- This topic has 74 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by big_n_daft.
-
Gideon – a PR disaster!
-
big_n_daftFree Member
How about trying to engage the arguments,
OK
I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?
I don’t buy the argument that the level of extra benefits you get from having extra children really encourages significant numbers of people to have lots of children purely to ‘milk’ the system. Do you have some evidence that this is the case (please try to avoid using Daily Mail articles as a reference)?
is your alternative proposal in there?
Maybe, but do you truly believe all those people, church leaders etc, are motivated only by personal greed – and not because they have a social conscience, and actually care about vulnerable people?
I’m certain the expenses fiddling and tax avoidance that Ed and Ed have demonstrated over the years clearly shows their social conscience
SanchoFree Memberit seems there is no possible way to have a reasoned debate about benefits its too emotive on the one hand the social side of things looking to help the poor further v the cost analysis side of things from the tory side.
it all seems to just implode.
grumFree MemberI suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?
I support innocent children not being punished for the perceived sins of their parents. I’ll repeat, do you have some evidence that the so-called ‘limitless’ benefit system actually encourages people to have more children?
PhilbyFull Memberthe vested interests aren’t the poor, I don’t see them on the the media, instead I see third sector organisations, labour party and others that need the continuation of the status quo to support their existence
I am a trustee of a ‘third sector organisation’ which deals with such issues – we have had the same funding from the local council for 3 years i.e. a decrease in real terms due to cost increases such as electricity. We have up to 80 volunteers providing their time for free to help society’s most vulnerable and those who are facing difficult life situations e.g. redundancy, unfair dismissal. We see around 8,000 clients a year, but demand is increasing so much that people are queueing 2 hours before we open just to get an appointment. This will get even worse as the Government has cut Legal Aid for most areas of law meaning many people won’t be able to access appropriate legal representation, and agencies such as the one I am involved with will have to pick up the pieces with no extra funding.
Frankly we don’t need to the continuation of the status quo – we want the government to take on its responsibilities for everyone on society, but particularly to provide support to its most vulnerable members, and support an economy which provides real sustainable jobs which enable employees to come off benefits.
I would hate to see the impact on society if organisations, such as the one I am a trustee of, no longer exist.
SanchoFree Member“support an economy which provides real sustainable jobs which enable employees to come off benefits. “
Could I ask what kind of jobs that people could do in a global economy in the private sector.
I am thinking working in a factory somewhere making something.
but what, when we are competing with China, etc and their labour costs are so low, what company in the world will open up a factory in the uk to pay minimum wage etc to make goods to sell. when they can buy direct from China. (just like people on here do so easily).Im not knocking buying from China, its so easy to do, but we cant make things in the uk cheap enough to sell in the UK never mind across the world. Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.
so where is this next big employment sector going to come from?
It’s easy to knock the politicians for failing etc but how do you change an economy like ours and employ everyone?
JunkyardFree Member[/quote]
Could I ask what kind of jobs that people could do in a global economy in the private sector.
Big n daft looks l;ike the tory here ask him as I have no idea
Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.
you are the Chinese ambassador and i claim my 5 yen
It is cheaper than here that is all. The quality is not better and the ethics of china, in general, are considerably lower.It’s easy to knock the politicians for failing etc but how do you change an economy like ours and employ everyone?
Not sure anyone has the answers but we can be sure they are not trying to do this as “unemployment is a price worth paying”
big_n_daftFree MemberI support innocent children not being punished for the perceived sins of their parents.
for the benefit of the rest of us could you add more detail into your alternative proposal?
could you also explain how potentially giving people incrimentally less unearned cash as the number of children increases is punishing them?
sensible answer please you seem to turn into Owen Jones at times 😉
I’ll repeat, do you have some evidence that the so-called ‘limitless’ benefit system actually encourages people to have more children?
I haven’t alledged that, I asked you at what point does support from benefits become subsidisation of a lifestyle choice?
any thoughts on this?
or is it the case
it seems there is no possible way to have a reasoned debate about benefits its too emotive on the one hand the social side of things looking to help the poor further v the cost analysis side of things from the
torytax payer
side.SanchoFree Member“unemployment is a price worth paying”
no one wants to see people out of work, but where are the jobs coming from. it dosent matter what your politics are, its just not going to happen soon.
do we enforce a mass re-education scheme?
a re-skilling of the unemployed?
benefit payments to enable people to move for work?but it all comes down to encouraging companies to employ people and I know from experience that most companies prefer poaching people from a current position than employing someone out of work. so the unemployed are the last on the list and they have it hardest to get work.
big_n_daftFree MemberBig n daft looks l;ike the tory here ask him as I have no idea
looks can be deceiving
Not sure anyone has the answers but we can be sure they are not trying to do this as “unemployment is a price worth paying”
it’s not. But how do you stop creating a unemployable underclass when your pool of people available to work can expand, as demonstrated by the numbers of people who chose to move here from other countries and then seem to successfully find work.
this is why the class war rhetoric is completely pointless, times have moved on, the arguments it seems have not
SanchoFree Memberand working with the Chinese is a revelation.
service, quality, support, follow up of calls and emails, a gulf in working with uk companies (I am talking about the cycle trade that’s all)
thekingisdeadFree MemberIm not knocking buying from China, its so easy to do, but we cant make things in the uk cheap enough to sell in the UK never mind across the world. Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.
Never heard of high value added manufacturing? With the largest aerospace industry in the world after the US and some of the most productive car plants in Europe we’re actually quite good at. We just need to do more of it 🙂
And as for china – they only ‘beat’ us on labour rates. Quality and productivity (in efficiency terms) are lower than the UK.
Another advantage of high tech manufacturing are that the wages don’t generally require topping up thru tax credits, unlike the thousands of part time jobs Starbucks, tescos et al seem to be ‘creating’
teamhurtmoreFree MemberGideon went to Burger King – isn’t he supposed to be a toff? OP, you are correct, what a PR disaster. And on top of dropping Estuary English into his latest speeches a la Blair! These toffs aren’t what they used to be, are they? 😉 Now if he had pulled out a .410 from the RR and bagged a brace of pheasant from some farmer’s field, we could have been on to something!
But seriously, of all the legit reasons to have a crack at Osbourne, the Mirror chooses this. Bizarre?
grumFree Memberfor the benefit of the rest of us could you add more detail into your alternative proposal?
In a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work – funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).
could you also explain how potentially giving people incrimentally less unearned cash as the number of children increases is punishing them?
The current benefits system is hardly generous (unless you believe the Daily Mail of course) – asking people to try and survive on even less is pushing thousands of children further into poverty. How is that not punishing them?
I haven’t alledged that, I asked you at what point does support from benefits become subsidisation of a lifestyle choice?
any thoughts on this?
I don’t know, do you? All benefits are ‘subsidisation of a lifestyle choice’ to some extent – shall we get rid of them all?
Personally though, I am comfortable with the idea that a statistically insignificant number of people might be exploiting the system or ‘having their lifestyle choices subsidised’, if it means that the people that need help get it.
Whereas seemingly you would rather make sure no-one gets ‘too much’ in benefits, and never mind if that means some deserving people get screwed over.
this is why the class war rhetoric is completely pointless, times have moved on, the arguments it seems have not
Just repeating the phrase ‘class war rhetoric’ over and over again isn’t actually an argument, you do know that right?
SanchoFree MemberNever heard of high value added manufacturing?
yes and work in it daily.
but this isnt going to employ lots of people who are unemployed.
its high value add because the people add the high value and they are highly skilled and not unemployed.
big_n_daftFree MemberIn a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work – funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).
ahhh, TINA 😉
Personally though, I am comfortable with the idea that a statistically insignificant number of people might be exploiting the system or ‘having their lifestyle choices subsidised’, if it means that the people that need help get it.
can you please subsidise my lifestyle choices, as an individual I’m statistcally insignificant. I’ll send you my 29er wish list 😉
I’ll then support your TINA policy
JunkyardFree MemberGideon went to Burger King – isn’t he supposed to be a toff? OP, you are correct, what a PR disaster. And on top of dropping Estuary English into his latest speeches a la Blair! These toffs aren’t what they used to be, are they? Now if he had pulled out a .410 from the RR and bagged a brace of pheasant from some farmer’s field, we could have been on to something!
Very funny LIKES
ahhh, TINA
O did you see the bit about higher taxes rather than cutting costs – it is clearly an alternative to your beloved view – perhaps you could engage and explain why it wont work or something slightly more difficult that pointless sarcasm?
can you please subsidise my lifestyle choices, as an individual I’m statistcally insignificant. I’ll send you my 29er wish list
I assume he means more towards keeping you from poverty but you know that etc
Why goad someone into an answer to then refuse to engage – a rather odd technique in a discussion
teamhurtmoreFree MemberGrum, from your last post you may find the following article interesting (genuinely!)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2e2102de-9c8b-11e2-9a4b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PaujkN9D
binnersFull MemberWhen you shamelessly and cynically use your friendly attack dogs in the press to blame the deaths of 6 kids on the benefit system – thus furthering your own toxic agenda – you can’t then have any complaints when other sections of the press get a bit hysterical about your own misdemeanours.
You reap what you sow you nasty chinless ****!!!
big_n_daftFree MemberO did you see the bit about higher taxes rather than cutting costs
hmmmm
In a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work – funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).
so no change to benefits system…. so £60k+ p.a. tax free effective income for some families in specific circumstances unconstrained from future growth. Paid for by at least 10 people on average income paying ever increasing taxation.
O did you see the bit about higher taxes rather than cutting costs
I did, lower taxes, higher taxes…. is that Brownenomics? 😉
it is clearly an alternative to your beloved view – perhaps you could engage and explain why it wont work or something slightly more difficult that pointless sarcasm?
your turn to be Owen Jones?? 😉
big_n_daftFree Memberyou can’t then have any complaints when other sections of the press get a bit hysterical about your own misdemeanours
remote control parking of a car whilst queuing in Burger King
is that the James Bond feature, what page in the brochure is that? 😉
grumFree MemberI read the article THM – not sure it’s really saying anything beyond ‘I have a somewhat right-wing outlook on the current economic situation, people with a more left-wing outlook are wrong’.
so no change to benefits system…. so £60k+ p.a. tax free effective income for some families in specific circumstances unconstrained from future growth.
How many families does this apply to, and what is their significance to the overall cost of the welfare system? Or are you just picking on largely irrelevant Daily Mail tropes without any real evidence?
Why does this seemingly bother you so much more than the massively higher amount we lose in unpaid taxes (avoidance and evasion)? Or the amount we spend on working tax credits, subsidising the profits of major companies who pay their staff a pittance.
I did, lower taxes, higher taxes…. is that Brownenomics?
Lower taxes on low earners, higher taxes on higher earners is what I said. Which bit of that don’t you understand?
teamhurtmoreFree MemberOk, Grum, it was a genuine link to something that I read differently and which I thought would appeal to you. We obviously read it, and view the author, differently. I won’t bother with the why raising thresholds is better than lowering tax rates link!
big_n_daftFree MemberHow many families does this apply to, and what is their significance to the overall cost of the welfare system? Or are you just picking on largely irrelevant Daily Mail tropes without any real evidence?
it’s the principle that you can manufacture need without constraint
Why does this seemingly bother you so much more than the massively higher amount we lose in unpaid taxes (avoidance and evasion)?
the debate hasn’t gone there yet. Personally I believe that we should be working hard to crack down on tax avoidance/ evasion. I’m an adovcate of flat taxation and minimal allowances. I think that the rich shouldn’t be able to choose where there tax goes (tax allowances for charity donations should be massively constrained). I think the civil service pay structure means that we lose the best people to the evadors and needs to be changed. International tax law nees to be grappled with and an efficient way of making sure tax is paid where earnings are made should be a priority.
Lower taxes on low earners, higher taxes on higher earners is what I said. Which bit of that don’t you understand?
I understand it, a big tax hike on the high earners pays for a small tax reduction on the low earners. What are your proposed rates and tax bands?
grumFree MemberTHM – Sorry that came across as a bit more dismissive than I intended. Post the link. 🙂
it’s the principle that you can manufacture need without constraint
Right, so you don’t have any evidence that this is actually a problem worth bothering about then?
I’m glad you agree re tax evasion – my point is that this gets much less government/media attention, despite the amounts of money it could potentially bring in being many many times greater.
I understand it, a big tax hike on the high earners pays for a small tax reduction on the low earners. What are your proposed rates and tax bands?
I’m not sure TBH, I’m not an economist – not getting rid of the 50p tax band would be a start though. And before the ‘it brings in more money when you reduce the tax rate’ argument:
1) evidence?
2) Just because people evade complying with something doesn’t mean you get rid of it – you should make them. This principle isn’t applied to other areas of government/the law – ‘oh dear people are still committing murder even though it’s illegal’ – ‘I know let’s make it legal, that will reduce the crime rate’.rattrapFree MemberInteresting that the Lefties are all referring to George as Gideon again..
I don’t remember them referring to Gordon as James!
bentudderFull MemberIt’s a shocking lapse of judgement.
Anyone who’s driven to South Wales knows that Magor Services is a pit of depravity, filth and despair. He’d have been better off stopping at Cardiff Gate or Leigh Delamere instead.
JunkyardFree MemberIt like they dont respect him or something innit :idea
Imagine that lefties not liking Osborne and being disrespectful to himHe is always so sweet and nice about them as well
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberWell, it’s consistent at least. Using the middle names of both men. 😉
JunkyardFree MemberIts not Osbornes middle name as he added it at the front of his name and did not have it till he did this.
Wow I know more about the Tories than you do 😯
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberSo, both men changed their name. Jolly good.
So, why not call Brown “James” then?
nick1962Free MemberThe benefit system is in dire need of reform and all the parties agree on that.
It cannot go on as it is for several reasons.
1 Cost
2 The vicious cycle of benefit culture/dependency and all the associated social ills that brings and the apparent disincentives to work-this is not a party political thing all the independent research supports the view that work is better for youand to a lesser extent
3 Complexity/multiplicity of various benefits,rules,IT systems etc creating overlaps and overpayments and also money going unclaimed-usually pensioners
4 Abuse/misuse-eg the nation has never been healthier yet we have more people of working age claiming sickness related benefits than ever before
5 Impact of European migration-UK benefit regulations historically were drafted to make it easy to claim and some migrants have exploited this hence the government’s panic over the Bulgarian/Romanian issue.The last government had commissioned plenty of research and set the reforms in motion.
The latest Tory punitive cuts are playing to the voting gallery and will have little financial benefit to the treasury but will hit those affected hard.
Benefit reform is as complicated as a complicated thing can be.
AFAIK It is estimated that 600,000 people will be better off under Universal Credit but unfortunately 400,000 will be worse off.
And whilst moving large numbers of people off benefits and into work depends largely on econmic recovery and growth.Even if/when this does happen many of the people will move into low paid ,low skill,low tax(if any) jobs and so will still need taxpayer support for their families/housing costs etc.JunkyardFree MemberSo, both men changed their name. Jolly good.
erm gordon was always named gordon As far as I know- I dont know if he was ever referred to as James – any proof?
Within my family a group of cousins are all known by their second name and always have beenSo, why not call Brown “James” then?
See above and they dont respect osborne hence they use his moniker
Its pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO
rogerthecatFree MemberIts pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO
Isn’t it just, but I think most deserve some equally childish epithet. There are so few, currently in politics, worth anything but contempt.
big_n_daftFree MemberIts pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO
does he verbally abuse his staff and throw mobile phones?
The benefit system is in dire need of reform and all the parties agree on that
some people on here disagree with you
The latest Tory punitive cuts are playing to the voting gallery and will have little financial benefit to the treasury but will hit those affected hard.
The £25k p.a. tax free limit for benefits seems generous, especially as it doesn’t operate if you work
And whilst moving large numbers of people off benefits and into work depends largely on econmic recovery and growth.Even if/when this does happen many of the people will move into low paid ,low skill,low tax(if any) jobs and so will still need taxpayer support for their families/housing costs etc
not sure how this works in the context of a labour pool that can swell quite quickly should the work be available
The topic ‘Gideon – a PR disaster!’ is closed to new replies.