Osborne to cut benefits

[steveo]

.......................

None then. So you want someone to lend you a **** load of money to buy a house with, not at mortgage rates as they are far too dear, but you don't want to help anyone less fortunate than you by providing them with a cheap shelter.
Interesting concept but where does the money come from?

 

[osymandus]

None then. So you want someone to lend you a **** load of money to buy a house with, not at mortgage rates as they are far too dear, but you don't want to help anyone less fortunate than you by providing them with a cheap shelter.
Interesting concept but where does the money come from?

The point i suspect was about , well missing the point . :stunned:

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

The point is that the left like to throw around insults and claim that we're missing the point, without actually making any points other than whining about how unfair it is that those who work hard benefit most.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The point is that the left like to throw around insults and claim that we're missing the point, without actually making any points other than whining about how unfair it is that those who work hard benefit most.

I'm not aware of anyone on the (social democratic)left, who is against people who work hard benefitting from their labour, as long as they make their money legally and pay equitable taxes on it.

 

[Neil_F]

so in true SZ form character assassination and one letter incorrect in a word rule supreme!!!

- the overriding fact is that whilst people can claim to know this person and that person, they cannot prove it, nor has anyone provided the shock horror figures as one asserted. And knowing only one family out of all of someone's aquaintances proves that this really is scapegoating to enable the wider political agenda of cutting back on benefits as a whole.

There is data on this. A recent book called "The Pinch" has a lot of data on this area. One of the most intresting aspects is to do with the ratio of children to adults and how it impacts behaviour. This applies on all scales: from nations to estates.

A number of studies have found that, where the proportion of the population aged 15-30 exceeds 40% (off the top of my head) of the total then there is serious social unrest. One study applying this rule found that 51 of the 54 countries in that position were involved in an internal or external conflict at the time.

The problem is that such demographics are replicated in a lot of inner city estates, with similar results. The reason for it is often that adults are incentivised to have more children: it is the only source of income in their circumstances.

- everyone seems intent on these people taking responsibility for themselves, yet no-one has acknowledged the banking industry, and not the welfare state or civil service put the UK in it's current plight. If everyone is to take responsibility for themselves and get off their back sides, then the banking industry should repay what it took of OUR TAX to maintain their merry bonuses. Regardless of how much was contributed, the trillion quid to bail them out did far more damage. It is well recognised that they also do not pay their fair share of tax - most banks utilise a "anything over 50k in cash is paid as equity" thus if these shares are held for 3 years they attract tax at CGT not income tax. This means that as a percentage of their income they pay less than those on low income jobs.

The banking industry are partly responsible but not solely. See my previous posts on the "poor subsidise the risk" thread. It started with China manipulating its currency and precipitated from there. Sharing in the blame are central banks and governments.

Where I agree with you, any taxpayer subsidised bank should not be paying bonuses in cash or equity.

As for the tax treatment you mentioned, I'm afraid it isn't correct. You've described a share option, which remains subject to income tax, not capital gains tax. If you are talking about CSOPs then, yes, they are subject to CGT, but they are for relatively small amounts and extremely restrictive.

- it is wholly lovely to say "don't get a mortgage" - but when the media, TV house buying/propery renovating programmes, politicians, news readers, comedians, neighbours are all doing it, laughing at how rich they are getting on an artificial asset bubble, and referring to a house as a commodity to trade and not as a primary function of shelter - add in the bank and mortgage seller rubbing their hands at the fees and high rate of interest, employ every selling technique in the book - then those in society that you so despise might actually have taken your advice and thought "I will try and make something better and get on the property ladder as everyone commonly recognises is a good thing to do"....life isn't as black and white as some would like to portray.

Everyone needs to make their own decision; no one is forced to buy a house. Social proofing (peer pressure essentially) is an issue but a house is not a cash machine. Notional capital appreciation is not income but an unrealised gain. Anyone buying a house, no matter how it is financed, has to accept the consequences if they over extend themselves.

- I did not state my view no whether the banks should have been bailed out or not, just simply that were it not for the crisis in the first place, the bail out would not have even been required.

The problem was we got to the point where they had to be bailed out. W only had about 8 banks in the UK operating on a national level. There was a lack of competition that meant banks got too big and therefore too important to fail. If the government had done its job and maintained healthy competition then Northern Rock then we wouldn't be in this position now.

 

[Hotman]

so in true SZ form character assassination and one letter incorrect in a word rule supreme!!!

- the overriding fact is that whilst people can claim to know this person and that person, they cannot prove it, nor has anyone provided the shock horror figures as one asserted. And knowing only one family out of all of someone's aquaintances proves that this really is scapegoating to enable the wider political agenda of cutting back on benefits as a whole.

I can prove it if you want, would you like name address and phone number (albeit address and phone number are 10 yrs ago, she's probably had a council mutual exchange since then).

Luckily, the reason I only have one, is that I don't tend to associate with scroungers like yourself.

- everyone seems intent on these people taking responsibility for themselves, yet no-one has acknowledged the banking industry, and not the welfare state or civil service put the UK in it's current plight. If everyone is to take responsibility for themselves and get off their back sides, then the banking industry should repay what it took of OUR TAX to maintain their merry bonuses. Regardless of how much was contributed, the trillion quid to bail them out did far more damage. It is well recognised that they also do not pay their fair share of tax - most banks utilise a "anything over 50k in cash is paid as equity" thus if these shares are held for 3 years they attract tax at CGT not income tax. This means that as a percentage of their income they pay less than those on low income jobs.

You really haven't got a clue have you!!!! Any shares given to an employee in lieu of pay is subject to taxation under the employment related benefits regime. Any subsequent gain - well, that's surely the same as if they had taxed cash (in line with taxed ERB, all falls under PAYE) and subject to CGT.

CGT also kicks in at any time on an investment

- it is wholly lovely to say "don't get a mortgage" - but when the media, TV house buying/propery renovating programmes, politicians, news readers, comedians, neighbours are all doing it, laughing at how rich they are getting on an artificial asset bubble, and referring to a house as a commodity to trade and not as a primary function of shelter - add in the bank and mortgage seller rubbing their hands at the fees and high rate of interest, employ every selling technique in the book - then those in society that you so despise might actually have taken your advice and thought "I will try and make something better and get on the property ladder as everyone commonly recognises is a good thing to do"....life isn't as black and white as some would like to portray.

If you can't afford it don't have it.

- I did not state my view no whether the banks should have been bailed out or not, just simply that were it not for the crisis in the first place, the bail out would not have even been required.

and just so you all know, as you like branding people filthy commies so much, I think the fact that many of you in your previous posts evoked the socialist principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" means you are all raving Marxists....happy holiday in cuba comrades!!

Filthy commie.

I'd change your quote to "He who does not add value, neither shall he eat". Working is different from adding value, and ultimately a hobby of the poor who have a moral conscience (unlike your beloved scroungers).

 

[Hotman]

.......................

I'll ask again - what rate of tax do you contribute to the state, and how much do you voluntarily donate?

 

[osymandus]

Neil_F: A few issues with the first statement . The Population of the UK is an aging one hence the worry of teh pension scheme problem .
The cost's of raising a child far exceed that of the benefits provided , another reason why some EU studies have shown a level of people below the poverty line . Housing benefits are teh big money makers not child.

Also the study that shows correlation of wide spread good education , and the fall in birth rate is something you may wish to look into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence . Re consumerism , it does encourage that more children (or steady rate of future consumers , also why brand loyaty is such a big thing for companies to get passed down to new generations) , has also driven a constant rise in children.

The point about lack of competition is wrong , it wasn't what we recognize as high street banks that were the worst offenders, also their internal , systems failed to protect them against their own short sighted investments and out of control for more and larger profits the entire sector had got itself into . The sector didnt want and never wants control from any governments , never mind UK.

I fully agree that unless you can afford something you shouldnt buy , but who was providing services , and loans , and ways to buy more to get your self into debt to buy teh latest gadget/car etc .

As we have said before this sint some simple grr all banks fault , all lower/upper class , gypsy's , Nazis , Illuminati problem. This was a clossal snowball **** up started before a few of us we're born made worse by teh promise of easy and quick profits and availability that WE ALL bought into .

 

[osymandus]

I'll ask again - what rate of tax do you contribute to the state, and how much do you voluntarily donate?

Then as a reposte can i ask why this has relevance to the worth or value of a person to society ? Or is it you just see everything in a quantifiable fiscal sense ? Not every one give's money for instance , if someone is unemployed but volunteers does that not have worth ?

 

[Hotman]

Then as a reposte can i ask why this has relevance to the worth or value of a person to society ? Or is it you just see everything in a quantifiable fiscal sense ? Not every one give's money for instance , if someone is unemployed but volunteers does that not have worth ?

I'll happily accept voluntary work as a charitable donation, at the value provided (not equivalent hourly rate).

And yes - this clearly does impact the value of a person to society. Someone taking benefits with no intention of working is clearly less valuable than a tax payer, especially if that tax payer pays a higher rate of tax.

 

[osymandus]

I'll happily accept voluntary work as a charitable donation, at the value provided (not equivalent hourly rate).

And yes - this clearly does impact the value of a person to society. Someone taking benefits with no intention of working is clearly less valuable than a tax payer, especially if that tax payer pays a higher rate of tax.

So would you agree that it can be said our view in society is biased to that which produces a commercial product (be it a physical or appears on a spreadsheet) , over say the more transentory nature (art's , conceptual ideals etc)

 

[osymandus]

I think this article sum's up certainly how i feel , maybe some of my so called left wing comrades
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/talking_politics/cable-is-right-about-capitalism-p134629.html

These paragraphs in particular
"Cable's argument was made with colour and drama because he needs to settle Lib Dem nerves about the coalition's economic agenda. They are right to be nervous, and they should not be reassured by what he said today. The coalition will make thousands of public sector workers unemployed and pray the private sector fills the space. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't believe it will, as it happens, and certainly not to the extent envisaged in the 2015 timetable. But that is a separate debate, one which is being held endlessly in the media. Another debate - much more worthwhile - asks whether that is the right thing to do. Most reasonable people agree the deficit must be reduced, but current plans go well beyond what was necessary. This is a wholesale reform of the structure of the British economy. It stems from a simple thought: market = good." (How a system can have a morality attached is a point that oft amuses me about humanity)

"This is a valid point. But there are other kinds of efficiency too. Take this fundamental question, which is no less important than the role of money. It is about the role of humans. Why should people need homes and not have them when builders are out of work? The spending review detonates on the British political landscape on October 20th. The effect it will have on inner-city councils will be severe. Housing budgets will be devastated. Ask yourself that question again in a year's time. Why should anyone be denied a home when there are builders out of work? it's a profound question. The market is efficient for capital, not necessarily for human need."

Many of our discussions on here seem to miss an important point , the systems we use (tax epically ) are efficient, but they have become dogma's unchallenged, efficiency does not always equate to progress nor intelligence.

 

[Hotman]

So would you agree that it can be said our view in society is biased to that which produces a commercial product (be it a physical or appears on a spreadsheet) , over say the more transentory nature (art's , conceptual ideals etc)

Name me a serial-shagging single mum who indulges in any art / conceptual ideal other than prostitution and benefit claiming, and I'll take your point seriously.

 

[osymandus]

Name me a serial-shagging single mum who indulges in any art / conceptual ideal other than prostitution and benefit claiming, and I'll take your point seriously.

The mother of Leonardo of Divinci . Single mum , had her way a bit.
However thats not what i asked and dismissing a question by inserting stereotypes, and ignoring it is deflection (why not single dad's for instance !) ?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think this article sum's up certainly how i feel , maybe some of my so called left wing comrades
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/talking_politics/cable-is-right-about-capitalism-p134629.html

These paragraphs in particular
"Cable's argument was made with colour and drama because he needs to settle Lib Dem nerves about the coalition's economic agenda. They are right to be nervous, and they should not be reassured by what he said today. The coalition will make thousands of public sector workers unemployed and pray the private sector fills the space. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I don't believe it will, as it happens, and certainly not to the extent envisaged in the 2015 timetable. But that is a separate debate, one which is being held endlessly in the media. Another debate - much more worthwhile - asks whether that is the right thing to do. Most reasonable people agree the deficit must be reduced, but current plans go well beyond what was necessary. This is a wholesale reform of the structure of the British economy. It stems from a simple thought: market = good." (How a system can have a morality attached is a point that oft amuses me about humanity)

"This is a valid point. But there are other kinds of efficiency too. Take this fundamental question, which is no less important than the role of money. It is about the role of humans. Why should people need homes and not have them when builders are out of work? The spending review detonates on the British political landscape on October 20th. The effect it will have on inner-city councils will be severe. Housing budgets will be devastated. Ask yourself that question again in a year's time. Why should anyone be denied a home when there are builders out of work? it's a profound question. The market is efficient for capital, not necessarily for human need."

Many of our discussions on here seem to miss an important point , the systems we use (tax epically ) are efficient, but they have become dogma's unchallenged, efficiency does not always equate to progress nor intelligence.

A lot of the criticism appears to come from the the simple thought that market = bad.

 

[osymandus]

A lot of the criticism appears to come from the the simple thought that market = bad.

I read it as market is neither we make teh mistake of assuming it is good or bad .

The next paragraph is however When we brand that assumption ideological we do so for entirely accurate reasons. For the vast majority of people, this is a dead debate. Most people believe in a mixed economy. The public loves the NHS and the BBC. It does not believe in a privatised education system. It simply wants good services delivered for free under a system of taxation which is modelled on income. On the other side, it does not want state-provided restaurants or T-shirts.

So teh common perception is its good becuase it makes us nice things we want . However its not the system that was has any engendered morality rather those who used it (bit like saying all hammers are evil because they can be used to smash kittens).

Its my point again its not the system at fault rather (as he rightly points to in the articule ). We remove teh emotive term , banker , capitalist , system and tax payers a touch of occams razor and we have . People who knew system , squeezed it , broke it, got other people to help fix it , and now keep doing same thing , wait to system breaks again.

 

[steveo]

The cost's of raising a child far exceed that of the benefits provided

I fully agree that unless you can afford something you shouldnt buy ,

Or in this case have a child. If you cant afford to raise it dot have one. Surely its irresponsible to have a child and expect it to be raised on benefits and you can blame the banks for people who do that.

 

[osymandus]

Or in this case have a child. If you cant afford to raise it dot have one. Surely its irresponsible to have a child and expect it to be raised on benefits and you can blame the banks for people who do that.

Yes and yes , but I'm not blaming that soley on the banks. AS i already stated part of the uk's economics is based on consumers , you need more consumers . Some people have taken this to literaly, others who say can't have kid's naturally turn to IVF , and pay for that service , can that also be judged to alwasy be a good thing when that increases the potential for multiple births ? Who here coudl afford 3,4,5 kids in one go ?

 

[Neil_F]

Neil_F: A few issues with the first statement . The Population of the UK is an aging one hence the worry of teh pension scheme problem .
The cost's of raising a child far exceed that of the benefits provided , another reason why some EU studies have shown a level of people below the poverty line . Housing benefits are teh big money makers not child.

Well aware of the UK demographics, I was talking about localised demographics.

The point about lack of competition is wrong , it wasn't what we recognize as high street banks that were the worst offenders, also their internal , systems failed to protect them against their own short sighted investments and out of control for more and larger profits the entire sector had got itself into . The sector didnt want and never wants control from any governments , never mind UK.

It really isn't wrong at all. I'm not going to go into detail here. There were systemic risk issues in the investment banking market, there were also issues with ratings agencies, and governments and central banks played a major part. The point about competition was not the cause but the response. Because there was a lack of competition (as the regulator and government didn't do their jobs) it meant the banks had to be bailed out. If competition had been preserved in the retail and investment banking space then institutions would have been smaller and "too big to fail" may not have been an issue. A couple of institutions would have gone under, which would have been a simple market correction.

I fully agree that unless you can afford something you shouldnt buy , but who was providing services , and loans , and ways to buy more to get your self into debt to buy teh latest gadget/car etc .

Such arguments are an abdication of personal responsibility. As many people have said on this topic, no one was forced to buy anything. You can talk about marketing/psychology/behavioural economics all you want but all of the information must legally be provided to the consumer and they are then solely responsible for their decisions.

 

[osymandus]

Well aware of the UK demographics, I was talking about localised demographics.




It really isn't wrong at all. I'm not going to go into detail here. There were systemic risk issues in the investment banking market, there were also issues with ratings agencies, and governments and central banks played a major part. The point about competition was not the cause but the response. Because there was a lack of competition (as the regulator and government didn't do their jobs) it meant the banks had to be bailed out. If competition had been preserved in the retail and investment banking space then institutions would have been smaller and "too big to fail" may not have been an issue. A couple of institutions would have gone under, which would have been a simple market correction.



Such arguments are an abdication of personal responsibility. As many people have said on this topic, no one was forced to buy anything. You can talk about marketing/psychology/behavioural economics all you want but all of the information must legally be provided to the consumer and they are then solely responsible for their decisions.

Well we completly agree on abdication on personal resbonisibilty , but most of western civilisation has been based on that (deference to King,sgod's daddy figures etc so we know where that comes form, Greek philosophy ).

The breaking up of banks has (or the investment part at least ) is being talked about as a serious consideration (was on Radio 4 this morning ) so in that sense i agree. However as you say the governments and the influence commercial banks have had, made it a closed system, thus why they were deemed too big to fail (which in a capitalist open market is the what should happen to any buisness opperating well beyond its means , but which was then propped up by state money ). Maybe i also mis-read it as i though you refered to what we call the high street banks rather then say AIG or Lehman Bro's or Merryl Lynch (some of the main offenders )


Localized issues are down to available funding and resources , and also social will and desire to be communities , which is a Phd paper in and of itself (maybe several).