Forum menu
slimjim78 - Member
Stumpyjon made some good points but instead you seem to want to riducule him
Possibly, but whether he did or didn't, he definitely did say
, which is quite an inflammatory thing to hear for anyone who, like I and clearly many people engaging on this thread, knows one or many disabled people directly exposed to the brunt of the cuts in question.there will be many diasable people who get far too much and only have themselves to blame for their situation
Granted - i think that particular line was particularly badly worded.
I 'think', or at least my initial interpretation was that there are many claimants suffering side effects of alcoholism, diabetes, smoking, drug abuse etc etc - that have made essentially poor lifestyle choices that could have been avoided. And we should perhaps make the distiction clearer between those possibly abusing the benefit system (too stressed to work?) and those genuinely in need.
as he did say - the lines drawn are a very grey area.
If the cuts do go ahead - I would be gutted to see further suffering to the genuine needy. The points scoring system, I would imagine, was an attempt at making a fair assessment of someones physical ability in relation to thier disability.I and clearly many people engaging on this thread, knows one or many disabled people directly exposed to the brunt of the cuts in question.
Perhaps the end result of the scoring system is way off the mark.
For the record I am a higher rate tax payer and my eyes do water every time I see the gross amount of tax I pay and the percentage of my earnings that I lose.
You only pay higher-rate tax on income nearly double the national average. And you get higher-rate tax relief on your pension. And reduced NI contributions. You also pay VAT, council tax, fuel duty etc at the same rate as everyone else.
Table 1 shows that the poorest quintile pays a higher percentage of income in tax than the richest quintile.
I don't think the aggression is confined to the left slimjim78. Perhaps the vehemence of some replies on this thread is due to the stark juxtaposition of tax cuts for top rate payers and benefit cuts for disabled people. That's the reality of this government. I suspect that Boris Johnson would support both these measures but right now he's keeping quiet because Osborne has done his Robin Hood in reverse act robbing the poor to pay for the well off. Prime Minister Johnson anyone?
I 'think', or at least my initial interpretation was that there are many claimants suffering side effects of alcoholism, diabetes, smoking, drug abuse etc etc - that have made essentially poor lifestyle choices that could have been avoided. And we should perhaps make the distiction clearer between those possibly abusing the benefit system (too stressed to work?) and those genuinely in need.
You accuse other people of being nasty but the number of mean-spirited, judgmental assumptions just in that little bit is quite astonishing.
Why? Just why? Why even look at that line on your payslip? You look at that and think 'wow, that's a lot, I wish I had that'. How is that anything other than greed?
I pay very close attention to all the numbers on my payslip; I even understand what most of them mean. Quite why anyone wouldn't is beyond me as it informs quite a lot of other decisions.
Blaming disability benefits claimants for being in a position to have to claim said benefits is really missing the point massively.
Most of an individual's advantage or disadvantage in life, in both social and health terms is bestowed on them before they leave school, much of it is fixed before they are born.
Suggesting that people should just bloody well get themselves out of this pickle by trying harder is typical of what those with all the advantage would say of those with all the disadvantage.
When people look at someone else's lifestyle decisions it is important to consider what choices they have and how easy it is for them to change their behaviour.
Imagine a single mum in a tower block with three kids under 5 and a retired gent in his mortgage paid house in the village. Both smoke. Both would benefit from stopping. Who would find it easier to stop? Who would find it easier to access services to help them stop? Who would the services be offered to? Who would be the most "efficient " user of resources? The low hanging fruit for the target driven smoking cessation service to help with most chance of success?
So the person in greatest need is least likely to get help because it's harder to help them, and their social and health and economic disadvantage continues to grow.
The welfare state is seen by the right as just a cost, a drain on the economy.
It's not, it's an investment in the future of society and in humanity.
Why do we spend money educating our kids? Just for the sake of it? Or so that there will be an overall benefit to society.
The welfare state is being dismantled as we speak and society will be worse because of it in the future.
So yeah, worry about how much tax you pay cos that money you save will have to help you in your old age when the state has given up on you.
I fail to see the problem. With the spendid reduction in CGT and higher rate tax surely now we can all afford to keep our disabled relatives in the attics of country houses/alms houses on our estates?
slimjim78The points scoring system, I would imagine, was an attempt at making a fair assessment of someones physical ability in relation to thier disability.
No, that's how it was described and how GO would like it to be viewed. The reality is that it is an incredibly transparent and cynical mechanism for cutting the amount being paid out without any consideration or dignity for the members of society in the firing line.
It is and always has been completely outcome driven, meaning that the people previously getting the benefits are now at the mercy of an arbitrary threshold they may or may not meet.
£30 per week cuts from the poorest and disabled BUT the Govt are after an 11% pay rise ..... we're all in this together!!! Yea Right Gidion ya tax dodging Fop :/ multi millionaires telling the poor to accept less, Truly shameful 😡
Incidentally my Dads had three strokes, got angina, arthritis, type 1 diabetes, vascular dementia and bowel cancer. Deemed ineligible for PIPS, and my mum couldn't even get carers allowance, won on appeal but the process took 18 months and nearly pushed my mum over the edge, thankfully now both OAPs and as such out of the worst of it. The system's a ****ing disgrace as it is never mind what these pricks are planning for it.
What I really can not get my head around is the assessment companies (whatever they're called) and the apparent 'incentivisation' that exists for assessors to refuse funding. Have even heard of an assessor fabricate an applicant's replies when said applicant was bed bound.
Utterly morally repugnant. 😐
Sorry to hear that thestabiliser
Incidentally my Dads had three strokes, got angina, arthritis, type 1 diabetes, vascular dementia and bowel cancer. Deemed ineligible for PIPS, and my mum couldn't even get carers allowance, won on appeal but the process took 18 months and nearly pushed my mum over the edge
Anyone going to ask whether there were some lifestyle factors involved which would mean that making his life a misery was somehow justified? Thought not, cos that would make you a bit of a....
Well that was pretty predictable.
[s]Maybe my statement that a lot of people receiving disability support only have themselves to blame was pretty blunt but as slimjim pointed out there are many avoidable was of becoming disabled.[/s]
You know what I can't even be bothered, you're all right anyone earning more than average doesn't deserve it and everyone with a health issue is an innocent ground under the jack boot of the better off, lets keep it nice and black and white so we don't have to think too hard about the genuinely difficult issues in society. While we're at lets all assume because we believe something its an absolute truth (for the record there are some things that are fundamentally right like the speed of light, anything to do with morals and fairness is highly subjective). I'll go back to being part of the silent bullish majority. No wonder people this country don't like to engage.
The daily mash sums up those defending this:
Genetic testing for all, you know it makes sense.
The welfare state is being dismantled as we speak and society will be worse because of it in the future
If you look at the cost of welfare year on year you'd have to say its expanding
why even look at that line on your payslip
Why even look at a restaurant bill or a bar tab ? You look to see if you've been charged the correct amount and its absolutely justified to ask yourself whether that money which you have earnt is being spent wisely by the government
@grum I've posted dozens of times that at 40% max I think tax is reasonably fair. Above that combined with removing personal allowance, scalaing back pension allowances for private sector whilst state still enjoy gold plated pension - yup I think its too high and a disincentive to work in the UK. Outside investors likelwise make similar decisons.
You know what I can't even be bothered, you're all right anyone earning more than average doesn't deserve it
[img] 
[/img]
Why even look at a restaurant bill or a bar tab ? [s]You look to see if you've been charged the correct amount[/s] just half inch the tip on the way out.
FIFY
What an illuminating thread
According to a doc, there is no such thing as executive stress
Public services are free
And we have government full of truly evil people
And it's greedy to want to understand how much ofyour income is taken by these nasty, greedy, evil folk who run our country ( pretty badly by all accounts)
Really is a sad day.
You know what I can't even be bothered, you're all right anyone earning more than average doesn't deserve it and everyone with a health issue is an innocent ground under the jack boot of the better off, lets keep it nice and black and white so we don't have to think too hard about the genuinely difficult issues in society. While we're at lets all assume because we believe something its an absolute truth (for the record there are some things that are fundamentally right like the speed of light, anything to do with morals and fairness is highly subjective). I'll go back to being part of the silent bullish majority. No wonder people this country don't like to engage.
[img] 
[/img]
Toughen up princess. Seriously. It's a shame you don't have the confidence in your opinions/arguments to talk about them without flouncing when people disagree, but that's no-one's fault but your own.
Why call him princess other than to be rude? Is it a reference to sexuality in some way? Or is there a real point?
It's an expression, no reference to sexuality intended. This kind of stuff is incredibly childish and illogically argued though:
You know what I can't even be bothered, you're all right anyone earning more than average doesn't deserve it and everyone with a health issue is an innocent ground under the jack boot of the better off,
Not sure it really merits a serious response.
Your whole post:
What an illuminating threadAccording to a doc, there is no such thing as executive stress
Public services are free
And we have government full of truly evil people
And it's greedy to want to understand how much ofyour income is taken by these nasty, greedy, evil folk who run our country ( pretty badly by all accounts)
Really is a sad day.
Is there a real point?
I'll go back to being part of the silent bullish majority.
What do you mean by "silent bullish majority"?
Weren't you just complaining about being one of the minority that is actually a net contributor^ to the UK?
^ only fiscally, sugar
Yes, some "facts" that I had not heard of before.
But be careful, is someone finds being called princess and buttercup offensive then we can be sure that the consistency of the hammer will be maintained.
You accuse other people of being nasty but the number of mean-spirited, judgmental assumptions just in that little bit is quite astonishing.
I was stating what my interpretation of another persons statement was.
However:
According to a doc, there is no such thing as executive stress
I'm no doc, but I do know how easy it is to be signed off from work with stress! Some people crack up at work and need serious help and support - many many others use their GP and position as a meal ticket. For example.
To suggest otherwise is just niaive.
Anyway, Im not here to decipher other peoples lack of reading skill - nor explain how some people, may just [i]possibly[/i] abuse benefit systems.
I would probably be interested in a discussion on how to best go about ommiting the genuine scroungers from the welfare state without hitting the genuine claimants though. Because from what I can tell on here, the general concensus is to just keep increasing the budget at all costs.
Maybe that is possible and maybe we should. Sounds expensive though.
Thestabiliser - when you read a story like yours it does put it all into perspective, my best wishes to your folks.
Well I was paraphrasing Professor Sir Michael Marmot thm, have a read, it's quite interesting.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/whitehallII/pdf/wii-booklet
Executives by definition have more control of their lives and therefore mental and physical health than those in low status jobs.
Obviously some people feel stressed in their high status jobs, I do sometimes. But I could make changes if it started to damage my health.
Of the people that go into high level politics, the percentage of sociopathic personalities is far higher than the population at large.
It goes beyond not caring.
Sounds like a fact badnews - source?
If you look at the cost of welfare year on year you'd have to say its expanding
And how much of that is spent on pensions and other spending related to the ageing population?
Ok some something a bit closer to reality on stress!
Osborne is in a mess. Growth is slowing v forecasts and productivity is mixed at best which is bad news for wages and for tax revenues. Welfare reform is going pear shaped as a policy after the tax credit fiasco and the subsequent decision on disability benefits which is both economically questionable and politically idiotic - where are all the headlines?
And taxes? Ok they are a buggers middle and largely incomprehensible but still higher rate tax payers pay more of the total income tax than in 2010. Some friends eh? And heaven forbid if you own property or are a bank!!
Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.
economically questionable and politically idiotic
Finally, something I can agree with.
Sounds like a u-turn on the cuts is in the pipeline now though?
True plus more missed targets. Old austerity George will be spending more that he is earning for some time yet!!
teamhurtmore - Member
Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.
POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
How?
Different pots of money (oh and one is basically an unfunded ponzi scheme)
Is sugar-tits ok?
As a top rate taxpayer, hasn't she been persecuted enough? It seems they're the only minority that it's acceptable to be prejudiced against. It's really, like, SOOOOOOOO not fair!
I'd just like to apologise for being simply beastly, and letting the reality of the lives of horrid poor and disabled people intrude on the middleclasstrackworld bubble.
As penance I'll go and start a thread about what buy-to-let mortgage, or the dilemma of which large German company car to choose?
Zero DR. Pensions are different from welfare.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/04/welfare-tax-statements-prime-minister-pension
What does zero DR mean?
austerity George
Or "pensioner killer George"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315220308.htm
One is capped (welfare) the other isn't (pensions). Treated differently.
Welfare spending to fall to 25-year low, warns IFS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33009399
The IFS said protecting pensioner benefits meant cuts of almost 10% over two years to the welfare budget.
That would take welfare spending as a share of GDP to its lowest since 1990.
The government has committed to taking £12bn out of social security spending by 2018.
Welfare spending currently amounts to £220bn annually. That includes £95bn on the state pension and universal pensioner benefits, such as the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel and television licences for the over-75s.
The Conservatives have promised those areas of welfare spending will remain protected throughout the life of the current parliament.
But the remaining £125bn of welfare spending could be subject to freezes or cuts.
Unprotected welfare benefits include child benefit, housing and disability benefits and jobseekers' allowance.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
Welfare covers a number of benefits, and many people don’t realise that the largest amount is actually spent on pensions at £108 billion.
My name's Paul and I'm a 40% taxpayer. But only just. I'll try not to get too vulgar when spending my £11 a month extra. As jamba and stumpyjon have said though, very rich people/companies have options. If you keep squeezing them, a significant number will avoid harder/go elsewhere, especially when you've got near neighbours who will tout for their patronage. You can pass judgement on this all you want, but it'll still happen. ISTR that the City accounts for something like 10% of the Treasury's tax take. So, are Britain's poor better or worse off for it's presence? Take squeezing the rich to its logical conclusion and you get communism, which has a much poorer track record than capitalism for lifting people out of poverty, because of that basic human instinct to do the best for oneself and one's family.
I get that it's a sliding scale, and there are successful examples of sliding it further left, like Nordic socialism. FWIW I think that cutting disability benefits at the same time as higher rate taxes is wrong, but the general direction of travel of shrinking the deficit is a good thing. Demonising anyone who takes a different viewpoint seems to be an increasing problem in modern politics, from the US elections to the Scots' indyref. Maybe it's the decivilising influence of the internet?
Maybe it's the decivilising effect of living an increasingly unequal and unjust society, which seeks to blame, then punish the poor and disadvantaged for the mistakes of the 'elite', who have got off Scott free
Maybe it's really that black and white?
But haven't the poor and disadvantaged reaped the benefits of the "elite"'s actions in better times? Are the poor and disadvantaged worse off if the "elite" are punished, ie banks allowed to go bust etc? That's the judgement the Govt have to make. Is it even a valid comparison? By dint of being poor and disadvantaged, their mistakes are less likely to have a knock on effect on others, whereas with great power comes great responsibility.
I also find the scapegoating of the poor and disadvantaged distasteful btw, but it's not just the Govt, it's the print media and even TV, with stuff like benefit street. Plays on the old confirmation bias that everyone else has it easier than you!