World unemployment
- 29 January 2013 10:26212653Setting benefits at a level that would only pay for the essentials in life would be difficult to achieve. At the one end of the scale we could reopen Buckland Hospital for it's original use (workhouse) where limited food and accomodation were offered but no money, or continue with todays system, I prefer today's system because no one dies of malnutrition because of lack of benefits.
Perhaps we could introduce a system whereby you cannot claim benefit until you have fulfilled a qualyfying period as practiced by many EC states.
As some one who is very highly taxed have no qualms that some of it goes to benefit claimants, all I ask is that it is targetted at those who genuinely no fault of their own cannot support themselves and their families.Once a Socialist always a Socialist thats me and I perhaps I may have to defend that statement. - 29 January 2013 10:47212657Smoke Tony - me never.....
The lifestyle of many people on benefit shows that benefit levels are generally too high. I do accept that some of them seen smoking and drinking may well be 'on the black' or getting pocket money off working wives.
I would like to see food vouchers redeemable only at certain approved places (preferably local shops not big chains.... help there for small traders). Plus housing benefit paid direct to landlords or interest direct to lenders, electricity/gas/water direct to the utilities, some clothing vouchers on the basis of the food vouchers a little bit of pocket money.
This way no-one need starve and if they do not like any stigma attached to using vouchers then that is a positive, more incentive to get work.
I am of course only referring to those of working age and fit to work. I would also have sever penalties for anyone found selling vouchers for cash so they can buy drugs, booze or whatever. Identity should be needed to redeem the vouchers. - 29 January 2013 11:10212659Sensible though it certainly is, to play with the tail of a snake. Once you convince yourself that playing with snakes is a reasonable thing to do, yet the snake has a mind of it's own, and all of two ends.
I have long thought how wonderful it is to be paying huge amounts of tax. What better way can there be to signify that you are earning a great deal?
There are two kinds of people who pay little or no Income tax;those who have the law on their side and the offices of accountants to help them and those who also have the law on their side, but who earn very little.
For those who would far rather pay less Income tax than they currently do the choice is quite simple. Either earn much more and employ accountants or earn substantially less.
What is wrong with the assertion that we, none of us, pays Income tax?
Instead, we all work hard and are paid for the work we do and are supplied with a read-out each pay day that in addition to confirming the amount we take home tells us how much we have helped the Nation?!
If, given the time of year, you look out upon your acres and visualise the beauty to come in the spring, that shall mature through the summer on into the autumn, but realise that a great deal of boring labourious work needs to be done before the beautification can commence.
You settle on getting a man in to clear things up, all the better for the dog to see the rabbit, so to speak.
Two men apply to do the work...
'A' - Local man, pays his dues, employs local labour, and quotes reasonable rates.
'B' - Some guy, fit and able, has an old truck that will just about do; "Insurance! Why you need insurance?" he says.
[To cut to the chase]
Do you consider paying 'B' the same amount as 'A'?
If, for the sake of argument, you consider paying 'B' less than 'A'; might it be because tax is just tax and not part of the rate for the job?Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 29 January 2013 11:51212662BarryW
"The lifestyle of many people on benefit shows that benefit levels are generally too high. I do accept that some of them seen smoking and drinking may well be 'on the black' or getting pocket money off working wives"
How magnanimous of you.
However, they could have just been made redundant, like the 4000 referred to in Ken's #3 or 1000's of others who have lost their jobs through these savage cuts.
Do these people deserve food vouchers?
Yes I know its Browns fault and the scroungers fault and the fault of all woolly lefties and anyone else who does not agree with you.
But the question was.
Do these people deserve food vouchers?"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" - 29 January 2013 11:58212665Yes - they do deserve vouchers so they do not starve. You may see this as a negative preferring to have cash thrown at them, I see it as a positive and far better for the taxpayer and society as a whole.
Your 'savage cuts' is nonsense - government spending has increased because cuts have not been deep or fast enough so far only reducing the deficit by a quarter. You hate me reminding people but such cuts are only necessary because of the many years of financial incompetence by Labour with the massive expansion of their unsustainable benefit society kept afloat only by a sea of debt. - 29 January 2013 13:10212673Nicely swerved the Brown word there BarryW, that must have hurt
"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" - 29 January 2013 13:19212677Its tough Gary, I have commented before on the alky/druggies we see wandering aimlessly around town. We house them and give them enough money to eat, buy clothes, mobile phones and enough drink and drugs to get smashed everyday.
Some people claim that these poor wretches are ill and therefore deserving, I'd rather the money went to your wife (who I don't know but understand is housebound). - 29 January 2013 14:01212682the real disabled are being lumped together with the wasters as it suits governments to do so. incidentally the voucher issue is just a political stunt, any corner shop that wants to survive will exchange them for whatever the bearer wants as has been done in the past.
- 29 January 2013 14:16212683Howard - that need not be the case. Serious penalties including imprisonment for those not checking i.d. and processing these properly. Such penalties are available now for many professions if they do not do appropriate checks, me included, so it is not new. It would not be difficult for TS to test shop.
- 29 January 2013 15:34212687won't happen barry, corner shops were given the lifeline of the lottery but supermarkets then took the lions share. test purchasing is not a possibility with each voucher being personalised;
- 29 January 2013 17:04212698Not sure what you are saying there Howard.
Trading Standards could quite easily visit a shop premises armed with vouchers trying to breach the rules and if they find an infringement could come down like a ton of bricks.... - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 January 2013 17:09212700so more more red tape etc along draconian no show with less teath officers. - 29 January 2013 17:47212711"I would also have severe penalties for anyone found selling vouchers for cash so they can buy drugs, booze or whatever"
That's how it starts: 1984Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 January 2013 18:50212717no alex its 2013.get with it,
- 29 January 2013 19:03212723" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 29 January 2013 21:33212754David #27
First paragraph, I agree and for the last time, it needs sorting out, as does the much higher scroungers and cheats at the other end of the scale. Perhaps food vouchers in the HoL will save us a few quid.
General
Perhaps someone could give us a figure as to how many of these scroungers are seen over the course of a week in Dover, not counting the same face twice of course?
Then imagine how many genuine people there are, who also draw benefits, that you don't see wandering aimlessly around town?
I would also like to know why the 1% of benefit scroungers gets 99% of content on this forum, whilst the 99% of genuine people only get 1% of consideration.
I have tried this before and I am sure it will be ignored by one or two again but when I refer to Disabled and the Un-employed in my posts in the future, let it be known that I am only referring to the genuine ones and with respect, could that be taken as granted, please?
I am as fed up with repeating myself and hearing about the 1% of benefit scroungers, as I am hearing about politics.
David #27
Second paragraph. The disabled person, (in my case that is my wife) already has her benefit money paid straight to her, I receive carer's allowance of £58.45.
I am not sure that I want to know your reason for making that strange statement, "I'd rather the money went to your wife", so I won't ask.
My wife is housebound, several times a year, for various periods. These periods would be more frequent and for longer periods if I was not her carer.
She became disabled after having an operation on her spine which was complicated by her being dropped whilst having an x-ray the following day.
If I am around to do the chores etc, she can live a fairly mobile life, which causes people to question how serious her disabilities are, when they see her out and about.
She also suffers severe migraine and sleep apnea, all part of her disability and asthma.
I am telling you this because I want you to understand that not all of what you see, wandering aimlessly around town, is always what you think it is. It is often what you don't see, when they are at home, that would perhaps make you think differently."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" - 29 January 2013 22:13212779Gary:
"I would also like to know why the 1% of benefit scroungers gets 99% of content on this forum, whilst the 99% of genuine people only get 1% of consideration."
With the voucher system Barry advocates, 99% of people receiving some form of benefits would be told what to buy, and what not, where to buy it, and where not.
With severe penalties for a transgression. Selling a voucher for whatever... would be severely punished.
1984, or Stalin 1926, not quite sure. But that's where it would all start.
Many would become mere numbers, receiving vouchers, told exactly what to do and what not to do, under severe penalty if disobeying.
Barry would be eating squirrel and other menu treats in restaurants with his circle of well-offs!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
29 January 2013 22:36212780Vouchers are just as open to abuse by the 'scroungers' as the present cash benefits system and are demeaning to to genuine claimant.
If only the vast amount of money poured into all these so called money saving schemes was used to catch those who are not entitled to benefits, surely such an idea would be self financing.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 29 January 2013 22:54212781My guess, Jan, is that most benefit scrounging comes in the way of claiming benefits (JSA and housing, for example) while working on the black and not declaring the revenues.
In a way it is not dissimilar to tax evasion done a la grande by some corporations or wealthy individuals.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 30 January 2013 08:39212799GaryC, perhaps I haven't explained myself very well.
I believe those who can have a duty to support those who can't, I don't care about those who can't be bothered. From what I gather your wife doesn't have a choice with her condition, the solution to drinking and drug taking is in the hands of the imbiber.