Autumn budget statement - The end of the line for Cameron/Osborne?

[Neil_F]

The welfare state wasn't founded "to pay people to remain poor" as you put it.It was founded to provide a safety net that would hopefully help people to escape poverty or at least alleviate their conditions.
GO's real term cuts in benefits,while a clever political ploy,will cause hardship for hundreds of thousands,if not millions.

You are still not engaging with the substance of the issue. The welfare state was created as a safety net from which people would hopefully escape, I entirely agree. The problem is, that increasing out-of-work benefits by more than wages results in the safety net at the same height, or in some cases above, the first rung of the ladder.

This is the fundamental point. If people are better off on benefits than they are in work in simple cash terms then what is the incentive to look for and get a job? If you increase benefits faster than wages are increasing then that incentive to find work diminishes. That is what I mean by paying people to remain poor. Out of work benefits became (and largely still are) a cage from which people could not escape because they could never get employment that made them substantially better off. They were effectively being paid to stay out of the labour market.

The cost of living is a problem for everyone at the moment. That doesn't mean that it is right to limit public sector pay to 1% in order to subsidise rises in benefits for those not working.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You are still not engaging with the substance of the issue..

And neither, I would respectfully suggest, are you.
In a contracting economy, there are too many people chasing far too few jobs.Without a plan which achieves growth, merely cutting back on Government spending will do nothing to save the UK from a triple dip recession.
Penalising people who are on benefits will do nothing(or rather very little)to improve the economic outlook or get more people into viable,long-term employment.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

And neither, I would respectfully suggest, are you.
In a contracting economy, there are too many people chasing far too few jobs.Without a plan which achieves growth, merely cutting back on Government spending will do nothing to save the UK from a triple dip recession.
Penalising people who are on benefits will do nothing(or rather very little)to improve the economic outlook or get more people in viable,long-term employment.

Why a plan which achieves growth?

Why not just growth?

Old discredited communist habits die hard it seems.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why a plan which achieves growth?

Why not just growth?

Old discredited communist habits die hard it seems.

Marxist please.:smile:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Sorry, old discredited Marxist habits die hard it seems.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Sorry, old discredited Marxist habits die hard it seems.

Taking my cue from SBH,who recently (on another thread)described himself as "basically a Conservative at heart", I'm quite happy to assert that I remain basically a Marxist at heart.

 

[superblue24]

The welfare state wasn't founded "to pay people to remain poor" as you put it.It was founded to provide a safety net that would hopefully help people to escape poverty or at least alleviate their conditions.
GO's real term cuts in benefits,while a clever political ploy,will cause hardship for hundreds of thousands,if not millions.

Problem is that this "safety net" has become a reason for too many not to bother even looking for work. As Neil alludes to, it is absolutely astonishing that any government can justify a scenario where ANYONE is paid more on benefits than the lowest paid worker.....The lowest paid worker should be on the penultimate rung and then benefits on the last rung. In scenarios where fit people are not bothering to look for work or refusing jobs, all benefits should be removed.

What about the crime that this would generate as people turn to mugging and burglary, I hear you cry out.....Simple, a size-able chunk of what is saved on benefits could be used to invest in new prisons to make longer sentences. I would most definitely be in favour of bringing back the death penalty and chopping off peoples hands who steal....Certainly make people think a lot more about committing crime knowing that they'd lose their hands as opposed to the current punishment of 6 months picking up litter.

 

[markw]

Problem is that this "safety net" has become a reason for too many not to bother even looking for work. As Neil alludes to, it is absolutely astonishing that any government can justify a scenario where ANYONE is paid more on benefits than the lowest paid worker.....The lowest paid worker should be on the penultimate rung and then benefits on the last rung. In scenarios where fit people are not bothering to look for work or refusing jobs, all benefits should be removed.

What about the crime that this would generate as people turn to mugging and burglary, I hear you cry out.....Simple, a size-able chunk of what is saved on benefits could be used to invest in new prisons to make longer sentences. I would most definitely be in favour of bringing back the death penalty and chopping off peoples hands who steal....Certainly make people think a lot more about committing crime knowing that they'd lose their hands as opposed to the current punishment of 6 months picking up litter.

I want this... and public executions of people that cant use train ticket machines... but still i fully agree with pretty much everything in this post

 

[MK Shrimper]

Problem is that this "safety net" has become a reason for too many not to bother even looking for work. As Neil alludes to, it is absolutely astonishing that any government can justify a scenario where ANYONE is paid more on benefits than the lowest paid worker.....The lowest paid worker should be on the penultimate rung and then benefits on the last rung. In scenarios where fit people are not bothering to look for work or refusing jobs, all benefits should be removed.

What about the crime that this would generate as people turn to mugging and burglary, I hear you cry out.....Simple, a size-able chunk of what is saved on benefits could be used to invest in new prisons to make longer sentences. I would most definitely be in favour of bringing back the death penalty and chopping off peoples hands who steal....Certainly make people think a lot more about committing crime knowing that they'd lose their hands as opposed to the current punishment of 6 months picking up litter.

The kindly face of Conservatism in action. Thank god you've got as much chance of having any form of power as my pet cat. Alternatively jump on a plane to Saudi Arabia, I think you'd fit in quite well.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I want this... and public executions of people that cant use train ticket machines... but still i fully agree with pretty much everything in this post

And people who stop at the top/bottom of escalators.

 

[markw]

And people who stop at the top/bottom of escalators.

Haha oh yes, or the people who stand on the left..... after a day in london i normally end up needing to spend a few hours in a padded cell :headbang:

 

[MK Shrimper]

This thread has morphed into the "hacking you off thread". Very poor mod-ism :winking:

 

[superblue24]

The kindly face of Conservatism in action. Thank god you've got as much chance of having any form of power as my pet cat.

The kindly face of "stop dossing on my earnings" more like. Explain to me why its right that a fit person on benefits gets a house and more money than, let's say "a roadsweeper"? One who gets up at 6am every morning and struggles to make ends meet....Keen to hear this.

As for the crime comments I made.....I doubt you'd find many thieves in this day and age who wouldn't think twice about stealing with all the CCTV about. And less so those who murder given the presence of forensic evidence. Tell me why a murderer who has made a woman become a widow, and caused a couple of kids to lose their Dad all over a wallet containing £20 shouldn't be executed....

I'm not saying that a blanket rule be applied, but the monsters and most dangerous criminals will never ever learn and should be eliminated for the safety of others.

 

[MK Shrimper]

The kindly face of "stop dossing on my earnings" more like. Explain to me why its right that a fit person on benefits gets a house and more money than, let's say "a roadsweeper"? One who gets up at 6am every morning and struggles to make ends meet....Keen to hear this.

As for the crime comments I made.....I doubt you'd find many thieves in this day and age who wouldn't think twice about stealing with all the CCTV about. And less so those who murder given the presence of forensic evidence. Tell me why a murderer who has made a woman become a widow, and caused a couple of kids to lose their Dad all over a wallet containing £20 shouldn't be executed....

I'm not saying that a blanket rule be applied, but the monsters and most dangerous criminals will never ever learn and should be eliminated for the safety of others.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Not everyone of benefits is a "scrounger" - some people have been made redundant through no fault of their own and struggle to make ends meet. Why should they have to live on bread and water while people who run Amazon/Starbucks/Google can pay sod all tax (apparently quite legally, but hey poor people can't afford clever accountants).

The whole capital punishment argument has been done to death (no pun intended) on here - what do you do if you take the life of someone who is then found to be innocent (Stefan Klizko for example). Forensic evidence is never absolute despite what CSI might tell you.

And what level of thievery do you start lopping limbs off? Kids who shoplift a packet of sweets? Your ideas are positively barbaric and even Cameron would baulk at them I'm sure.

 

[superblue24]

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Not everyone of benefits is a "scrounger" - some people have been made redundant through no fault of their own and struggle to make ends meet. Why should they have to live on bread and water while people who run Amazon/Starbucks/Google can pay sod all tax (apparently quite legally, but hey poor people can't afford clever accountants).

The whole capital punishment argument has been done to death (no pun intended) on here - what do you do if you take the life of someone who is then found to be innocent (Stefan Klizko for example). Forensic evidence is never absolute despite what CSI might tell you.

And what level of thievery do you start lopping limbs off? Kids who shoplift a packet of sweets? Your ideas are positively barbaric and even Cameron would baulk at them I'm sure.

I mentioned that a blanket rule couldn't be applied for the exact examples you give. But you can't tell me that the example I give isn't at least "thought provoking". I can tell you are into this weak ideology of people not taking responsibility for their actions and instead hide behind who or whatever they can. I'm guessing you thought "conkers" being banned in schools by the previous government was a "good thing" and that "Sports Days" are "too competitive" for kids.....And in 16 years time we'll all be wondering why we don't have any gold medals in the Olympics.

Redundancy is designed to pay out employees to the extent that they are compensated for the hassle of finding work and any shortfalls the upcoming weeks/months might bring. In every example I've seen of people being made redundant, the payout is usually generous to say in the least, and if not the person was probably taking the p***.

You're example of the average person on bread and water is hardly comparable to online companies not paying tax (which I'll remind you hasn't just happened overnight). All three of the companies you mention were at one point "start up"s borne from good ideas and/or hard graft and whilst they shouldn't be avoiding tax, the people who receive benefits from said tax should be out there looking for work morning, day, and night. Jobs are out there. Walk into ANY job centre and you'll see jobs advertised all over the place....Problem is that too many see McDonalds advertising restaurant workers and decide that the job is "beneath them" or too much hassle for too little cash and back to the benefits they go.

If people want "equality", they should work for it.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I mentioned that a blanket rule couldn't be applied for the exact examples you give. But you can't tell me that the example I give isn't at least "thought provoking". I can tell you are into this weak ideology of people not taking responsibility for their actions and instead hide behind who or whatever they can. I'm guessing you thought "conkers" being banned in schools by the previous government was a "good thing" and that "Sports Days" are "too competitive" for kids.....And in 16 years time we'll all be wondering why we don't have any gold medals in the Olympics.

Nice bit of stereotyping there. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Redundancy is designed to pay out employees to the extent that they are compensated for the hassle of finding work and any shortfalls the upcoming weeks/months might bring. In every example I've seen of people being made redundant, the payout is usually generous to say in the least, and if not the person was probably taking the p***..

Generous? My wife is probably going to be made redundant after Christmas and she'll get 12 weeks pay. She's on minimum wage by the way.

You're example of the average person on bread and water is hardly comparable to online companies not paying tax (which I'll remind you hasn't just happened overnight). All three of the companies you mention were at one point "start up"s borne from good ideas and/or hard graft and whilst they shouldn't be avoiding tax, the people who receive benefits from said tax should be out there looking for work morning, day, and night. Jobs are out there. Walk into ANY job centre and you'll see jobs advertised all over the place....Problem is that too many see McDonalds advertising restaurant workers and decide that the job is "beneath them" or too much hassle for too little cash and back to the benefits they go.

If people want "equality", they should work for it.

Have you looked on line/job centres for work? I recently saw a job advertised for 4 hours a week. Try keeping a family on that. Tell me the motivation for someone, with a family, to take that job?

 

[markw]

I mentioned that a blanket rule couldn't be applied for the exact examples you give. But you can't tell me that the example I give isn't at least "thought provoking". I can tell you are into this weak ideology of people not taking responsibility for their actions and instead hide behind who or whatever they can. I'm guessing you thought "conkers" being banned in schools by the previous government was a "good thing" and that "Sports Days" are "too competitive" for kids.....And in 16 years time we'll all be wondering why we don't have any gold medals in the Olympics.

Another thing with schools (i dont know if it has stopped recently) is giving prizes to everyone from an early age, kids soon start picking up on not having to try and and still getting rewarded, which then carries on into later life when they just expect everything to be given to them. I strongly believe that if you left school thinking "coming second is effectively being the first loser" then you are much more inclined to work harder/look harder when the time comes for you to get a job

 

[superblue24]

Generous? My wife is probably going to be made redundant after Christmas and she'll get 12 weeks pay. She's on minimum wage by the way.

12 weeks is generous. That's 3 months pay yet your wife could well walk into a new job the very next week. The fact she's on MW is hardly relevant to anything as 12 weeks pay is still 12 weeks worth of wages that your wife was prepared to go and work for.

Have you looked on line/job centres for work? I recently saw a job advertised for 4 hours a week. Try keeping a family on that. Tell me the motivation for someone, with a family, to take that job?

Of course I have. I've worked since I was old enough to be allowed to work. I started out washing up plates in a kitchen, before taking a job basically getting crapped on by livestock in a popular pet store chain.....Fortunately I've moved on from that time in my life to better things, but I've never been out of work since my first day and barely taken a day off sick. That includes at least 8/9 job moves and several "career moves" in the process. Back when I was 24 I was also made redundant as a contractor where you get FA squared for being given the flick.....I took a job with a far lower level of income despite not being able to make ends meet and got a second job to rectify this shortfall at ASDA over weekends and one night during the week on the night shift until 2am stocking the freezers.....Up again at 7am for my day job. I know there are many who work even harder than I had to back then.....For this they get my utmost respect.

But those who sit at home not bothering looking for work ( I mean REALLY looking) get no respect from me....None whatsoever. If they don't get my respect, why should they get a slice of my earnings?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Not everyone of benefits is a "scrounger" - some people have been made redundant through no fault of their own and struggle to make ends meet. Why should they have to live on bread and water while people who run Amazon/Starbucks/Google can pay sod all tax (apparently quite legally, but hey poor people can't afford clever accountants).

Are you sure the people who run Amazon/Starbucks/Google pay sod all tax?

The recent scandal was over the amounts of corporation tax paid by the company, not by it's employees/owners.

Those companies employ many people and will pay national insurance in respect of their employees. I think they pay VAT as well. Meanwhile their employees will be paying income tax and national insurance on their salaries and their owners will be paying income tax on any share dividends and capital gains tax on profit from selling the shares of the company.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

12 weeks is generous. That's 3 months pay yet your wife could well walk into a new job the very next week. The fact she's on MW is hardly relevant to anything as 12 weeks pay is still 12 weeks worth of wages that your wife was prepared to go and work for.




Of course I have. I've worked since I was old enough to be allowed to work. I started out washing up plates in a kitchen, before taking a job basically getting crapped on by livestock in a popular pet store chain.....Fortunately I've moved on from that time in my life to better things, but I've never been out of work since my first day and barely taken a day off sick. That includes at least 8/9 job moves and several "career moves" in the process. Back when I was 24 I was also made redundant as a contractor where you get FA squared for being given the flick.....I took a job with a far lower level of income despite not being able to make ends meet and got a second job to rectify this shortfall at ASDA over weekends and one night during the week on the night shift until 2am stocking the freezers.....Up again at 7am for my day job. I know there are many who work even harder than I had to back then.....For this they get my utmost respect.

But those who sit at home not bothering looking for work ( I mean REALLY looking) get no respect from me....None whatsoever. If they don't get my respect, why should they get a slice of my earnings?

This thread has begun to remind me of this:

[video=youtube_share;Xe1a1wHxTyo]http://youtu.be/Xe1a1wHxTyo[/video]