Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Itemised tax spends
Topic Started: Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM (562 Views)
rizzo
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?
Seems you are confusing two policies in order to create some smoke.
We can afford, if we so wish, to keep past promises to poor countries. I think it is not good for a rich country to promise support and then for domestic reasons pull the plug on what is a trivial amount. However I do not believe we should aid China or India or Pakistan when they are diverting resources to finance their nuclear arms programmes. It is not a large amount, but understandably such resonates when cuts are made at home. We cannot longer afford our burgeoning welfare budget. Even if you split that down to component parts it remains unaffordable, unless you wish to dictate that our grandchildren must pay. Now what sort of morality is that?

There is no evidence that the UK aid programme has been designed especially to enrich the fat cats you fail to identify. That said I would like every Penny possible to get to the coal face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rizzo
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
RJD
Nov 4 2014, 05:26 PM
rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?
Seems you are confusing two policies in order to create some smoke.
We can afford, if we so wish, to keep past promises to poor countries. I think it is not good for a rich country to promise support and then for domestic reasons pull the plug on what is a trivial amount. However I do not believe we should aid China or India or Pakistan when they are diverting resources to finance their nuclear arms programmes. It is not a large amount, but understandably such resonates when cuts are made at home. We cannot longer afford our burgeoning welfare budget. Even if you split that down to component parts it remains unaffordable, unless you wish to dictate that our grandchildren must pay. Now what sort of morality is that?

There is no evidence that the UK aid programme has been designed especially to enrich the fat cats you fail to identify. That said I would like every Penny possible to get to the coal face.
I'm confusing nothing, I was merely pointing out the government's plan to sent individual tax payers an itemised breakdown of how much they contribute to each pot, welfare, education, health, overs aid etc etc.

It was actually Osborne who spoke of this plan a couple of years ago but it has come back onto the forefront again.

You are obviously unaware of mis-spent overseas aid, a little Googling will furnish you with ample proof of ''fat cats'' benefiting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

It'll only be propaganda if it isn't true. And the truth is a lot does go on welfare, NHS and pensions way beyond that earnt by the original NI contributions

But how much? Interesting to compare two different views

Posted Image as sourced by UKpublicspending.co.uk

with what the BBC say HMRC will send us

Posted Image as

The difference apparently being how you account for pensions paid to public sector workers such as doctors - debateable. More here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29898083



And as for a "latest wheeze" Rizzo, far from it. It was a specific promise in the 2012 budget statement Over 30 months ago.
Edited by Steve K, Nov 4 2014, 10:52 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
'Kin ell Steve the blue wedge for the EU is massive!  :o

Can't see any wedges for bank bailouts,liability insurance for them or the money used to prop up asset prices, perhaps they forgot or just spread them around a bit?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:02 PM
'Kin ell Steve the blue wedge for the EU is massive!  :o

Can't see any wedges for bank bailouts,liability insurance for them or the money used to prop up asset prices, perhaps they forgot or just spread them around a bit?
Perhaps they don't exist

HMRC made a profit out of intervention in the banks in the last year. Much though you want to deny it
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:26 PM
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:02 PM
'Kin ell Steve the blue wedge for the EU is massive!  :o

Can't see any wedges for bank bailouts,liability insurance for them or the money used to prop up asset prices, perhaps they forgot or just spread them around a bit?
Perhaps they don't exist

HMRC made a profit out of intervention in the banks in the last year. Much though you want to deny it
Perhaps this alleged profit does not exist either considering how banks make money?

According to figures on the NAO website the Government as of 31st of March 2013 was still supporting the banks to the tune of £141bn, I wonder if this was factored into the alleged profit from last year?

Don't forget Steve banks and this government have a habit of being economical with the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Not at all Steve, I remember it very well!

The government sold off £3.2bn of Lloyds shares and made a vast profit of £61m.

Let me go and get my calculator I can't do £141bn minus £61m in my head. ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.


A bit like the post office ones?  ::)
Edited by Rich, Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

It'll only be propaganda if it isn't true.

Or only part of the story ......... so why not breakdown welfare spending?

£56.7bn, 50% of the total welfare spend, is for social protection n.e.c – defined by the UN as the administration costs
£29.2bn, 26% of the total welfare spend , is for social exclusion n.e.c
£18.8bn, 16% of the total welfare spend, is for family and children
£5.9bn, 5% of the total welfare spend, is for unemployment
£3.5bn, 3% of the total welfare spend, is for housing

Virtually half the spend is on administration ........ itself a huge employer (not all of it public sector employment). The cost of which has of course risen alarmingly due to the IDS reforms.

You do need to look at the definition for 'Social exclusion' before joining the group castigating these people.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.


A bit like the post office ones?  ::)
;D



 :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:58 PM
Rich
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.


A bit like the post office ones?  ::)
;D



 :(


Mind you, although the Chancellor obviously means well by his actions by being a "transparent" governing body, in the same breath, that same governing body has openly admitted to shredding all of the documentation regarding MP's expenses prior to the last expenses scandal.

Read what this certain Axxxxxxe has to say on the matter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818359/MP-s-expenses-records-shredded-amid-accusations-authorities-trying-avoid-scrutiny-claims.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Not at all Steve, I remember it very well!

The government sold off £3.2bn of Lloyds shares and made a vast profit of £61m.

Let me go and get my calculator I can't do £141bn minus £61m in my head. ;-)
And that ^ ladies and gentlemen is conclusive proof that Tigger does not understand finances. !jk!

And I'm betting even with that big hint you cannot spot your error
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:42 PM
RJD
Nov 4 2014, 05:26 PM
rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?
Seems you are confusing two policies in order to create some smoke.
We can afford, if we so wish, to keep past promises to poor countries. I think it is not good for a rich country to promise support and then for domestic reasons pull the plug on what is a trivial amount. However I do not believe we should aid China or India or Pakistan when they are diverting resources to finance their nuclear arms programmes. It is not a large amount, but understandably such resonates when cuts are made at home. We cannot longer afford our burgeoning welfare budget. Even if you split that down to component parts it remains unaffordable, unless you wish to dictate that our grandchildren must pay. Now what sort of morality is that?

There is no evidence that the UK aid programme has been designed especially to enrich the fat cats you fail to identify. That said I would like every Penny possible to get to the coal face.
I'm confusing nothing, I was merely pointing out the government's plan to sent individual tax payers an itemised breakdown of how much they contribute to each pot, welfare, education, health, overs aid etc etc.

It was actually Osborne who spoke of this plan a couple of years ago but it has come back onto the forefront again.

You are obviously unaware of mis-spent overseas aid, a little Googling will furnish you with ample proof of ''fat cats'' benefiting.
But you are free to put up your evidence and show how the Gov. is colluding in these so called scams. Why don't you? I do not claim that all such aid is spent wisely, I know the State rarely ever spends Taxpayers money so, what I am questioning is your claim of collusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 12:25 AM
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Not at all Steve, I remember it very well!

The government sold off £3.2bn of Lloyds shares and made a vast profit of £61m.

Let me go and get my calculator I can't do £141bn minus £61m in my head. ;-)
And that ^ ladies and gentlemen is conclusive proof that Tigger does not understand finances. !jk!

And I'm betting even with that big hint you cannot spot your error
I am yet to determine, outside of holding ladders, what the said person knows anything about. A self declared Builder Businessman (joke) did not even know there is a VAT threshold. An self professed expert on all matters Germany and he has now idea of the difficulties DB found themselves in from outrageous uncontrolled gambling in the USA. He does not even seem to be aware the the UK is years ahead of the rest of the EU in re-capitalising Banks and instituting reforms. There may still be risks in our system, but a lot more in the EZ. You will find that just about everything he says is based on ignorance and to belittle the UK and/or the English or one of the Posters. It would be helpful, for himself, if he tried just once to substantiate a claim. As we say up north "all fur coat and no knickers".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

Dont you want to know where your money goes Affa, and can you explain why it is propaganda to know the truth ? If they are facts that can be disproved if not correct,how can that be propaganda?
Living in Wales where nearly everyone speaks English fluently we get every form bill and council documents in duel language, meaning half of what we get has to be thrown away. That is certainly not a good use of peoples money. The Welsh asswmbly has now reduced costs by reporting everything in English unless specifically requested.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I see the newspapers this morning are all taking a shot at Osborne for his dishonesty in working out the Welfare portion of the pie-chart.

Seems he lumped his pension and perks in with real Welfare spending.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:43 AM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

Dont you want to know where your money goes Affa, and can you explain why it is propaganda to know the truth ? If they are facts that can be disproved if not correct,how can that be propaganda?
Living in Wales where nearly everyone speaks English fluently we get every form bill and council documents in duel language, meaning half of what we get has to be thrown away. That is certainly not a good use of peoples money. The Welsh asswmbly has now reduced costs by reporting everything in English unless specifically requested.
Especially when ~95% of recipients throw the half in Welsh straight into the bin. I have checked this with local Welsh speakers, ones where on a day to day basis Welsh is their preferred language. They tell me that they often struggle to understand the English version, but the Welsh ones are impossible. You have to be bi-lingual in Wales even though the vast majority wish to converse with their local Gov. in English.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 10:44 AM
I see the newspapers this morning are all taking a shot at Osborne for his dishonesty in working out the Welfare portion of the pie-chart.

Seems he lumped his pension and perks in with real Welfare spending.

All The Best
Not Osborne. This has been so for a very long time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rizzo
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM



And as for a "latest wheeze" Rizzo, far from it. It was a specific promise in the 2012 budget statement Over 30 months ago.
If you take note I did amend my initial post to the fact that Osborne talked about this in 2012. I do usually check my facts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rizzo
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 09:39 AM

But you are free to put up your evidence and show how the Gov. is colluding in these so called scams. Why don't you? I do not claim that all such aid is spent wisely, I know the State rarely ever spends Taxpayers money so, what I am questioning is your claim of collusion.
Wow, in words of an old song ''I could write a book'' !

Are you stating that corruption is so small that it is not worth troubling about?

If one could stamp out all the corruption every country would have enough money to pay their debts and give their electorate a decent standard of living.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Anyone who cannot see the deception intended just does not want to see it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 12:25 AM
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Not at all Steve, I remember it very well!

The government sold off £3.2bn of Lloyds shares and made a vast profit of £61m.

Let me go and get my calculator I can't do £141bn minus £61m in my head. ;-)
And that ^ ladies and gentlemen is conclusive proof that Tigger does not understand finances. !jk!

And I'm betting even with that big hint you cannot spot your error
No batteries in my calculator? :P

And I look forward to a raft of data from you proving what a jolly good thing it has been bailing out the banks and how much better off the taxpayer is as a result, what with all that profit we've made ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 5 2014, 07:34 PM
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 12:25 AM
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 11:56 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:49 PM
2013 is so last year Tigger, perhaps in your determination to divert another thread to your pet obsession you forgot about the shares sold at a profit earlier this year.
Not at all Steve, I remember it very well!

The government sold off £3.2bn of Lloyds shares and made a vast profit of £61m.

Let me go and get my calculator I can't do £141bn minus £61m in my head. ;-)
And that ^ ladies and gentlemen is conclusive proof that Tigger does not understand finances. !jk!

And I'm betting even with that big hint you cannot spot your error
No batteries in my calculator? :P

And I look forward to a raft of data from you proving what a jolly good thing it has been bailing out the banks and how much better off the taxpayer is as a result, what with all that profit we've made ;-)
The money doesn't appear on the chart because its not a part of this years spend, that was a one off payment in 2007/8.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
rizzo
Nov 5 2014, 12:40 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM



And as for a "latest wheeze" Rizzo, far from it. It was a specific promise in the 2012 budget statement Over 30 months ago.
If you take note I did amend my initial post to the fact that Osborne talked about this in 2012. I do usually check my facts.
So do I

There is no such edit of your original post, here it is again:

rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?


Can you please point out where you make it clear this was not a "latest wheeze" but in fact a 2012 promise?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 5 2014, 07:34 PM
No batteries in my calculator? :P

And I look forward to a raft of data from you proving what a jolly good thing it has been bailing out the banks and how much better off the taxpayer is as a result, what with all that profit we've made ;-)
There's a vacancy for you at Old Trafford, we need someone who can move goal posts. They might pay you enough to get that calculator battery you so desperately need

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:43 AM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

Dont you want to know where your money goes Affa, and can you explain why it is propaganda to know the truth ? If they are facts that can be disproved if not correct,how can that be propaganda?
Living in Wales where nearly everyone speaks English fluently we get every form bill and council documents in duel language, meaning half of what we get has to be thrown away. That is certainly not a good use of peoples money. The Welsh asswmbly has now reduced costs by reporting everything in English unless specifically requested.

Answered post 12 this thread ........ http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8232980&t=10709438
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 11:57 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

It'll only be propaganda if it isn't true.

Or only part of the story ......... so why not breakdown welfare spending?

£56.7bn, 50% of the total welfare spend, is for social protection n.e.c – defined by the UN as the administration costs
£29.2bn, 26% of the total welfare spend , is for social exclusion n.e.c
£18.8bn, 16% of the total welfare spend, is for family and children
£5.9bn, 5% of the total welfare spend, is for unemployment
£3.5bn, 3% of the total welfare spend, is for housing

Virtually half the spend is on administration ........ itself a huge employer (not all of it public sector employment). The cost of which has of course risen alarmingly due to the IDS reforms.

You do need to look at the definition for 'Social exclusion' before joining the group castigating these people.

Perhaps you'd supply a link please to where you say I was "joining the group castigating these people"

And any link to those £ figures of yours please? Particularly as you assert that £56.7B is "administration" according to the UN

Because the UN as in the United Nations doesn't seem to exactly agree with you

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcs.asp?Cl=4&Lg=1&Co=10.9.0

Quote:
 
Class: 10.9.0 - Social protection n.e.c. (CS)
Explanatory note
- Administration, operation or support of activities such as formulation, administration, coordination and monitoring of overall social protection policies, plans, programmes and budgets; preparation and enforcement of legislation and standards for the provision of social protection; production and dissemination of general information, technical documentation and statistics on social protection.
Includes: provision of social protection in the form of cash benefits and benefits in kind to victims of fires, floods, earthquakes and other peacetime disasters; purchase and storage of food, equipment and other supplies for emergency use in the case of peacetime disasters; other social protection affairs and services that cannot be assigned to (10.1), (10.2), (10.3), (10.4), (10.5), (10.6), (10.7) or (10.8)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
edit in process
Edited by Affa, Nov 6 2014, 12:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 11:03 PM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 11:57 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:02 PM
It is propaganda .. pure and simple, and paid for by the tax payer.
not a good use of public money imo.

It'll only be propaganda if it isn't true.

Or only part of the story ......... so why not breakdown welfare spending?

£56.7bn, 50% of the total welfare spend, is for social protection n.e.c – defined by the UN as the administration costs

£29.2bn, 26% of the total welfare spend , is for social exclusion n.e.c


You do need to look at the definition for 'Social exclusion' before joining the group castigating these people.

Perhaps you'd supply a link please to where you say I was "joining the group castigating these people"

"Before" joining.

And any link to those £ figures of yours please? Particularly as you assert that £56.7B is "administration" according to the UN

Because the UN as in the United Nations doesn't seem to exactly agree with you


Quote:
 
Class: 10.9.0 - Social protection n.e.c. (CS)
Explanatory note
- Administration, operation or support of activities such as formulation, administration, coordination and monitoring of overall social protection policies, plans, programmes and budgets; preparation and enforcement of legislation and standards for the provision of social protection; production and dissemination of general information, technical documentation and statistics on social protection.
Includes: provision of social protection in the form of cash benefits and benefits in kind to victims of fires, floods, earthquakes and other peacetime disasters; purchase and storage of food, equipment and other supplies for emergency use in the case of peacetime disasters; other social protection affairs and services that cannot be assigned to (10.1), (10.2), (10.3), (10.4), (10.5), (10.6), (10.7) or (10.8)
Not the same source, but this'll do.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/welfare_budget_2013_4.html

Your social protection UN definition bares this out somewhat - it is Administration, operational, and contingency costs outside normal means tested claims..

The spend that is 'actually paid out in benefits is social exclusion nec'

defined by the UN -
Quote:
 
Class: 10.7.0 - Social exclusion n.e.c. (IS)
Explanatory note
- Provision of social protection in the form of cash benefits and benefits in kind to persons who are socially excluded or at risk of social exclusion (such as persons who are destitute, low-income earners, immigrants, indigenous people, refugees, alcohol and substance abusers, victims of criminal violence, etc.);
- administration and operation of such social protection schemes;
- cash benefits, such as income support and other cash payments to the destitute and vulnerable persons to help alleviate poverty or assist in difficult situations;
- benefits in kind, such as short-term and long-term shelter and board provided to destitute and vulnerable persons, rehabilitation of alcohol and substance abusers, services and goods to help vulnerable persons such as counselling, day shelter, help with carrying out daily tasks, food, clothing, fuel, etc.


I had difficulty finding the original link which set out to debunk some of the myths about Welfare spending, how out of work costs are among the least spend for instance. However; Social protection nec is a large bill and from what I did find when looking for that previous link is that administration costs are included but not entirely itemised ...... the actual administration spend is hidden.
It was that other link that had more detail and made the calculation of 'half'.

I did come across this Guardian comment when searching -
Quote:
 
It's partly tricky to work out because government spending is confusingly split into two halves: departmental expenditure limits (DEL) and annually managed expenditure (AME). You would have trouble getting someone in government to explain what that actually means but, in practice, DEL is the money that a department can predictably spend, such as its administration budget, while AME is less controllable, such as benefits or rising health costs. So, when ministers talk about cuts in spending, they often just mean the DEL portion of the pie



Back on topic - this propaganda exercise is another 'divisive' attempt, and as such is motivated by party politics, which is not how government should use public money. As government it is their duty to represent everyone, even those on benefits, and not victimise them.

If the Conservatives wish to make these sort of representations then use their own money.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:07 PM
Anyone who cannot see the deception intended just does not want to see it.
So it is OK when Labour present data in such a format, which they have, but nooK when the Tories do so? Gotcha.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa you haven't substantiated either your "joining the group castigating these people" accusation against me or those £B figures - see post 30
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 6 2014, 08:28 AM
Affa you haven't substantiated either your "joining the group castigating these people" accusation against me or those £B figures - see post 30

"before joining the group castigating these people"

I did make it clear, you again omitted the caveat.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 6 2014, 08:08 AM
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:07 PM
Anyone who cannot see the deception intended just does not want to see it.
So it is OK when Labour present data in such a format, which they have, but nooK when the Tories do so? Gotcha.
"nook" when whoever does it, especially if it is as obvious as in this case. ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rizzo
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 09:44 PM
rizzo
Nov 5 2014, 12:40 PM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 10:51 PM



And as for a "latest wheeze" Rizzo, far from it. It was a specific promise in the 2012 budget statement Over 30 months ago.
If you take note I did amend my initial post to the fact that Osborne talked about this in 2012. I do usually check my facts.
So do I

There is no such edit of your original post, here it is again:

rizzo
Nov 4 2014, 05:14 PM
I see that Cameron's latest wheeze is to show tax-payers exactly how much they individually contribute to each pot.

I have only briefly read this ''idea'' but it would appear that the wording is heavily slanted towards the amount contributed to benefits.

Also itemised amongst others is the overseas aid figure, now Cameron is eager to point out that benefits MUST be reduced but no mention of reducing overseas aid, why is that? Could it be that the fat cats who cream off a goodly slice of that aid rush out to buy luxury cars, planes, yachts etc. along with shopping trips for their wives to London's Bond Street?

Doesn't Cameron realise that the majority of benefit payments get spent in the community and constantly reducing that figure only leads to more crime?


Can you please point out where you make it clear this was not a "latest wheeze" but in fact a 2012 promise?
Look again, in post #3 4/11.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
rizzo
Nov 6 2014, 12:38 PM
Look again, in post #3 4/11.
Perhaps you should reconsider next time calling your second post in the thread your "initial post" which was of course the OP, FWIW the OP is still uncorrected by you and is still attempting to perpetuate a myth.





Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 6 2014, 11:46 AM
Steve K
Nov 6 2014, 08:28 AM
Affa you haven't substantiated either your "joining the group castigating these people" accusation against me or those £B figures - see post 30

"before joining the group castigating these people"

I did make it clear, you again omitted the caveat.

As written that isn't a caveat on your insult to me but lets move on, you are still failing to post a link to those £ figures you wish us to take seriously
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lefty
Member Avatar
New Member
[ * ]
I believe this so-called 'transparent' tax statement idea from George Osborne is a cynical ploy from this government to justify their cuts to welfare and turn the "hard-working" taxpayer against the unemployed on benefits.

The government's own website shows that only 3% of welfare goes to the unemployed, while pensions account for 46%.
Edited by Lefty, Nov 6 2014, 10:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply