Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 December 2010
22:0584684Always with a sting in the tail Keith!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
22:1084685barry and keith
do you sometimes wonder whether there is a time and a place for petty party point scoring?
the question was rhetorical, that goes without saying.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
14 December 2010
22:1384687howard
on this thread i have shown that although we may disagree i hold the viewpoint f the right of barryw to post.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
22:2384691not the point keith, the thread is about disadvantaged people that are being shafted.
both of you have used it to cold and calculating political one upmanship.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
14 December 2010
22:2584692howard
i have made my point which was in reply to jimmy
i will now refrain from postings on this thread
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
14 December 2010
23:3984695Barry, you brought a point up about how the Government could cut spending to a higher extent elsewhere so as not to cut spending on elderly or disadvantaged people in need of special financial aid and who wish to remain in their own homes.
I agreed to Gov's spending cuts on warplanes and the Trident nuclear sub programme, but not to denying disadvantaged people the right to receive some extra money in order to receive some help.
In the past I have mentioned on the Forum that Henry VIII did wrong in abolishing the monastary system, which employed many people directly and indirecly, and assured help for the needy, at least to an extent. To tax the monastaries on some of their surplus gold and silver treasures was fair enough, if this had been to the advantage of the general economy or even just the poor and needy, but not to do away with the whole establishment.
Today, as in the past, we need people who are dedicated to helping the disadvantaged, and this goes beyond strict financial reasoning. It has to do with charity, and Christian Faith.
People who help may also require a wage, otherwise they may not be able to support themselves, which is essentially why monastaries had estates, so that monks and nuns could also support themselves as well as help others.
Today, there is not that much going by way of ecclesiastical presence in society, so the State should consider some forms of payment to the disadvantaged as charity. They need it, and I strongly disagree with any dicision to sacrifice the rights and needs of disadvantaged people.
There is no room here for inflicting hardships and injustice on disadvantaged people. The answer from me is No! This is my democratic opinion. And it will remain a No!
But believe me, I am for abolishing on the spot all State finances to 'the family'. They have enough money of their own to look after themselves and to employ still many to look after them. But I wouldn't be as cruel as to have them carted off to a home if they became disadvantaged.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
08:0384703Howard - the first person to introduce politics to the thread was PaulP. I did not mention a political party at all but was referring to the economic reasons for the cuts and pointed out how easy it is to oppose any cut and/or find examples of people being disadvantaged by it. I challenged you to provide an alternative of equivilent value that could be cut instead. The reality of the situation is that spending must be cut.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 December 2010
10:3184726just as an example barry, the last paragraph from alex in post 46 would be a start.
if a country cannot look after the most vulnerable then there is something seriously wrong.
the benefits bill is massive, the 359 million for the severely disabled shoudl be saved, there must be other parts of the benefits bill where the money could be taken from.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
11:1884730I lose track of Alexander as soon as he mentions things like 'ecclesiastical' or Henry VIII....
I do not accept that all 'help' to 'disadvantaged' people is good, appropriate, cost effective or at the right level. A lot of it locks people in to poverty representing a hand out rather than a hand up. Alexander offered too broad a brush and would need to be much more specific in what he said for a proper debate. I am, incidentally, in favour of a safety net for those who hit hard times but the extent of that safety net is a subject to debate.
I disagree totally with him on Defence - spending on defence is the most important part of public spending and it is the first duty of government. That should be the last thing cut.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
15 December 2010
12:2184732Barry, my firm belief is that we as a Nation and Country have allies in the world who, as peoples, countries and governments, share the same interests as we do to maintain peace.
Governments will not allow that allied and friendly nations become involved in attrition with eachother that would require contraposing military strength, not even as a derterrent.
Hence, although I do not agree with the way NATO's constitution was changed in the '90s from a defensive alliance into one of world-order, a wider-reaching alliance of intents (which doesn't necessarily have to be NATO) will - and probably does - assure that we will never have a war between friendly countries. Military spending cuts are essential for our economy, but this does not mean that we would not be able to defend ourselves in time of war. The idea is, though, that our neighbours in Europe will never invade us, but are friendly countries, as peoples. So we don not all need to have each hundreds of warplanes, and many tens of expensive warships.
Smaller contingents are enough, as we would all help each-other anyway in case of a threat, such as the Somali pirate scene, which we do. But society will disagree more and more with decisions to deny disadvantaged and vulnerable people their basic rights to receiving the particular aid they need.
If we start with holding back the small pay-outs to people in need of a helping hand at home, then next it will be with-holding medicines, making heating-fuel more expensive for people who can't afford it anyway, and denying access to hospital treatment to chronically ill people.
We must stand up now and say No! to this sort of policy, before it gets too late. I can see where it would lead to if we don't, and debate is the best way to go about it. You might find, Barry, that more and more people will become afraid if this sort of policy starts off and continues, either for themselves or for other people in general, including loved ones.
If our society has to introduce inhumane measures, with the prospect of these measures getting stricter once they start being introduced, then more people will show their discontent, which is essentially what you experienced yesterday with Jimmy.
You exposed yourself to criticism, Barry, with your first post on this thread, it had to come, because people did not ever vote nor work for a system of inhumane principles.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
15 December 2010
12:5584734Now Alexander has put paragraphs into his post I can understand them better, no change that to 'follow' rather than understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
12:5584735Alex - we have debated defence before on other threads and it would be better to do so on a seperate thread.
I disagree that we can leave it all to our allies.
We do not always have the same strategic interests as them and we cannot always call on them either. It would also be wrong of us to let them carry our burden or to hide behind them as some countries do, hiding behind the USA.
Take the Falklands for instance. Do you really think that we could have relied on our allies to make up any deficiencies in our own defence posture? Certainly not - if so the Americans might have sent in a US Navy Carrier group to support our air defense or the French would have done more to help defend against the Exocets.
In the first Gulf War the Belgians refused to sell us ammunition....
In the real world sometimes we just have to defend our own interests and we need to ensure that we are able to do so.
As for 'inhumane principals' - I totally disagree with what you seem to think are 'inhumane principals'. I consider it inhumane to condemn people to poverty by making state benefits so high that it is not worth them getting a job. The only way out of poverty is through work. I consider it inhumane as well to hamstring our economy with high levels of public spending, limiting our ability to generate wealth the result of which is more low pay and more poverty.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 December 2010
12:5984736barry
if you think that people that are totally incapacitated can find work, then you are totally wrong.
we are not talking about people with a dodgy back or using a walking stick in case a benefit snoop is around.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
15 December 2010
13:0884740Agreed Howard, they are the ones who need 24hour care with everything sometimes so they can stay alive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
13:2684742That was not specific to those totally incapacitated, Howard, but to the more general point of benefits.
People should, however, be encouraged to make more incapacity provision for themselves while they are fit and healthy though insurance products. The government can help by allowing tax relief on suitable products that meet a minimum standard to encourage take-up. There are certainly a lot of excellent insurance products around that offer payment terms that are actually better than the terms on which long-term incapacity is offered. Maximim benefit levels are determined by income and can be considerably better than State benefit levels. Some companies do not even load premiums based on occupation.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
15 December 2010
14:2184751How can those who are born like it or are young when it happens "make more incapacity provision for themselves" ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
14:2684755Jan - I did say 'while they are fit and young' which includes most people and even the vast majority of those on incapacity benefits. I have no problem with state provision to help those who are uninsurable and if we are able to reduce the welfare costs through more private provision then the State can afford to be more generous for those who are genuinely unable to make private provision.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 December 2010
14:3384757the majority of the 21,000 were born with severe conditions or got them very young.
incapacity benefit is a totally different issue from i.l.f.
i doubt that private insurance would be the answer, there are usually so many get out of paying clauses.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 December 2010
15:4584761Howard.
Please take note of who I am referring to in my post, it is the vast majority of us who enter the workplace.
Private insurance IS the answer and everyone who is insurable should be expected to have cover, though I would incentivise it (tax relief) rather than make it compulsory.
Specifically I am referring to Income Protection Insurance otherwise know as Permanent Health Insurance (no, not Private Medical - different product all together).
These contracts pay an income tax free if you are unable to work as a result of ill-health or disability after a pre-determined waiting period (this can be 1 day through to a year - the longer the period the cheaper the cover). The waiting period is determined by the insured at outset based on how long they can support themselves if ill from their own resources, which may include periods of employer sick pay.
Benefits are payable until they are well enough to return to work or the pre-determined retirement age on the contract, whichever is first and the benefits can be indexed by RPI/AEI or by a fixed amount. These are also permanent contracts and multiple claims can be made with no new underwriting or terms offered after a first claim.
The best policies pay out if you are unable to perform your OWN occupation and these are better terms than offered by the 'all work' test of long-term incapacity benefit.
There is a maximum benefit based on the principal that you should not be better off by not working than at work and the fact that benefits are payable tax free on personal cover. Maximum claim levels vary between companies from 50% of salary to 65% of salary, employer funded scheme claims are taxable through PAYE, so they offer a 75% maximum cover.
On top of the benefit payment most contracts mean you can have the non-means tested incapacity benefits as well and some contracts either offer insurance to cover incapacity, in case you dont qualify to claim it, or a higher level of cover that deducts incapacity if you are successful in a claim.
The companies that I choose to deal with pay-out on over 90% of claims with the main reason for non-payment being non-disclosure of relevant pre-existing medical conditions. Companies have to reveal all this claims information under the regulations which help people like me target only the best.
Some companies make no loading for occupation but others do, one of the former has only two occupational exclusions, the military and teachers...
These are excellent contracts and if you are young and healthy can be very cheap, particularly relative to the potential benefit payments. A claim on these contracts is something like 16 times more likely than on life assurance before the age of 65.
The government has this week set up a study into making available simplified versions of such contracts to encourage people provide for themselves.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
15 December 2010
19:3084799Barry, a few weeks or more ago, I pointed out on the Forum that, on the basis of a research of mine, with reference to official statistics, there were about 500,000 work vacancies over a three month perios (till September 2010), but 5 million people on out-of-work benefits in Britain.
You immediately stated that these were only the job-centre vacancies, and suggested that all the vacancies in Britain are much more numerous than that figure.
I replied to you that the compilers of offcial statisitics are not so naive as to put down only the job-centre vacancies. You ignored this.
In reality, Barry, you either live in a world of your own, or you intentionally give a wrong impression of reality in this Country.
What you wrote above is better not repeated to millions of people in Britain who cannot get a job no matter how they tried. Ten peoplel for each vacancy should ring a bell or three!
Adding to this, about three quarters of job vacancies go to immigrants, which effectively means that there are 40 unemployed British peopole to each job vacancy. Furthermore, your insinuation that benefits are too high for people to live off and prevent them finding work adds insult to injury!