Osborne to cut benefits

[loz]

If you want to work, then you can get a job. It probably won't be the one you want, but it will be an exchange of services for money, rather than an exchange of whining and bone idleness for money. And if the job isn't at the end of your road, get on yer bike.

If 'get on your bike' worked, then great- I've no sympathy whatsoever with lifestyle benefit types with no interest in working. But how are you supposed to relocate, or at least want to relocate, if (for example) you're in council housing already and moving LA's would mean going to the bottom of the list? Add in the fact that (for better or worse) a lot of these people have kids, and you've got a whole lot of perverse incentives that mitigate against people properly looking for jobs. I'm not saying that the above is acceptable, but it's the situation we're dealing with.

The system is, quite clearly, screwed up. But the fact that we've been having the same arguments for decades, under alternating governments of all political hues, points to the fact that it's a long-term fix that will be bloody difficult in the interim (see for example IDS asking for £3bn EXTRA funding from the Treasury to fix the situation whereby people moving off benefits into low-paying jobs can often end up worse off). Good luck to anyone trying to take it on.

 

[osymandus]

And this sums up the fundamental floor of the benefit system. Getting paid more to do nothing, than to do something.

No it sums up the issue with the current one not the system as a whole . There has to be capacity to return to the system . A flaw it also shows is how we attribute value to society's services and products . And indeed peoples

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

If 'get on your bike' worked, then great- I've no sympathy whatsoever with lifestyle benefit types with no interest in working. But how are you supposed to relocate, or at least want to relocate, if (for example) you're in council housing already and moving LA's would mean going to the bottom of the list? Add in the fact that (for better or worse) a lot of these people have kids, and you've got a whole lot of perverse incentives that mitigate against people properly looking for jobs. I'm not saying that the above is acceptable, but it's the situation we're dealing with.

The system is, quite clearly, screwed up. But the fact that we've been having the same arguments for decades, under alternating governments of all political hues, points to the fact that it's a long-term fix that will be bloody difficult in the interim (see for example IDS asking for £3bn EXTRA funding from the Treasury to fix the situation whereby people moving off benefits into low-paying jobs can often end up worse off). Good luck to anyone trying to take it on.

Is that £3bn actually a red herring, as surely that's a reallocation of funds?

ie instead of spending £5bn on job-seeker's allowance/housing benefits, £3bn is spent on topping up a low paid job.
Other than infrastructure costs, I can't see how it can cost more to pay someone less.

 

[steveo]

Trap yourself in dead end job reduce self worth even more ,

Or stay on the dole and increase your self worth?

 

[loz]

Is that £3bn actually a red herring, as surely that's a reallocation of funds?

ie instead of spending £5bn on job-seeker's allowance/housing benefits, £3bn is spent on topping up a low paid job.
Other than infrastructure costs, I can't see how it can cost more to pay someone less.

the way I've understood it is that the level of cuts made by DWP is what was requested/demanded by the Treasury- the extra 3bn has been asked for separately of that (so effectively reducing the overall cuts).

 

[Mad Cyril]

Or stay on the dole and increase your self worth?

Or work your arse off to make someone else richer while you remain on the poverty line?

 

[DTS]

Or work your arse off to make someone else richer while you remain on the poverty line?

Or of course they could start at the bottom and try and work there way up.

 

[brigadista]

No, and I'd have hoped not too... The country has run up a massive tab, it's now last orders and we'll all have to dig a little deeper to foot the bill. I'm fully aware that the system is necessary, but its current entity is too easily abused. If you want to have seven children, be my guest, but you cannot expect the country to support you in doing so, with you only to do nothing in an attempt to support yourself.

1. how many people do you actually know that have seven kids and never worked a day in their lives
2. the country has run up a massive debt bailing the banks out, if these "geniuses" had not been left unregulated and selling mortgages they all knew would go t1ts up eventually, then the poor b****ards on £65 a week now, wouldn't be getting told they've got to live on less.

 

[brigadista]

... as if benfits are cut people will be forced to work in theory and they will still need somewhere to live.

which jobs will they be then? there are no jobs and given they've been on benefits for "years" as most of you presume they will have join the queue with the 2.5m currently unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of civil service workers about to get tinned in the next 12 months

 

[brigadista]

so if there are so many of these vile evil scroungers, sponging and letching off us every day, where is some of the invective for the people who do not pay their tax and evade it quite willfully? They too are fraudulent and scamming us out of far greater sums.................

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

the way I've understood it is that the level of cuts made by DWP is what was requested/demanded by the Treasury- the extra 3bn has been asked for separately of that (so effectively reducing the overall cuts).

Ah right, that makes sense.

 

[steveo]

Or work your arse off to make someone else richer while you remain on the poverty line?

As dave says you need to start somewhere Cyril. How many people go straight into their dream job?
Now i dont know you personally but I would bet that if you found yourself unemployed you would take any job with a view to working your way up and improving, rather than sit on the dole waiting for the dream job to appear.

 

[Rob Noxious]

As dave says you need to start somewhere Cyril. How many people go straight into their dream job?
Now i dont know you personally but I would bet that if you found yourself unemployed you would take any job with a view to working your way up and improving, rather than sit on the dole waiting for the dream job to appear.

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.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Now i dont know you personally but I would bet that if you found yourself unemployed you would take any job with a view to working your way up and improving, rather than sit on the dole waiting for the dream job to appear.

I'd be watching monster truck racing from Idaho on Sky Sports or Diagnosis Murder on BBC1 before the ink on my P45 was dry.

 

[osymandus]

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.

And that sthe point , its not some romantasised , journy dispite what some portray it as . Not everyone has teh abaility to recreate themseleves from nothing (in fact virtually no one does with out help and advise from others that have been there or have support).

Mind you i alwasy took pulling yourself up by your boot straps to be a contradiction as surly it measn you pull yourself over and need help from others to get up ;)

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

which jobs will they be then? there are no jobs and given they've been on benefits for "years" as most of you presume they will have join the queue with the 2.5m currently unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of civil service workers about to get tinned in the next 12 months

Stop whining and go stack some shelves. The world needs ditch diggers too son.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

so if there are so many of these vile evil scroungers, sponging and letching off us every day, where is some of the invective for the people who do not pay their tax and evade it quite willfully? They too are fraudulent and scamming us out of far greater sums.................

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.

 

[canveyshrimper]

which jobs will they be then? there are no jobs and given they've been on benefits for "years" as most of you presume they will have join the queue with the 2.5m currently unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of civil service workers about to get tinned in the next 12 months

Ah yes the 2.5million unemployed, and if truth but told probably many more hidden away by Labour in various schemes when they were in power. It seems to me that unemployment is a fair price to pay under a Labour Government, but not under this nasty Coalition. The Unions were very quiet as unemployment rose steadily under Labour, but as soon as we have a change of Government dinosaurs like Crow are up on their hind legs calling for industrial action, when in reality they want to bring down the elected Government.

Labour built a class reliant on benefits, plus they built a Public Sector full of non jobs at incredible salaries, if the Coalition axe the useless diversity co-ordinators, 5 a ****ing day co-ordinators and all the wastes of space in our Town Halls, it's likely local Government may find the cash to get your rubbish collected more than once a month.

 

[sosman]

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.

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).

Ah yes the 2.5million unemployed, and if truth but told probably many more hidden away by Labour in various schemes when they were in power. It seems to me that unemployment is a fair price to pay under a Labour Government, but not under this nasty Coalition. The Unions were very quiet as unemployment rose steadily under Labour, but as soon as we have a change of Government dinopsaurs like Crow are up on their hind legs calling for industrial action, when in reality they want to bring down the elected Government.

Labour built a class reliant on benefits, plus they built a Public Sector full of non jobs at incredible salaries, if the Coalition axe the useless diversity co-ordinators, 5 a ****ing day co-ordinators and all the wates of space in our Town Halls, it's likely local Government may find the cash to get your rubbish collected more than once a month.

Bit of an issue on the point I have put in bold, because IIRC Margaret Thatcher massaged the figures by taking huge numbers of people off them, in particular those who weren't eligible for Unemployment Benefit because they had made insufficient NI contributions (and therefore relied in IS instead). Major didn't demur and one of the first things that Labour did was to reinstate the correct position. I'm not aware of that having been changed since.

Mind you, that is a slightly different point to what you are making as you are presumably referring to the New Deal etc. Not to say it's not a fair point, but what's going to happen instead.....just handing out dole?

 

[canveyshrimper]

Bit of an issue on the point I have put in bold, because IIRC Margaret Thatcher massaged the figures by taking huge numbers of people off them, in particular those who weren't eligible for Unemployment Benefit because they had made insufficient NI contributions (and therefore relied in IS instead). Major didn't demur and one of the first things that Labour did was to reinstate the correct position. I'm not aware of that having been changed since.

Mind you, that is a slightly different point to what you are making as you are presumably referring to the New Deal etc. Not to say it's not a fair point, but what's going to happen instead.....just handing out dole?

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.