Forum menu
Anyone?
Can anyone tell me why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?
Not just disability benefits btw, Rochdale Community Mental Health team have been told that they have to cut staff.
I know two senior members of staff have left already because they're now working for the company I work for.
More cuts to come, apparantly.
Anyone?
Been here before...
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
When I was young immature and stupid, I agreed with the face value of that song.
"...and yet somehow insisting we are spending less these last 7 years seems to have increased our national debt by just over 50%. uncomfortable truth here Has money just got more expensive these days?"
Simple, the deficit is shrinking, but it's not yet zero, so the debt continues to increase but at a reducing rate.
Nothing wrong with taxing the rich a bit more, but as others have said it's more about symbolism than actual tax take, and the risk as always is that if you overdo it then behavioural effects kick in and your tax take goes down, meaning less money for the needy.
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
Because they pissed off abroad
"Been here before...
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires."
Were they "tax efficient "? Would they have paid more at a lower rate? Don't know btw, speculating!
Going with the £1,000 per person. Assume ~1.6 million people. That's 1.6 Billion. You just can't generate significant cash by taxing the 'rich'.
Yep. But by cutting nurse's training bursaries you generate all kinds of cash, right?
Overpaid, over privileged, self indulgent musicians complaining about the taxman. FFS! 🙄
I'm quite happy for that ridiculous business model, that we all fed, to be blown away.
It's funny that a lot on here slag footballers wages but then complain about people downloading music.
**** them is what I say!
I dont slag footballer wages, I slag the arsehole paying on the gate, the arsehole Sky sports subscriber who fuels those wages...
"Nothing wrong with taxing the rich a bit more, but as others have said it's more about symbolism than actual tax take, and the risk as always is that if you overdo it then behavioural effects kick in and your tax take goes down, meaning less money for the needy."
Yup, the bulk of the cash is coming from elsewhere. The FT even tells us where.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/05/labour-tax-bombshell-election-schools-hospitals-left ]It's about a lot more than income tax[/url].
The fact is that the upper echelons of this stupid corrupt system, the 1% if you like, have made a packet over the past 10 years while everyone else has suffered. It's not an extreme view to suggest that they should give something back. Even after they do, they'll still be rich.
Would anyone like to answer the question?
"Would anyone like to answer the question?"
The FT article posted above definitively answered the question. The cash is mainly coming from the predicted increase in 2019/2020 revenue.
Even after they do, they'll still be rich
Just like those Scousers warbling on about "The Taxman" on the other page...
The FT definitively answered the question.
I haven't asked the FT anything.
I asked you and the other people contributing to this thread
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
Are you prepared to answer this question or not?
I answered you. It wasn't. The disabled should have been protected. Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful. Happy?
I believe I thanked you for your prompt response at the time.
You were the only one with the manners to do so.
I take it those who didn't answer are happy with the cuts?
Read this blog. Hit "Older posts" button. Rinse, repeat.
Do you know the worst thing? Even though this kid is visibility losing weight from his already skinny frame, he tried saying he was ok and didn’t need anything. This is what this society is doing to people – it’s making starving kids pretend they’re not so they don’t suffer the humiliation of other people knowing.
"a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful."
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere. The SNP wisely didn't ringfence Budgets and it significantly reduced the pain.
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere.
Not really answering the question as usual.
ulysse - Member
I dont slag footballer wages, I slag the arsehole paying on the gate, the arsehole Sky sports subscriber who fuels those wages...POSTED 50 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Well that's a nice caring attitude and not in anyway judgmental.
Ring fencing the biggest budgets was always gonna make things insanely painful elsewhere.
This tells me nothing of your views on the subject and doesn't really answer the question.
Well that's a nice caring attitude and not in anyway judgmental.
Focussing on the important stuff...
Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful.
I agree.
However, people with disabilities are constantly assessed already.
By the local authority, by care services, by medical services.
In all honesty, in over 10 years of working with those with disabilities, I have encountered one person who could possibly have been accused of attempting to defraud the system.
We want to help those who need it, it's in everybody's interest to ensure this happens.
However this is a targetted attack on some of the most vulnerable.
Not a tax rise on those most able to bear it.
"Not really answering the question as usual"
You haven't answered it either!
I thought it rather illustrated ulysse hipocracy, the poster has become very vocal about people they don't agree with and then goes and posts unwarranted bile like that.
Of course I'm judgemental... Where have I implied otherwise
Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism, i'm supposed to be a yoghurt knitting handwringer?
I've more in common with Ian Bone...
"Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism,"
Just out of interest why Green and not Labour?
And hypocrisy? I promise you, no footballers or football club has ever knowingly made a brass bawbee from me. A nice side benefit of boycotting or stealing Murdoch media products. So I don't complain about their salaries.
If you want to splurge your disposable income up the wall following football, that's your prerogative, but don't complain about the salaries if you do
Why not Labour? Is that a serious question after my views aired through out this thread.
Do keep up!
Google:
Frank Field
David Freud
Rachel Reeves
Liam Byrne
They are the engineers in the first instance of benefits deaths and the second 2 are the cheerleaders assisting Tory enabling of benefits deaths.
I am however intending voting against the party of which I'm a member for David Crausby , as however toxic the Progress element of Labour, I cant sit back and allow this Tory genocide of our most vulnerable
[i] Because I'm a Green party member and support socialism[/i]
Glad I'm not the only one trying to float this boat in a sea of capatalist neo-liberalism. 😀
"Frank Field
David Freud
Rachel Reeves
Liam Byrne
They are the engineers in the first instance of benefits deaths and the second 2 are the cheerleaders assisting Tory enabling of benefits deaths."
Ta.
There are more Progress Labour elements to be added to the above, but those are the ones that spring to mind for the purpose of the direction at present of this discussion
The disabled should have been protected. Nothing wrong with the principle of assessing fitness to work but it's a complex issue and the implementation has obviously been dreadful.
Agreed.
Genocide, though? Hyperbole ahoy. Still, fits the narrative that everyone else is like literally Hitler, maaaan.
It's not been handled in a way that is acceptable, but it's not genocide.
Like unemployment statistics where it's politically expedient, the benefits deaths are fudged. The DWP say 61 related, less as a direct result of dwp policy. Callums list conceded 8000, disability services put it above 18000
You say tomato...
I say murdering scum, enabled and voted in by the complicit
Cfh, out of interest, Google,: Mike Sivier , Vox Political, vexatious Foi request...
However you spin it, withdrawal of a benefit is not murder or genocide. By that rationale, all governments pre-welfare state were genocidal. If I get sacked and top myself, my employer did not murder me. Colossal cock-up with grave consequences yes, but I don't think hyperbole helps your argument.
?Colossal cock-up with grave consequences yes,
Airtragic, let's take the Clapson case. A diabetic on insulin.
What do you think happens when an insulin dependent is sanctioned of entitlement, forced in to starvation, electricity meters can't be fed, meaning the fridge holding the insulin can no longer, yer know, refrigerate?
Found dead through ketoacidosis with a stack of Cv's by his body and £3 in the bank he couldn't withdraw.
That my friend once aid was withdrawn, was inevitable.
Does anyone think we would be discussing this subject if it wasn't for ulysse's 'hyperbole'?
No, it would have been ignored.
Again.
However you spin it, withdrawal of a benefit is not murder or genocide. By that rationale, all governments pre-welfare state were genocidal. If I get sacked and top myself, my employer did not murder me.
Not murder or genocide but "grave and systematic violations" of disabled people's rights, according to the UN.
Two people have answered the question now, Airtragic and Flash.
Any more?
Dp.
[quote=ninfan ]
The Beatles were taxed till the pips squeaked, and yet the surviving members are still multimillionaires.
Because they pissed off abroad
Because if they'd stayed here and paid their taxes they wouldn't be?
(no - don't answer that - I know you won't anyway, so might as well make the point now)
Airtragic ducked the question by not accepting the two premises.
Also you haven't answered it yourself, and nor has Grum.
What do you want me to qualify?
I don't agree with the way people with disabilities are being 'assessed'.
I don't agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.
I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.
Those who can best bear the burden should do so.
Which bit is unclear?
"What do you want me to qualify?"
Just explain 'how'. That was your question. You can't get out of it by refusing to accept the premise.
EDIT: Corrected 'can't' typo
Well well.
Despite all the attention on local elections as a test of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the Conservatives have lost more council seats than Labour
How what?
It was your question, just answer it. How.
Check the date ulysse
[quote=ulysse said]Well well.
Despite all the attention on local elections as a test of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, the Conservatives have lost more council seats than Labour
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-elections-2016-results-in-full-council-seats-conservative-tory-labour-jeremy-corbyn-a7019041.html
br />
Date: Sunday 8 May 2016 12:24 BST
Well well indeed.
My own fault, in my defence there's a 3 year old balancing on my arm as I read newfeeds...
I suppose the lesson is to beware of conformation bias
outofbreath - Member
It was your question, just answer it. How.
Here is the question again:
I asked you and the other people contributing to this thread
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
It's a very simple question.
If you aren't prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.
It'll save me the bother of
a) Asking it again.
b) Reporting you for trolling.
Rusty, as I said pages back, complicit, either by ignorance or design.
And for the last few pages ignorance is no defence
I apologise, Rusty Spanner. When I said 'How' I meant 'Why'. Entirely my mistake. Now explain 'why', please, without ducking the question by saying you don't accept the premise.
If you aren't prepared to answer it or engage in any kind of debate regarding it, you could at least have the courage and manners to say so.
I would say your expectations are too high if you think everyone will answer a question or let you know they don't want to engage in it.
Some people don't want to answer questions that will give away what they are so you have to assume (if you haven't already from past history)
Some people don't want to answer questions that will give away what they are
I think his responses have clarified that quite eloquently.
🙂
I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I expect it's because nobody understands exactly what the question you're asking is - you could just type it out in full rather than drip feeding...
Come on Rusty, don't be shy, tell why.
[quote=outofbreath said]I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I think it would help if you posted the question you'd like answering OOB.
".... why the cuts to disability benefits are justified but the proposed Labour tax increase is not?"
I notice you also haven't answered the question, Kerley. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.
I don't agree with the way people with disabilities are being 'assessed'.
I don't agree with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable people in OUR society.
I agree with the proposed Labour tax rises.
Those who can best bear the burden should do so.
A clear copy/paste but in total agreement.
I don't really want it answering, I'm just teasing Rusty because he can't answer it either.
In that case, whilst I can't speak for all the people you're challenging, I can give you a big hint - I don't think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn't.
Though I presume you're actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn't an answer to the question 🙄
Keeley stop dodging the question. The question is 'why'. You're just ducking the question by saying you don't accept the premise.
"I don't think any of them think that the cuts are justified or that the tax increase isn't."
Which is just ducking the question by saying they don't accept the premise.
"Though I presume you're actually playing the sort of pedantic game here that ninfan likes, and will claim that isn't an answer to the question"
I think there is an answer, you just have to make the case, without accepting it.
Here's one for you then, oob - why is it justifiable to execute you? Don't duck the question by claiming you don't accept the premise.
It wasn't my question, aracers, it was Rusty's beartrap. I just got fed up with being asked to jump in it and decided to turn hunter.
...and yeah, I'm going to use the same escape trick as everyone else. I don't accept the premise.
He's said today he's gonna scrap all hospital car parking charges.
Tomorrow he's promising all 6yr old girls that Unicorns will be bred once Labour are re-elected.
I know (sigh). I can't believe that when the saw the local election results, knew that the tories were launching their manifesto today, etc that they thought "I know, I've got something which is really going to win this thing for us - hospital car park charges!"He's said today he's gonna scrap all hospital car parking charges.
For those not trying to be pedantic and clever, a totally acceptable answer to Rusty's question is that the cuts weren't acceptable and the tax increase is, it's really only a trick question if you want to make it one. Is that what you're trying to say there, oob? It really would help to be explicit - what makes you look like using an "escape trick" is continuing to bob and weave in exactly the way you still are. Spit it out - exactly what is your opinion? I'll even make it easy and partially multiple choice (though only one option gets a really easy time):
1) I disagree with the cuts and agree with the tax increase
2) I agree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify the cuts because...
3) I disagree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify not having the tax increase because...
4) I agree with the cuts and disagree with the tax increase and justify that because...
"Unicorns"
Don't knock it, in the insane auction of promises in the last days of the last election Cameron was promising unicorns and it worked for him. (To a degree.)
Dear god - right, if anyone sees me posting in any political threads on STW ever again can they please remind me to GTFO. I'm done.
[quote=AlexSimon ]He's said today he's gonna scrap all hospital car parking charges.I know (sigh). I can't believe that when the saw the local election results, knew that the tories were launching their manifesto today, etc that they thought "I know, I've got something which is really going to win this thing for us - hospital car park charges!"
I don't know if it's because I'm neither as emotionally involved with the Labour party or as determinedly against them as some on here. But like the BH thing I don't think this is such a bad idea from an electoral perspective. Sure maybe there are bigger issues, but most people don't understand the big issues, and this is a nice little thing which people will think is a good idea.
Tomorrow he's promising all 6yr old girls that Unicorns will be bred once Labour are re-elected.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/19/labour-accidentally-offers-everyone-their-own-owl
🙂
1) I disagree with the cuts and agree with the tax increase
2) I agree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify the cuts because...
3) I disagree with the cuts and the tax increase and justify not having the tax increase because...
4) I agree with the cuts and disagree with the tax increase and justify that because...
5) I disagree with the cuts - the SNP got that right. I have no idea about the tax for high earners, the point of the revenue sweetspot is anyone's guess. (Indeed, the only reason I posted on this thread yesterday was to work out how much Labour needed the income from the Higher earners and the FT article suggests not much so far.)
I saw a few positive remarks on Twitter too. I don't get it.
IMO they need to clearly demonstrate day after day how they can afford to spend. How the tories are syphoning off money from tax payers to the wealthy and how they'll stop it in a credible way.
To be honest their 95% tax freeze 5% tax increase was the closest they've come, but they need to join the dots and explain why £80,000 earners are going to pay this instead of increase tax avoidance activities or move abroad.
Whenever they talk about the NHS getting extra funds they also need to talk about how efficient and cheap the NHS is compared to the private healthcare of other countries, so that people can see that it's wise spending.
Same with every other promise. Tell us how adding 10,000 police actually saves us money in insurance premiums, or whatever. Join the dots. Make people believe they have a firm grasp of the consequences!