General Chat

how right you are Roger - charity should begin at home

Before I Retired I was finished from work because of my eyesight, I am going Blind No Cure.

But I had a good job and paid into the system.

I fell on hard times and I was glad of Welfare benefits as it got me to my retirement age.

I was not a one who wanted Welfare benefits but it was a necessary at the time.

So this government gives our money to those countries overseas when Charity should start at HOME, as we have paid into the system so should benefit from it when something happens which we have NO controll over.

By the way - I saved up in a a private pension system and you guessed it I still pay Tax now.

So I hopwe all of you who are complaining don't fall on hard times like I did - and then realised because the Government has capped the benefits you cannot live on what you get, because it will happen.

So as I say Charity should begin at home and certainly not overseas.

Porkie pie is on the right lines. As ever with economics fine ideals tend to be overtaken by unintended consequences.

People like to work although the right wing press believe the opposite. They do not like to work for free i.e. in economic terms they behave rationally.

The Labour government quite deliberately created a complex and inter meshing system of tax credits and minimum wages which were designed to ensure that as many people as possible would be reliant on such benefits and thus vote Labour, The mass immigration was another plank in the platform.

In practice the whole horrible soviet system has become a subsidy engine for employers and has for sure dragged down the earnings of semi-skilled workers. It has also had the perverse effect of discouraging people working full time as the gain from working is vanishingly small or even negative.

The housing benefit is something similar. Of course it should exist but the unintended consequences in London and the south east have been to create a landlords bonanza pushing up the rents on modest flats and houses to absurd levels. Not only does this make life difficult for councils funding HB but it also prices fully employed people out of the market so that they have to share with mum or friends or take property of a lower standard than would be the case without market distortions.

So IDS is quite right in calling the present system a benefits prison.

Whether his solutions for dealing with it will work is something else as the wee man from Ballymena said if I wanted to go there I would not start from here.

IDS has chosen to use impose a fairly savage cuts system on a huge group of people over a short time period as elections are not so far away.

The objections for those getting the benefits are obvious. I can only guess that being moved from Hackney to Barnsley will soon be the subject of a Human Rights case - no wonder legal aid for such is being withdrawn. The "bedroom tax" should not apply to existing tenancies unless alternative accommodation is available in the same area.

The real cruncher though is the other side of the fence. Nothing at all is being done to sort out the vast employment subsidies and other rackets paid to supermarkets, construction firms, agency workers etc.

Neither is anything being done about the Buy2Let racket.Indeed the social cleansing of London will create a bonanza bonanza as social housing in Westminster and Islington is shifted into the private sector.

The likely choice of voting in 2015 is quite horrible. A closet Trotskyite (Milliband) or the coalition in some form or another. No wonder UKIP are doing well in the polls though many of their populist policies would not fly. Those who think leaving the EU is a great idea should think about a UK with Ms May as PM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD8zuTLfq48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfEVcVQyEbI

There are many factors that have contributed to the increase in the number of people relying on benefits, unemployment; wage freezes; minimum wage; high rents in the private sector; the rise in the number of pensioners, etc.

Another major factor is the astronomical rise in part time jobs, there is never a day that passes that a senior minister in the government does not boast that this government has lowered unemployment.

In a recent speech David Cameron boasted that there were a million more people in work since this government came to power. When I read this, my first thought was, that David Cameron has been secretly taking lessons in spin from Tony Blair's spin doctor Alastair Campbell ;-)

David Cameron's statement made no allowance for changing the status of nearly 200,000 college lecturers from Public Sector Employees to Private Sector Employees, nor the fact that a very substantial number of other Public Sector Employees have become Private Sector Employees because of the privatisation, of many of what were called Public Services, and a large number of these have now become what is referred to as - underemployed :-(

"Underemployment is a situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience."

My own view is that unemployment is actually rising as is underemployment, wages are frozen or falling and as a result the number of people who will need to fall back on benefits, to be able to keep a roof over their head and feed their families, will for the foreseeable future continue to increase :-(

In saying what I have said, I fully accept that there are people who deliberately abuse the system, but I think by far thatt the majority of people would rather have a proper full-time job that paid a proper wage so that they did not need to rely on benefits.

good points well made

the clue is in the name conserative
they want to conserve
wealth
power
privaledge
its obviouse those on welfare get too much money why they even get food from food banks to survive

is it far that we pay £53million a day to the EU, who use the money to build roads in spain, and poland, who give money to Turkey who are not a member of the EU to steal UK jobs. its it fair we pay benefits to EU migrants, because our benefits are higher then there own country.

Its it fair that every MP can claim £20K a year to wards there rent or mortgage for there second homes. is it fair that every MP can claim £200 per week for food

its it fair that most goverment minister get free housing, free gas, free electric, free water, free, council tax and free lunches, and free traveling

its far there that low payed workers are being forced to move because of the bedroom tax, and its pushing them futher into debt by £2k due to the cost of moving

IDS is immoral he is treating the low payed , the old, the disabled and children as cattle, to do what he likes with

you curer the problem by getting people back into work, not by punnishing them because GOVERMENT HAS GOT IT WRONG

ITS IT FAR THAT COMPANYS LIKE AMAZON AND COSTA ARE NOT PAYING TAX SO WE WILL PUNNISH OUR CHILDREN

Well to be honest I think something has to be done but not sure if IDS has thought it through properly, Over the last 10 years of my working life my salary never actually increased at all let alone by inflation.

The problem I have with the welfare bill is with those in work who receive tax credits, ive said ever since they where introduced they are simply a way of tax payers subsidising big business,

according to the news this morning only 5 billion spent on job seekers but 42 billion goes to those in work so effectively means the tax payer is both subsidising them selves and also businesses who over the last 10 years plus have announced record profits for their share holders year on year, That's got to be wrong and has left this country doing exactly what caused the problems of the 70's by way of having to subsidise nationalised industry at tax payer expense to keep people in work,

I also blame the introduction of the minimum wage because it was set far to low, Employers who did pay better salaries have reduced salaries from above minimum wage down wards and only pay minimum wage now in order to increase profits

Roy

Unfortunately, have got to go out in the cold today and will not see any replies till tonight. But will be most interested in any views. :-D

43 Bishops (including Justin Canterbury) have sent a letter to a newspaper, criticising welfare reform. That the cap will have "deeply disproportionate" effect on children.

IDS has said on ITN News government plans to cap rises on certain benefits to one percent had a strong moral foundation.

"This is about fairness," he told ITV News. "People who are paying taxes, working very hard, have hardly seen any increases in their salary and yet, under the last government, the welfare bill rose by some 60 percent.

"That same system trapped huge numbers, millions, in dependency, dependent on the state, unable, unwilling to work".

I tend to agree with IDS (shock, horror) but am very worried if children are caught up in this battle to get welfare bill down. Would very much welcome views (not views about my views but views perhaps from people close to the problems that will be caused by this cap).