howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're a hard man barry many of these layabouts need a wrap or two so that they can "chill out" successfully.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,920
I'm unwilling to accept your view.
i don't have evidence as i'm sure you don't that the majority of those claiming benefit are anything like those you claim to know about.
the benefits systems is out of date, needs reform, but in all this those less fortunate need protecting
your generalisation is always the worry
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Did I say majority? Show me where I said that...
The fact that a substantial minority do is indication enough.
As for the rest, they may not be druggies but more often than not can still fund alcohol and cigarettes on benefits along with mobile phones and Sky. The whole point is that the more comfortable you make people on benefits the harder it is to get them off benefits and into work.
I also, incidentally, am against middle class benefits too. Child benefit should be limited to the first three children, heating allowance to non-taxpaying pensioners (this with a taxable income of under £10,500) and, not to mention Child Tax credits. The latter should be phased out all together over a 5 year period. I would also phase out WTC when CTC is gone.
This is where the government must focus a lot of the savings we need.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,920
barryw
take an other calm down pill,
we both probably agree as would the vast majority of posters on this forum
where we may differ is to who we would take them from and how
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, I do not agree with you at all!
With your words:
"...but I would love to double, triple that and I certainly would not turn down millions.... or even billions.... Anyone who says they would are liars."
you have effectively called me a liar, as in a previous post I clearly wrote that I do NOT aspire at becoming financially rich.
I strongly doubt that most people think like you on this.
You are possibly the only person on the Forum who aspires at earning millions of pounds.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Another point, Barry, is the absolute lack of social responsibility on the part of the super-rich.
This thread is about local authority funding cuts. The super-rich are part of the local public among whom they live, but if they do not care for the community, and just amass private assets, funneling these from the economy, then the whole community suffers because of it.
Similarly, we have a public debt of £1 trillion, or even more than that, as you have suggested, considering the hidden public debt that Gordon Brown (as you state) deliberately hid from the official figures.
So, Barry, if we have a public debt of well over £1 trillion pounds, why should the super-rich not be obliged to pay up from their private assets to reduce this public debt?
Or are the super-rich people not part of the public? Are they ABOVE the public?
Are they immune to social responsibility towards the public of whom they are part?
There is a legally binding case that, as they are part of the public, they are obliged to pay up from their private assets to reduce the public debt.
I am bringing this point up with the Cabinet, with 10 Downing Street and in comments on Sky News.
We must continue to strive for social justice and must NEVER give in!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - you clearly speak from someone with a highly authoritarian streak who wants everything and everyone to conform to his ideas of what we should think or want.
I am different, I believe in freedom, that we should be free to follow our aspirations and our talent to wherever they lead, to be a success or a failure in doing that and in standing on your own two feet and taking responsibility and be free from government diktat.
I very much doubt that many people will sympathise with your Stalinist sympathies because that is exactly what you are expressing even if you do not know it. Confiscatory policies stealing private property to make people pay for debts incurred through irresponsible government spending while paying people not to work etc etc.
Your idea of society is most people's idea of hell and would send any country into economic meltdown.
You can pose self-righteously and claim whatever you want about your ambitions (or lack of) because you are unlikely ever to be in a position to establish a 'mega' company and earn millions, very few people manage to do that so it is not a personal comment, but many, many would love to do it. We should be grateful to those who do achieve the heights of business success and those who then manage these companies successfully because of the jobs they provide and the benefits we as a society gain from successful businesses. These people deserve all they get and we need more of them and more of their success.
I say it again - The vast majority of people would love to come into £millions. Those with a talent can do so through business or other success, others by winning the lottery (often we have seen these lottery people end up broke again a few years later!!).
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to the thread the amount being cut by kent county council seems a lot less than expected earlier.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-19505817Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, once again, I am not talking of companies but private assets.
This thread is about local spending cuts, local authorities need more cash to administer to the needs of their communities, the cash is being cut, even though we all pay tax.
The vast majority of people, Barry, do not think like you, and I doubt we are all going to just sit around while public spending to councils is cut by 40% owing to a bankrupt Treasury.
Keith Bibby is right in analysing that, unless things change to the benefit of the People, our Country will either be governed by a communist or a nationalist government.
I don't know where the possibilities you refer to for establishing a business are, nor for successfully running one, other than for a select few!
At the end of the day, Barry, democracy prevails, and we will vote a government that gives us a chance to live!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
you and barry have hijacked this thread, we have the "elite greedy chaps" thread for you both to continue your vendetta,
this is about the swingeing cuts in our home county, the details of which are in the link on post 108.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
To be honest and a tad simplistic
Those earning a living will generally vote for the party proposing the lowest tax take from their earnings
Those who rely on the state for their money will generally vote for the party proposing the lowest impact on pensions and/or benefits
Rarely are these the same party
"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
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
You are right H that the reduction in KCC budget is lower than expected by many pundits and it is encouraging for those of us who pay council tax to see that it is yet again going to be frozen
"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 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - they are one in the same. The shares I own in companies are my private assets. There is no distinction, same for everyone.
You do not solve a problem caused by incompetent governance by stealing private property. Doing that causes much greater problems.
Howard - everything is linked and threads often go off in tangents.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Read the article, Howard. Kent County Council has an annual budget of £1.1 billion.
It highlights:
"The council expects to see a budget gap of between £60m and £80m every year for the next three years."
It also mentions KCC cutting 1,500 jobs.
So where will these people find work?
And if they find work, it means that others who would have got a job won't be able to.
It means less people will be recruited by KCC in the first place.
Add to that the said spending cuts in various sectors dependent on KCC finance.
Clearly local Council authorities need access to more local revenues.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
What exactly are local revenues?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Decentralisation, David, less revenues to the Treasury, more to local Councils.
An economic version of Localism.
It would mean more accountability and less money waste.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
115, David, more local revenues means higher council tax and business rates.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
More local revenues would mean less taxes going to the central Treasury and more to the local councils. A higher degree of money management would be required from local administrations to make sure it is spent where it is needed.
If, for example, 50% of all income tax went to the central State and 50% to the county councils, and in return each county council were responsible for paying all benefits in its own area, the local officers (jobcentre or whoever) would soon make sure that unemployed people find work, and that no-one claims incapacity benefit if they don't really need it.
As an example, Maidstone could delegate DDC to summon all unemployed people, and I mean ALL unemployed including those in Folkestone Road!!! no mater what language they speak, and make sure they get a job!
If any employers are making no secret of their preference for Eastern Europeans, such as Tilmanstone Salads - who even openly admit it on their website - they'd be immediately summoned to court for discrimination.
Economic Localism means more accountability, it means local officers speaking directly to the people in their area, sussing out the problems, and fixing them.
In our case, unemployment in Dover District would go down by 90% within 3 months!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
And please believe me, Peter, I am a lot more Spartanic than you might think.
One would have to have a damn good reason to be receiving JSA, but on the other hand I wouldn't allow any of this racial discrimination nonsense either, that so many of our factory employers here get away with.
They would feel the full measure of the law!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,920
to be fair
locals councils DDC
has so little power and can o so little it wouldn't matter to much who supposidly controlled them.
of course we will one day see a council that is not officer led
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS