Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#41
For the benefit of those not in the know (most of the world) the state of things as they stand will be seen as the good old days once the global depression really kicks in. I've been warning people about this for ages now and have been described as both a pessimist and nuts but not necessarily in that order.
Prepare yourselves everyone cos it's going to get very choppy. Do all the usual things people advise you to do during a period of intense financial and social disruption.
Mind you it seems that our government doesn't quite get it.
They are still wasting billions of our pounds on measures to tackle, ahem, cough, climate change.
Like I've said before, everyone gets worked up over the waste on welfare but are quite willing, no quite happy actually, to let our government burn billions upon billions on schemes to fight a non existent problem.
Not only that but when people squeal about their energy bills they blame the profiteering evil energy companies but, as I said before, are quite willing for green tarrifs to go into the pockets of those who profit from the scare, the nightmare, the four horsemen of the weather system.
So let's get things into perspective here.
We are facing very, very serious economic problems here in the UK.
We are facing a problem of such significance that even I cannot see how it will pan out.
We are facing massive nationwide power cuts due to this and the last government environmental policies.
We have officially hit the £1 trillion debt mark.
Not to labour the point but environmental policies will ruin our economy and impoverish the poor even more.
So the tories are taking away with one hand and taking even more with the other.
Isn't life brilliant eh?
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#42
Jan.
Exactly my point. I am not saying BarryW or the others are wrong about capping but they are assuming that everyone gets £500 and that is just not true.
I have not said that people on £500 are living in poverty, I said some people on benefits are living in poverty, big difference.
Roger.
Sorry I got your son and brother mixed up. I am sure he would love to take home £250 per week on benefits but I doubt if he would get that much. Not many do.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#43
LOL Gary - No no-one has assumed everyone gets £500, that is absurd and once again you are imagining what others are saying.
You really are squirming Gary - you clearly said in a previous post that people on average income are living near to poverty - read your own words. True you did backtrack in a later post but here you are flatly denying you said what you clearly said.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#44
trust philip to cheer us all up, though he is probably right here.
i was reading a report from the international monetary fund earlier(sad i know) but it did look bad reading.
growth forecasts are down all round due to the problems in the eurozone.
the way i see it whichever shade of government is in power, here or most other places there is not a lot they can do.
on the brighter side we may have a good entry for the next eurovision song contest.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#45
Dave1 then we fully agree. While I am defending the cap, proposed at £26k (I may have mentioned £25k loosely, £26k is nearer the mark), against those who oppose it, I have said too that I think it should be lower ...
There are 60,000 households (mostly in London) who get more than that £26k and disability benefits are not included.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#46
Actually, it is not £26k, it is £35k before deductions leave the working person £26k.
How many people around here start with £35k? not many I would suggest.
Perhaps it show the generosity of the benefits system.
Watty
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#47
BarryW.
Yes your right, I did get my "cuts" and "caps" mixed up on this thread.
I must remember to read threads properly and check my posts before posting.
Thank you for being so cheerful in pointing out my mistake, in your true fashion.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#48
Gary
My brother would not want to take £250 in benefits, but would like £250 a week from his work - he wants to work and is working, it's just that after trying for well over a year, the only job he could get is paying £850 a month.
With £600 rent and paying all other bills too - council tax, gas, electric, telephone (land-line and mobile - he doesn't use that to make calls of course), water-rates, car expenses, food etc. what's left ? Nothing, he's in a minus state.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#49
Roger - email me some details of your brother. A client runs an employment agency in Canterbury and, if your brother wishes, I could ask him to see what may be available.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#50
Paul - you are right of course £35,000 is the starting point, to end up with a net income of £26,000. If people not working can take that much ghome, why would they want tio work ?
Lord Carey, an ex,ArchBishop of Canterbury has publicly denounced the five bishops who advocated voting against the cuts ib the House of Lords; he also said that Labour and the Lib-Dems were promoting a loss of aspirations amongst the young where they feel there is no need to try to get out of the welfare system.
The main points that struck home to me, were:
"When the Church of England bishops voted against the Government's proposal to cap welfare benefits at £26,000 a year, I have no doubt they did so because they believed it was their duty to speak up for the very poorest in society — especially those voiceless children who, through no fault of their own, might suffer as a result.
As the bishops pushed for an amendment to the Government cap which means that families can still claim £50,000 a year in benefits, they must have known the popular opinion was against them, including that of many hard-working, hard-pressed churchgoers.
They also knew that the case for welfare reform had been persuasively made, even if they didn't agree with it.
Yet these five bishops — led by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds — cannot lay claim to the moral high-ground.
The sheer scale of our public debt, which hit £1trillion yesterday, is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today.
If we can't get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren.
In order to do this, we desperately need to reform our welfare system.
Opportunities to do so in times of prosperity have been squandered and now we are forced to do so at a time of high unemployment, under the guise of cutting expenditure.
As a result, our burgeoning benefits bill is increasingly stoking social division among this squeezed middle, who feel resentment at 'hand-outs' given to the long-term unemployed.
The truth is that the welfare system has gone from the insurance-based safety-net that William Beveridge envisaged in 1942 (designed to tackle the 'Giant Evils' of 'Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness') to an industry of gargantuan proportions which is fuelling those very vices and impoverishing us all. In the worst-case scenario it traps people into dependency and rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds pointed out that 'Christianity, along with other faiths and beliefs, requires us to think most of those that have no voice of their own. Children are one of the most evident examples of that.'
The Right Rev John Packer outlines his motion to exclude child benefit from the Government's £26,000 cap on welfare payments
While I quite agree with the sentiment, I can't possibly believe prolonging our culture of welfare dependency is in the best interests of our children.
The debate this week about welfare has centred around material poverty — on how many thousands of pounds per year each family receives, and if children have to share bedrooms. Yet young people raised in workless households suffer far more acutely from poverty of aspiration than from any material poverty.
These children have no role models to illustrate how liberating a lifetime of work can be — materially and spiritually.
Instead, their greatest gift to us, their children, was their unfailing work ethic, and their belief that our lives could be more prosperous than theirs if we applied ourselves.
The biggest tragedy of the culture of welfare-dependency into which Britain has slid is the way it has squeezed such hope from people's lives.
Many people cannot see any prospect for a better life for their children and are trapped in despairing and dreary circumstances. If we cannot make the rewards of hard work more appealing than a life spent on the dole then we will have failed a generation of children.
It is this determination to break the cycle of dependency among such families that I think is the most important aspect of the Government's so-called cuts programme.
'Committed Christian': Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is right to reform Britain's welfare system so it rewards work, not idleness
He, like many others in recent years, has come to realise that we have betrayed the poorest and most vulnerable by merely throwing money at them, be it income support or housing benefit, with no strings attached.
We have not tackled the root causes of poverty — the twin failures of aspiration and education — and have instead condemned generations to a lifetime of grinding envy and hopelessness.
Mr Duncan Smith's most important insight was also the most obvious. In order to encourage the jobless to join the workforce, employment has to pay significantly more than a life on benefits. Reform cannot stop there, however.
I have no doubt that, although the bishops were wrong in their opposition to these cuts, they will nevertheless continue to represent the poor of our country.
But instead of opposing the Government's welfare reform, I hope they will lend their support to the most important battle of all — that of preserving hope against the despair and pessimism which blights our workless communities."
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#51
I was most surprised at Carey's speech. I was never impressed with the man before but on this he was spot on.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#52
well boyo has a can of worms been opened up here.
ROGER;
It would be fantastic if we could move from a jobless society to one with jobs, and one of moving people that can be, moved from benefits to a job.
Sadly there isn't jobs out there, and whilst its a great move to look at the benefits system something i'v been on here years ago supporting.
the move to also hit cancer sufferers i can't support
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#53
Keith but surely what we need to have is a paradigm shift in what we consider as a society to be a job/useful work.
We need to start looking at not just the economic but also the societal needs that we have and to explore how these might be met at a time when the state is for good or bad contracting and pulling back from many of the things it has done in the past. Society needs to think about if those things the state has decided it can no longer do are important to us, if they are then how do we provide them and how do we reward those who make that provision.
At the same time we also need to look at what we consider to be remuneration, how we tax it and what we tax and at what level tax actually kicks in.
There are of course groups within our society that will always require a safety net and our support (financial physical and emotional) including those who are terminally ill, those who have retired, those who are genuinely unable to work through illness or disability, those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, those in work on low incomes to name the most important ones. This is where the state must and should intervene through a mixture of direct targeted benefits, tax credits, tax thresholds etc. Where we should not be providing support is to those who choose to opt out of education and/or training, those who make themselves unemployed or unemployable etc. As for those families who think they have a right to keep reproducing regardless and the society has a responsibility to support this - it has to be time to say "think again"; we need to turn the argument on its head and make it clear that parents have a duty and responsibility to make sure they have the means to support their offspring without the states intervention; after all we are already providing enormous support through free education, healthcare etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#54
Roger.
Your brother is obviously a hardworking man, with principles, pride and ambition. Contrary to what many believe, there are thousands out there like your brother, many more like him than there is lazy and idle.
I think a lot of what you said makes sence in 50#
All past Governments have tried to tackle the benefits problem, that we all know exists and we all agree needs fixing.
Up until now all of these attempts have failed, they all took the easy route and targeted the innocent claimants because the lazy idle, know exactly how to play the system.
Cuts need to be made and I can even see the sense with this capping, although I would like to know how many are receiving £500 per week and why?
However, this has got to be done fairly, with everyone in it together and not the way this Government is going about it. They are clearly attacking the weakest and the innocent.
You cannot make cuts to the Disabled people and let big business off with taxed owed. That might make sense to some but does not make sense to disabled people.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#55
Gary - there are 60,000 getting over £26,000 and most of those are in London so clearly maximum benefits have a relation to housing. Disability is not included in the cap by the way.
The fact is there is a massive problem and you have to cut budget where the big spending is and the biggest spend is on the benefit system. There are of course added reasons for hitting this budget and you need only see the Archbishop's speech to see those and it is a moral case.
This cap has to be seen also in the context of the overall change IDS is bringing in as well. It will also make it more beneficial for people on benefits to find work and that is important. If someone is hitting the cap then even if they can find part-time work paying £5k or £6k they will boost their income and that is a big change from the present system by which they would be punished for doing so.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#56
Roger.
A thought.
In my eyes your brother deserves to have a job with wages that allows him to pay his bills, enjoy a bit of pleasure and to not have the weekly stress that he is enduring now.
He clearly is struggling, like many others.
Assuming someone is at fault, whose fault is it?
Is it his fault he is not earning enough to live on?
Is it the Governments fault?
Or is it his Employers fault?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#57
BarryW.
Here's a first, I agree with you.
But you can't just turn round to those 60.000, cut their money and tell them they will be ok if they find a part time job.
If they are receiving that amount because some unscrupulous landlord is charging them a fortune in rent, cut the rent.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#58
The rent Gary is up to the landlord and presumably they are paying the market rate in that part of the world. No denying the problem but if the rent is extortionate then they need to move, sounds hard but it is the right response. I suspect though that rents may well be kept artificially high due to the way the benefit is paid. A cap on benefits may well help force a reduction in rent changing the dynamics for the way the market in some parts of the country is working. This is, I agree a bit academic and would not comfort anyone but at least they know they can get a part-time job to top up that income without being penalised. It may be the best thing to happen to some of these people, getting them out of a rut and forcing a re-think in how to live their lives. I am a big believer in the old concept of 'tough love' to force through changes and not to coddle people too much and coddling is what our dreadful benefits system does.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#59
there are many landlords that see the tax payer as a cash cow, up until now they have preferred their tenants to be on benefit.
this has already started to change with some rents in the london area coming down as they know the caps are coming soon.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#60
ROSS;
I share your view a big re think
hopefully this will happen
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS