is less than the national average, hardly incredible, although granted if the Daily Mail is a source to be relied upon :D then they are all on 500k each with "gold plated" pensions. Not much is gold plated about a 5k pa pension............

I too concur that there are management consultants on exorbitant salaries that need to be removed (especially from the NHS) but they are not the majority nor are they in the firing line of cuts, because guess what they are privately employed. Then the Tory front bench would be cutting their nose to spite the face of the board they sit on that employs these people

 

[steveo]

You missed out the point where i have said short term and also the blind profits , i .e achieved at any cost .

Ok but for a fledgling business, if there is no short term profit, there is no long term.

 

[brigadista]

Firstly, Benefits should be a safety net...Not a way of life, which for to many people I'm afraid it is. D.T.S says "Sadly a lot of British people think certain jobs are beneath them and a life on benefits pats more than busting a gut for 35 hours a week in a low paid job" Agree 100% simply because this is why so many Eastern Europeans do menial jobs because to many Brits wont work for less than £10 an hour. Personally My thoughts are that Benefits should not be given to any single mums until they are 21 years of age. No one should be allowed to claim benefits if they have not worked in this country for a period of 5 years. You should only be allowed to claim unemployment benefit for a period of six months, and then it should be stopped. Food and clothing vouchers would then be issued so you would not starve but everyday living expenses would be your responsibility and not the states. The time as come I think where we have to force the long term benefit scroungers to make a choice, work or starve...All a bit radical but we have to make a stand and winkle(lol) out the B******s who want a free ride on you and me.

I think there is a contradiction there? People should also note that benefits do exactly this, provide LESS than the bare minimum to live. Alot of people on benefits have to make the choice between their kids having a bath or feeding them that night. Many of the things we wouldn't even consider luxuries are not even within the reach of these people, shame on anyone for suggesting otherwise.

 

[Rob Noxious]

But you're "illustrious career"also includes a long spell at WHSB and a batch of O and A levels along with an Upper Second Degree.You could perhaps be deemed to have underachieved but I suspect you're happy enough "cleaning windows."
I agree with your comments about the welfare state and the cuts BTW.

The nub of the matter is that we are fortunate to have choices here. Who is so lofty as to be able to judge another for where they are in life? The work I do is only possible because of taxpayers' money and because vulnerable people are deemed to need assistance from the gatekeepers of the public purse like me. It could be taken away in an instant and it may well be very soon. I suspect that it's going to be a very difficult time ahead for people dependent on services from Social Care.

 

[osymandus]

The nub of the matter is that we are fortunate to have choices here. Who is so lofty as to be able to judge another for where they are in life? The work I do is only possible because of taxpayers' money and because vulnerable people are deemed to need assistance from the gatekeepers of the public purse like me. It could be taken away in an instant and it may well be very soon. I suspect that it's going to be a very difficult time ahead for people dependent on services from Social Care.

Absolutely agree. Surly this is civilization where the choice is not only given to and made available to your self but then to others , to make of themselves what they can .

 

[osymandus]

Ok but for a fledgling business, if there is no short term profit, there is no long term.

Steveo im not saying no profit , at all ever , there has to be every action you perform must bring a profit (eating gives you energy , but cant be more then you expend to catch it the, net is profit ). The societies of teh world around us have been on massive over eating for propably the last 150 years (im generalizing now but we can propably based it around the high point of the industrial age).

Acting like locus all the time in everything we do possibly do causes this issue , in-balance has caused this not the production of profit in of itself just the relentless need for more.

Now this idea (ignore teh name of a world famous yacht woman ;) ) Is a very senisible buisness model being adopted by Cisco, Reanault our National Grid and a good few others http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/about/the-circular-alternative . An organic approach from cradle to cradle they call it , you get your products and profit but responsibility and sensible resource usage management is undertaken.

 

[steveo]

Now this idea (ignore teh name of a world famous yacht woman ;) ) Is a very senisible buisness model being adopted by Cisco, Reanault our National Grid and a good few others http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/about/the-circular-alternative . An organic approach from cradle to cradle they call it , you get your products and profit but responsibility and sensible resource usage management is undertaken.

But these are all established Companies. Im talking about start up firms and small firms who HAVE to make profit or they will never reach this stage