[Closed] Cameron is a twunt - part 26532...

Standard pandering to teh tabloids - as done by the last governemnt as well - only this time he is going to give the contract to experian thus privatising the data and also no doubt costing more than the benefit fraud dept we already have.

The really mad thing is that it costs a lot more than is recovered to go after benefit cheats but tax fraud costs less to recover than is recovered - but benefit fraud dept is increased but tax fraud decreased.

Nowt new here tho apart for the giving of the contract to experian.

Experian - now they do a scary job. Never mind government surveillance...

i must admit the first thing i thought was how much will it cost to hire these private agencies

just for grum:
[img] [/img]

😉

Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

I wouldn't. I'm sure they're just striving for efficiency savings. Remember: We're all in this together

Cameron is behaving exactly as expected.

I'm sure tabloid readers would love to hear about tax cheats being caught out and made to pay.

It's the hair in between each pair of saggy, leaking dugs that really creeps me out about that...

Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

binners, just for you, I have cynically checked the register of member's interests and there's no records of Experian for any MP. However that's not to say that there's isnt some kind of lobby slush fund directed at an MP on experian's behalf but that would be very hard to find. Hotwire appear to be PR agency for Experian though.

>Someone more cynical than me would wonder if any senior tory MPs have directorships with Experian?

"Experian said it already had a contract to scrutinise new housing benefit claimants, in a deal agreed by the previous government which had saved £17m. "

So, we should just leave benefit cheats to it then?

Not all benefit cheats are 'poor' either. By their very nature they're claiming benefits that they're not entitled to, their actual take home pay could well exceed yours or mine.

As for tax evasion, genuine tax evaders should always be pursued.

The trouble is, the sort of people who do it tend to have whip smart lawyers and accountants who know all of the loopholes. Whilst you could well argue that their conduct is morally wrong, very often it's within the realms of the law.

The trouble is, the sort of people who do it tend to have whip smart lawyers and accountants who know all of the loopholes. Whilst you could well argue that their conduct is morally wrong, very often it's within the realms of the law.

NO
Tax avoidance is within the law - tax evasion is always outside the law

NO
Tax avoidance is within the law - tax evasion is always outside the law

Right.

Pedantry aside, my point is that what many people consider to be tax evasion is actually tax avoidance.

ive got some mates who formed a company based in croatia exclusively for tax purposes its all legal apparently -they employ an expensive accountant and pay **** all tax, when challenged they say its their money coz tehy earned it
and all have way nicer cars, houses etc than me
but they are all IT nerds so i win?!?

Tax avoidance is for those with money to pay accountants, tax evasion is for everyone/anyone 🙂

kimbers, yup, I know an IT contractor who uses a similar setup.

Is it only me that wants benefits cheats caught and stopped, as Cameron said running up to the election when labour came into power there were 3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mil, we are not a more sick society, its just alot of these peeps haven't been assessed for over 5 years and so continue to claim as its far easier than working I cant wait til vit starts getting put into practice

Oh and to give you further flaming ammunition I strongly believe all benefits should be via a voucher system for basic needs to exist comfortably and not doled out loads of cash to spend on fags booze and plasma tellies

I'm with the hustler on this - the benefits and nanny state culture that has grown under years of Labour needs to stop.

Oh and to give you further flaming ammunition I strongly believe all benefits should be via a voucher system for basic needs to exist comfortably and not doled out loads of cash to spend on fags booze and plasma tellies

Being that I've just started back on benefits again, if I end up with another plasma telly in here I'll go ****in spare, I can't get moving for them. 😕

Here's a thought, if a benefit cheat has other income, maybe they could use that for luxuries and buy essentials with the WW2 ration book you're suggesting. Maybe further demoralising the unemployed doesn't have any real benefit other than to fuel your sense of superiority.

Is it only me that wants benefits cheats caught and stopped

No, but why is there such public outcry and government rhetoric over a relatively small issue - when tax evasion is a much bigger problem? Because it's an easy target and panders to your average Daily Mail reader's prejudices (many of whom probably see nothing wrong with fiddling their taxes).

the hustler - all I can suggest is that you try to live on the amount you get on benefits. Its miserable. It is by no means "loads of cash"

Benefit fraud should be dealt with as it already is.

All this is is
1) a cynical pandering to the tabloids ( whose poisonous lies you have bought) and
2) privatisation of a public service to drive down workers terms and conditions with little or no cash saving. ( as is normal with privatisations)

Shame that it was 20 years of Tory government that put them there with no hopes of ever working isn't it?

[img] [/img]

TJ - I do agree with you actually - the numbers don't suggest that it's loads of cash so it can't be a comfortable existance.

What I'll admit to having no answer to though and wondering if that makes me a Daily Mail reader by proxy is hearing from social workers that the poorest families typically smoke lots and almost all have big tvs and usually sky. How do they pay for them? Fraud (eg jobs while claiming) or...?

stoner - am I reading that right, that there was no disability benefit before 2002ish (or that it was just very very low?)?

Interesting to see though - basically benefit claimant numbers have been flat or even falling slightly (apart from disabled and jobseekers in the recession) for years...

The orange line is disability living allowance, and the red is incapacity. Incapacity is paid because you can't work. DLA is paid because you need assistance with your care (although it certainly used to be handed over in cash).

It is noticeable how stable the numbers are over 10 years...

Stoner - what are you trying to point out with that?

Oh and thanks for the lovely cartoon btw 😯

clubber - it's more disappointing than interesting. The figures being flat through 10 years of economic growth implies a very sticky proportion of the country are either long term unemployable or under no incentive to be in employment. There will, of course, be a proportion who are unable to work (for which DLA was designed) and protecting them is the imperative.

It also puts in perspective the relative impact of any changes in unemployement driven by the cuts program.

as Cameron said running up to the election when labour came into power there were 3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mi

So that would suggest this is completely wrong - what's the source of the graph, stoner?

I live in an area where some of the poorest families in Britain live side by side almost with those who live in some of the most expensive housing in Britain. I'm not going to go on and on about all the reasons for this, urban deprivation massive unemployment lack of investment in local people land grab poor educational opportunities, but it really can't be nice for someone struggling back from LiDLs after having worked bloody hard all week in a completely unrewarding and unfulfilling job, to see someone cruise past in an Aston Martin. And considering the example set by our wonderful scrupulous politicians, is it any wonder that people want to try to get a bit extra, using whatever means they think they can get away with? It's Human Nature to try to get a bit more. The very rich employ people to help them avoid paying tax, ffs.

It worries me that the ConDems are banging on about clamping down on benefits, legal aid, local services etc. I really don't think that will be a particularly positive or progressive move.

You forgot to blame Fatcha, Fred so I'll do it for you.

It's all Thatcher's fault.

graph is courtesy of Fraser Nelson, a right wing economics commentator and now editor of the Spectator. His politics can be a bit overly thatcherite but he does put effort into collating economic data from various government departments and the ONS who dont always want to present the data in such ways.

All the more interesting then. So where do the claims of 3->11m incapacity claimants come from/show up then?

clamping down on benefits, legal aid, local services

There's a respectable difference between trimming back people's entitlements and stopping them getting things they aren't entitled to. Are we actually going to say that claiming benefits you're not entitled to is laudable, or just understandable in the circumstances?

Presumably the best argument against it is the one raised earlier - that it isn't cost effective, and certainly not compared to putting the fear of god into people with millions stashed away in a Panamanian bank account held by a Panamanian company controlled by nominee directors and owned by nominee shareholders for a Panamanian unincorporated foundation with no registered existence and entirely secret beneficiaries operated wholly without written records by a Panamanian lawyer (which is perhaps the best way of ensuring that no-one knows you've got any money that still subsists in today's world).

11m is not a number I recognise anywhere. it might be the total of economically inactive? ❓

Presumably the best argument against it is the one raised earlier - that it isn't cost effective, and certainly not compared to putting the fear of god into people with millions stashed away in a Panamanian bank account helfd by a Panamanian company owned by nominee shareholders and controlled by nominee directors, itself owned by a Panamanian unincorporated foundation with no registered existence and entirely secret beneficiaries operated wholly without written records by a Panamanian lawyer

cheers for the free consultancy BD - that's my new enterprise holding structure sorted! 😉

[i]a very sticky proportion of the country are either long term unemployable or under no incentive to be in employment.[/i]

I suspect it may be cheaper in the long run than programmes to get 'some' back into work, given that they have probably no skills, live in areas of massive deprivation, with little prospects of long term stable employment.

This is a headline grabber "Look we are doing something"... I suspect the truth is that there's not a lot than can be safely cut, that hasn't already been looked at, as Stoner's graph seems to suggest

edit beaten again by the nimble 130wpm of a trained [s]monkey[/s] lawyer

BD, you said my secret was safe with you!!

I'm moving to Panama. BD told me to.

I think you'd actually cringe at the naked, howling dishonesty of "wealth management" solutions advocated by anyone associated with that canal-cleft land.

aP - Member

Shame that it was 20 years of Tory government that put them there with no hopes of ever working isn't it?

Ahh...so, chip firmly on shoulder and unable to face up to the fact that the Labour government was an utter disaster you've adopted the 'Sunset Beach' approach and are now pretending that the years 1997-2010 were just a dream sequence.

There's a respectable difference between trimming back people's entitlements and stopping them getting things they aren't entitled to.

Of course; the ConDems want to 're-assess' people in terms of their eligibility to receive benefits. IE, making the criteria for eligibility much more stringent, but I can't believe those criteria aren't already very strict indeed.

its just alot of these peeps haven't been assessed for over 5 years and so continue to claim as its far easier than working

I can't see how anyone can live on incapacity benefit - it's a good bit less than £100 p/w
besides, you're allowed to work when on it

bravohotel9er - Member

.......... unable to face up to the fact that the Labour government was an utter disaster you've adopted the 'Sunset Beach' approach and are now pretending that the years 1997-2010 were just a dream sequence.

The fact is of course that they actually were very successful in reducing unemployment, a bit of redistribution of wealth, massive reductions in crime, massive improvements in healthcare until derailed by a global crisis that was not their fault and that they mitigated very well.

Just wait until you see the soaring unemployment, decreasing prosperity and increasing crime now we have this bunch of clowns in charge who are going to deliberately push us back into recession to give them the excuse to destroy the public services

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

Confiscate all the properties of tax dodgers until they pay up. 😆

TJ

Your last post had me nearly fall off my chair!! You don't seriously believe that load of tosh you've just written? Seriously??!!

It was obvious at the time that the NuLabs inherited a great setup and then encouraged the public to live on the never-never, whilst over-borrowing the public coffers. as for unemployment; you're dreaming. Tony and El Gordo fust pumped £BNs into creating non-jobs to improve the stats. Useless ****ers!

Now it's pay up time. Lets start with those that are non-productive in society.

A flat rate of 22.5% TAX with NO getout clauses will be fairer and yield more money for the coffers too. The rich will therefore pay too.

Cameron's got his work cut out; it's going to be despised by many, but that's largely due to the vast majority of the public having been lulled into a ridiculous sense that we could carry on the way we had done. The economic downturn only added to the woes, but it's the hideous overspending that's really hurt us. I for one am getting hit by the cuts in public spending, but we've all got to chip in to get this to work.

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

Often because they have farmland where they can grow crops/raise animals. People in Britain generally don't. Especially in urban areas.

Or, they are forced to work in really horrible jobs for absolutely pitiful wages. And don't have access to healthcare, education, etc.

Quite simple really.

3 mil incapacity claimers, this year there are 11mil,

Soz people, but this quote just turned my piss straight to steam !!

Its utter bollocks and typical of the Daily Mail/Tory Boy Convince yourself with statistical made up crap for Dummies style of politics [url= http://193.129.121.133/asd/asd1/stats_summary/stats_summary_jul2010.pdf ]Latest DWP Stats are here: If you look hard you will find Nov 2009 at 2.6 million [/url]

Todays assault on the least able is actually about launching an assault on 2/3rds of 1% of the total bill, which in essence is very small beer in the greater scheme of things. Weigh that up against an admitted level of cock up caused generally by the complexity of the system that represents 2.16% of the bill. And how are we going to do it? ????? .... By reducing the number of people administering it at a time when claimant volumes are pretty much guaranteed to rise to new highs!!

****ing twunt is putting it mildly. Pretty sure that the same level of diligence was to be employed in pursuing tax avoidance/evasion
could net more than that from just one corporate source.

This is simply wrong ..... the reality from the governments own stats is that there are no more than 6.7 people per thousand claiming that are defrauding the system. Not the huge and out of control problem that they are painting it to be.

Mikertroid - unfortunately for the right wing zealots its the truth. Its really simple to see

Has employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.

Worldwide the labour approach to the world economic crisis has been seen as a model to follow - even in such countries as the USA

No one worldwide is following the Tory approach of massive cuts as the lessons from previous crisis is that this will just make things worse - we are already tipping back into recession as a result

Flat rate income tax - laughable. A useless idea that does not work and has never worked anywhere in the world.

Oh - and we don't overspend - we spend less and tax less than many competitor nations once you take healthcare costs into account. Even the USA spends very little less as the 16+ % of gdp they spend on healthcare is not government spending.

compare like for like ad we are losw tax low spend. Simple facts

chewkw - Member

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

They die. Simple.

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

Lots of them aren't, hence why lots of them die.

we've all got to chip in to get this to work.

Confiscate all the properties of tax dodgers until they pay up.

😆

Shall we start with Zac Goldsmith and Lord Ashcroft?

Shall we start with Zac Goldsmith and Lord Ashcroft?

That would seem fair to me.

TandemJeremy - Member

chewkw - Member

Why are people in the 3rd world/developing countries capable of surviving without benefits?

They die. Simple.

Now that's odd then why is the majority of their population keep increasing ... So who died?

😯

I reckon a quick scan through the cabinet's little nest eggs would net a good few bob...

Has employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.

I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.

The papers today all carry a story which first broke last month - the proposed use of credit rating agencies like Experian to catch people committing benefit fraud.

This is a very bad idea. Nobody approves of benefit cheats. But mining private data on a routine basis on the off-chance of catching people out is a disproportionate invasion of privacy.

There's a presumption of innocence in this country, and trawling everyone's credit data and treating us all as suspects brings that into question. Furthermore, there is or should be a bright line between the state and the private sector. Taking powers of legal investigation and enforcement which ought to sit with the state, and granting them to private organisations, blurs that line. Worse still, if profit-making companies are rewarded by the number of people they catch they will have a perverse incentive to sling accusations in any even marginally plausible case - because they'll have nothing to lose and potentially something to gain in the smearing.

Ultimately, it's probably not in the interests of the companies either. People will be far less likely to comply with their requirements in the future if it's known that one risks such intrusion in doing so.

Credit agencies should think carefully about effectively becoming enforcers for the state, compromising private information they've accumulated about people.

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2010/08/would-you-trust-bounty-hunters-to-enforce-the-law.html

Amen to that

tiger_roach - Member

Has employment risen and unemployment fallen in the years 1997-2010? yes
Has prosperity risen - Yes
has crime fallen - yes - massively
has the NHS improved - yes massively
Has inflation and interest rates been low - yes.

I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.

😆

I wonder how we funded all that either they've been very clever or we have a lot of debt.

Mainly from increased GDP and some is self funding - for example reducing unemployment increases tax take as people get jobs. This is why the tory approach to teh deficit will fail. cutting spending means increasing unemployment which deceases tax take thus the deficit does not reduce.

Mainly from increased GDP and some is self funding

oh purlease TJ.

Since national debt as a ratio of GDP is higher now than in 1997, I think you'll find that means that government expenditure has NOT been funded from increased GDP.

What should, of course, have happened is the growth in GDP should have enabled the reduction in the national debt so that debt could be used to carry the economy through the recession.

TJ,

[b]please[/b] tell me you're not for real!!! I thought views like yours were the preserve of Guardian writers, not general members of the public.

Oh, no, TJ's views really are as stated...

mikertroid - I thought people like you only existed in some weird neocon enclaves with your frankly absurd worldview that is not reflected in reality anywere.

Stoner - "mainly" and GDP is massivly up since 1997. What were the numbers in 2008? That would be a more accurate reflection.

Still of course right wing loonies want to decry the significant progress made under Labour - compare the record to Thatchers / Majors tory governments. Unemployment massively higher after than before, crime massively increased, all the oil money wasted, massive rises in poverty. All reversed under labour

labours record is so much better - and they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years as well. There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now -

...they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years...

And now we're trying to repair the damage of the Labour years - isn't it all great?

Polly Toynbee must be worried, do you own a holiday villa too TJ? 😛

TJ

You're funny. A slot on national TV awaits. 😉

Have you had a severe head injury that has contributed to your hilarity?

Stoner - "mainly" and GDP is massivly up since 1997. What were the numbers in 2008? That would be a more accurate reflection.

TJ, you dont get ratios do you.

If the ratio of debt to GDP is higher now than in 1997, then the total cost of the government programme has exceeded receipts over that period. i.e. GDP has not funded growth in the size of the state.

Also, during periods of extended growth in GDP it is usual for the ratio of debt to be reduced to give headroom below the c40-42% ratio into which the economy can encroach to maintain public services during tight economic periods. Also known as el Gordo's "golden Rule". Perfectly sound principal, but only if the profligate **** had managed to stick to it rather than the hubristic sleight of hand of moving the dates of the economic cycle to justify pishing more cash up the wall on the never-never.

tiger_roach - Member

...they had to try to repair the damage of the Tory years...

And now[b] we're[/b] trying to repair the damage of the Labour years - isn't it all great?

You guys are laughable with your tenuous grip on reality. Real facts and figures show how much you are wrong - but your petty tory boy prejudices must be right so inconvenient facts and figures are ignored.

Our national debt is not high in comparison to competitor countries, our tax take is low and public spending is low.

prosperity increased under labour and healthcare and other public services improved. Crime went down massively

All the opposite to the last Tory government and all incontrovertible facts.

Edit - stoner - of course I understand your point - I just know its irrelevant. Look at the figures to 2008 before the global crisis to get a fairer picture and the ratio is far lower than many competitor countries and is far from unaffordable - as a result of Browns policies which are well respected and widely copied worldwide.

EDIT - since you've now edited 🙂

How about cracking down on tax evasion which costs the government many , many times more?

Says it all - WE.

I consider myself part of this nation.

A flat rate of 22.5% TAX with NO getout clauses will be fairer and yield more money for the coffers too. The rich will therefore pay too.

You're funny. A slot on national TV awaits.

Have you had a severe head injury that has contributed to your hilarity? 😉

I think any intelligent, rational objective person can see that improve society = 'debt', reduce 'debt' = society gets worse. Well, for those at the bottom end, for sure.

One thing I can see on here is that many folk spout stuff, but don't seem to have any real experience of what it's like at the bottom. I'm assuming a reasonably comfortable incomed overall demographic, I admit.

I'm pretty sure many folk wouldn't care if the very poor lost vital benefits and support, if it meant they themselves paid less tax etc. Such is the selfish nature of our society. Of course, any attempts to cut support for the poor will need strenuous justification to avoid public outrage. So, the demonisation of a tiny, tiny number of people who exploit the system, by using such rhetoric as 'Benefit THIEVES' and other such highly emotive language helps to engender anger towards 'scroungers' and appeases peoples' concerns somewhat. The side-effect of this is that legitimate benefit claimants then fall under suspicion, and are themselves treated as social pariahs. Hate hate hate.

Divide and Rule.

I'd be interesting in reading any theories on how society an be improved for all, and debt reduced at the same time.

Too right. I'll try and remember to shop anybody I come across not importing bikes and bits without paying import duty and VAT. I presume that doesn't apply to anybody on this thread complaining about tax evasion?

Are you talking about me? I have tediously criticized the hypocrisy of people sharing tips on import duty evasion on here many times.

of course I understand your point

its clear you dont:

Look at the figures to 2008 before the global crisis to get a fairer picture and the ratio is far lower than many competitor countries

Changes in debt to gdp ratios over cycles need to remain relatively stable - they can of course vary through the cycle, the fact that they may be high or low at any one point IS irrelevant. Affordability of national debt is only measured in the cyclical average. The problem with the UK finances is that the structural debt has increased greatly - that part of public expenditure which does not vary by GDP changes.

If the ratio increases from cycle to cycle then the economy will just seize up, not to mention since we are not a reserve currency that can print our way out of debt (like the US can) our national interest costs will consume an increasing proportion of the public purse.

Anyway, back to your initial mistake - growth in GDP has not funded growth in the size of the state, debt has.

There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

"i must admit the first thing i thought was how much will it cost to hire these private agencies "

Nowt. They are doing it on a no-win no-fee basis so the risk sits entirely with the supplier.

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past."
Gordon Brown's Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999

The guy ruined the country in his quest to become Prime Minister, then he magicked £200 billion out of thin air to keep the plates spinning til the election.

Sorry TJ, but Labour (and Gordon Brown specifically IMO) have put the whole country into massive levels of both personal and public debt. He created a credit fuelled binge the likes of which we've never seen before and now the piper must be paid. You can't surely blame what's coming on the ConDems?!

As for other countries following his lead, it looks like the US are going back into recession and are likely to fire up the printing presses again. If it didn't work first time, just do it some more eh?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Sorry TJ, but Labour (and Gordon Brown specifically IMO) have put the whole country into massive levels of both personal and public debt.

How exactly did Gordon Brown put the country into massive personal debt then? I'd love to hear this.

wasnt Gordons only [i]mea culpa[/i] about not winding the banks in earlier? - the banks being ultimately the enablers of personal debt in an unrestrained environment.

But I agree, I wouldnt heap that part of the economic poo on him. There's plenty else he can carry.

Seems people love debt in this country - the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.