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
Sounds right in your ears?
Topic Started: Jan 27 2015, 08:27 AM (837 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sometimes the "sounds right in my ears so must be true Brigade" accept claims without first checking that they have some substance. Take the claim that the inequality between rich and poor has restricted growth, they offer no substance to support this but trail it around as a fact and then demand that taxes must be increased on those that have wealth to narrow the gap. The argument for narrowing can be made on other grounds, but there is no proof that there are economic gains to be had. Read this:


Quote:
 
In fact, an economy will grow, or not grow, based on a whole range of factors. In rough order, the most important are demographics, productivity, the rate of technological change, the labour participation rate, how big the state is, how much taxes punish enterprise, and how free and deregulated its markets are. How equal or unequal they are has nothing to do with it. No one would argue that more inequality creates faster growth. There is no evidence for that either. But neither does it reduce it.


Quote:
 
The first argument is that the rich, in the economic jargon, have a lower propensity to spend than the poor. For every extra £1,000 they earn, a fabulously wealthy person might spend very little of it, mostly because they have run out of stuff to buy, whereas a much poorer person will probably spend all of it, mainly because there is lots of stuff they need


Quote:
 
The trouble is, it is nonsense. Sure, the very rich don’t spend all their money. They save quite a bit of it. But neither do they stuff their money under the mattress. They either put it in the bank, and the bank will then lend it to people who do want it, or else they will invest it, and the money will go into a growing business which is creating jobs and wealth. The important point is that one way or another, money always gets spent, and feeds its way back into the economy. Whether it starts out in the hands of richer or poorer people doesn’t make any difference one way or another.


Quote:
 
The second main argument is that strong post-Second World War economic growth coincided with a period of narrowing inequality. In fairness, that’s true. But it is just a co-incidence. Post Second World War growth was the result of rapid technological change which boosted productivity, falling barriers to trade, and, a factor that is often over-looked, women re-joining the workforce on a massive scale. Equality didn’t have anything to do with it. Worse, that ignores the fact that 19th century growth, which sparked the industrial revolution, coincided with widening gulfs between the rich and poor. It also ignores the fact that some of the fastest-growing economies in the world right now are also some of the most unequal. The UK is regularly cited as a relatively unequal society compared to the rest of Europe – but it is growing faster than its rivals. Singapore and Hong Kong regularly top the inequality league tables – but neither of them are exactly slouches when it comes to rapid growth.


LINK- Lagarde is wrong

I believe there is a moral case here in the UK to shift ~£20b PA from the top to the bottom in a sustainable manner, but thus far nobody has shown how this can be achieved without a negative effect on the economy. Therefore the intellectually honest response is "hang the economy", but instead the left prefer the outpourings of the Red Nag Myth Factory as that chimes well in their ears.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 08:07 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 07:20 PM
I note you seem happy to quote your beliefs as facts (in the same post no less) so who are you to throw the first stone?

A flippant remark, and whilst I readily admit to often expressing my beliefs with conviction, I still would like to know what I wrote in that post which you deem to be belief presented as fact?

Here we go

(1) "His belief (or not) does not justify him stating it as a fact. . . ."

(2) "Tories should venture to mention evidence of their own incompetence so frequently . . ."

(3) "As board games go this has all the makings of Jumanji . . ."

We all do it (and in that <- you have another example :-[ ).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 28 2015, 07:54 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM


Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?
Given Iain Duncan Smith already has had a public bollocking from the statistics commissioner for telling the same lie months ago, it is completely inconceivable Cameron did not know when he talked to the Telegraph.
An analysis of the data by Full Fact, which should be on their website in the near future according to an email I had from them earlier, found that analysing the off flows from the benefits cap, the maxium number of people who "stampeded" to the jobcentre was a mere 2000.
!jk!

You really cannot stop digging can you

here is your own post

"David Cameron has insisted that reducing the annual benefits cap to £23,000 would cause a new "stampede to the job centre", despite a swathe of evidence suggesting the current £26,000 limit has actually had a limited effect."

Now what does it take to get it through to what passes for your grey matter that the £23,000 cap is different from the one that you admit has had an effect?

And for what it's worth you never showed IDS was lying either. I ask again what was your first language? If it was English it's you that's the liar for falsely calling others so when you know they're at worst mistaken and if it's not English, then by your own posts you should be leaving the UK.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 09:00 PM


Now what does it take to get it through to what passes for your grey matter that the £23,000 cap is different from the one that you admit has had an effect?


The £26000 benefit cap did not cause a "stampede to the jobcentre" and neither would cutting it again. Because it would relative to the numbers on JSA effect few people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 28 2015, 11:05 AM
Tigger
Jan 27 2015, 11:10 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
Er...Just a small matter of detail here the Magna Carta is not actually a legal document in the modern sense and the establishment in it's various forms has spent the last 800 years ignoring it.

Carry on. :)
I understand that it is the basis of the USA constitution, has been mentioned over 400 times, the most recent over the detentions in Guantanamo bay. David Davis resigned from the front bench because of it, and because he was concerned about the principle involved to our loss of personal freedom, and the oppression by authority.
Just because some think it right to deprive others of their legally possessed property and personal freedoms, breaching the rights of a free citizen ,does not mean that the principles laid down and recognised for centuries are not sound.
Overbearing and demanding governments, supported by some citizens slowly but surely erodes our rights and freedoms, and becomes more dictatorial by the day.
I think you have lost the plot, (several decades ago in all probability) using the Magna Carta as a reference point does not make it a legal document or even particularly relevant in today's World. I suspect you are one of these right wing types who places great faith in stirring words and well meaning intentions that date back centuries, but alas hardly anyone who lives in the land of reality gives a toss, it's the here and now that matters.

File under, ops wrong right winger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 28 2015, 09:36 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 09:00 PM


Now what does it take to get it through to what passes for your grey matter that the £23,000 cap is different from the one that you admit has had an effect?


The £26000 benefit cap did not cause a "stampede to the jobcentre" and neither would cutting it again. Because it would relative to the numbers on JSA effect few people.
That is your opinion as to a potential future outcome, it is not a matter of record that Cameron had access to so, as anyone who knows the English language knows, he could not be lying

So what is it? Do you not know the English language or were you knowingly making a falsehood - and that would make YOU the liar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 28 2015, 11:50 AM
Your objective in coming here is not to inform,





Correct!

I come here to voice my opinions and pull up those with who insist on "informing" us with barely disguised propaganda, I'm surprised you haven't noticed yet!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 08:45 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
I do believe it is commonly known as envy and worst of all, SPITE, as long as the lefties can spend anyone elses money other than their own then they are happy to do so........I repeat once again, regardless of what party/political hue takes office after the next GE, they will HAVE to adopt right wing policies in order to get this country back into the black and running a surplus, and all those that are having their benefits capped and are resisting going out and earning a wage had best listen, the charlatans that last bought your votes in 97 will try the same little trick again in may, and lets face it they might just succeed, but if they do gain office they too will shit on you from a great height as there is only ONE way to balance the books and at the same time look after the needy and disabled and those that genuinely cannot fend for themselves, and what is more, if you are fed up with immigrants then you will get even more of the same with no chance of you voicing your opinion with regard to a referendum in your very own country by those claiming to look after your best interests.

I just thought I would remind you of exactly what the politics of envy are all about down at the old red nag (which has been flogged to death) on the alter of lies, lies and more damn lies.
Well we have had extreme right wing policies for the past five years and Lo and behold they haven't worked.

The NHS is getting ever worse by the day, with ambulance response times ever increasing.

We have been ripped off with families being worse off, yet millionaires can have massive tax cuts gifted to them.

Electricity and gas prices are dearer, with the excuse given by the rip off merchants that prices have gone up because the wholesale gas price has increased. Hey when wholesale gas prices reduce, we get the lame excuse that the rip off merchants have bought the gas at a time in the past, what hogwash. They are now pretending to reduce the prices by a mere 4-5%.

Government borrowing is now higher than it was ever under the last Labour government.

Guess what after Scammer's promising to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, it is now higher than ever. What a bloody shambolic liar he is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 08:51 PM
Affa
Jan 28 2015, 08:07 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 07:20 PM
I note you seem happy to quote your beliefs as facts (in the same post no less) so who are you to throw the first stone?

A flippant remark, and whilst I readily admit to often expressing my beliefs with conviction, I still would like to know what I wrote in that post which you deem to be belief presented as fact?

Here we go

(1) "His belief (or not) does not justify him stating it as a fact. . . ."

(2) "Tories should venture to mention evidence of their own incompetence so frequently . . ."

(3) "As board games go this has all the makings of Jumanji . . ."

We all do it (and in that <- you have another example :-[ ).

A strange version of fact v opinion that in itself is wrongly (imo) addressing opinions as statements of facts.
Here's another opinion you will not regard as a fact (or will you) - it does happen that the opinion that is sometimes expressed is not actually a firmly held belief. As when dismissing criticism of how the very wealthy avoid paying due taxes is described as the 'politics of envy'. I always regard such retorts as the last thrust of a defeated opponent. Nasty is as nasty does.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 08:45 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
I do believe it is commonly known as envy and worst of all, SPITE, as long as the lefties can spend anyone elses money other than their own then they are happy to do so........I repeat once again, regardless of what party/political hue takes office after the next GE, they will HAVE to adopt right wing policies in order to get this country back into the black and running a surplus, and all those that are having their benefits capped and are resisting going out and earning a wage had best listen, the charlatans that last bought your votes in 97 will try the same little trick again in may, and lets face it they might just succeed, but if they do gain office they too will shit on you from a great height as there is only ONE way to balance the books and at the same time look after the needy and disabled and those that genuinely cannot fend for themselves, and what is more, if you are fed up with immigrants then you will get even more of the same with no chance of you voicing your opinion with regard to a referendum in your very own country by those claiming to look after your best interests.

I just thought I would remind you of exactly what the politics of envy are all about down at the old red nag (which has been flogged to death) on the alter of lies, lies and more damn lies.
Your comments along with those of others about the "politics of envy" or "greed and spite" seem to me to be out of place in a rich country like the the UK, which the last time I looked, had the most unequal distribution of wealth in the developed world.

Why should the people of this country be subjected to this position ?

Edited by C-too, Jan 29 2015, 12:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 29 2015, 12:31 AM
Rich
Jan 28 2015, 08:45 PM
Tytoalba
Jan 27 2015, 11:07 PM
Affa
Jan 27 2015, 11:17 AM

What 'sounds about right' to me is the notion that the very wealthy, frightened that they just might be required to make more of a contribution, would start to employ otherwise out-of-work spin doctors to come up with BS like this.



'

Its their money and their rights as citizens to retain it or to spend it as they wish , in just the same way that it applies to the rest of us. I watched David Starkey's programme on the Magna Carta and in particular to his reference to one of the most important parts of it

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. "

Why do the left demand so vociferously that anyone should be deprived of so much of their legally acquired or possessed money?
I do believe it is commonly known as envy and worst of all, SPITE, as long as the lefties can spend anyone elses money other than their own then they are happy to do so........I repeat once again, regardless of what party/political hue takes office after the next GE, they will HAVE to adopt right wing policies in order to get this country back into the black and running a surplus, and all those that are having their benefits capped and are resisting going out and earning a wage had best listen, the charlatans that last bought your votes in 97 will try the same little trick again in may, and lets face it they might just succeed, but if they do gain office they too will shit on you from a great height as there is only ONE way to balance the books and at the same time look after the needy and disabled and those that genuinely cannot fend for themselves, and what is more, if you are fed up with immigrants then you will get even more of the same with no chance of you voicing your opinion with regard to a referendum in your very own country by those claiming to look after your best interests.

I just thought I would remind you of exactly what the politics of envy are all about down at the old red nag (which has been flogged to death) on the alter of lies, lies and more damn lies.
Your comments along with those of others about the "politics of envy" or "greed and spite" seem to me to be out of place in a rich country like the the UK, which the last time I looked, had the most unequal distribution of wealth in the developed world.

Why should the people of this country be subjected to this position ?

Couldn't agree more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball 2014
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Well guys it kind of comes down to how the rich, including the Establishment and Bankers etc. perceive things. They after all hold most of the fiscal strings.

Their 'world view' tends to be that the lower orders cannot and should not be trusted with control of a serious proportion of the GDP and over all wealth. They see this view as the sensible one to take; one which protects their own wealth and status of kith and kin, maintains and indeed strengthens the status quo, and is in effect a kind of fiscal continuum of the 'divine right of 'kings'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 09:54 PM
That is your opinion as to a potential future outcome,
It is a fact, that the first cap did not cause a "stampede to the jobcentre," and that is backed up with actual data.
Cameron has made himself look a bloody fool. It is obvious that some people on this forum need to widen their sources of information.
Some of you seem to think I am in minority of one.

In their desperation to stay in power, the Tories are making themselves a laughing stock.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 29 2015, 09:35 AM


In their desperation to stay in power, the Tories are making themselves a laughing stock.

In the run in to the last GE it was all about 'fairness', "all-in-it-together" and the villain bankers were the main target to get the country out of deficit and paying off the debt (in five years).

No pretence this time - well not that (above) pretence, anyhow.

edit - which brings me back to the OP and what it 'sounded like'.
As I first answered, it has dawned on the wealthy that without DC&GO that the escape they thought they had secured through their Party donations and influence could be ended in May ..... and the wealth they acquired whilst the bankers were magicking money and that these 'investors' quickly took hold off must now be subject to taxes - taxes that do not hurt the poorest (for a change).
So it is that we read as RJD wanted that these people are not villains, are not hoarders, but are essential guardians of our well-being and without whom anarchy would reign ......... We already have anarchy, the sort where the very rich ignore the law or lobby to have the laws made in their favour and work harder to ensure that their own comfort is protected from the damage their greed has caused.

another edit ....... 'This is the politics of envy' .......... Not!

Edited by Affa, Jan 29 2015, 11:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 29 2015, 09:35 AM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 09:54 PM
That is your opinion as to a potential future outcome,
It is a fact, that the first cap did not cause a "stampede to the jobcentre," and that is backed up with actual data.
Cameron has made himself look a bloody fool. It is obvious that some people on this forum need to widen their sources of information.
Some of you seem to think I am in minority of one.

In their desperation to stay in power, the Tories are making themselves a laughing stock.
Once again you parade what you would like to be the case…”the Tories are making themselves a laughing stock” as a fact.

I would suggest that in the forthcoming election at least a third of the seats will go to the Tories. This will pretty clearly demonstrate that a third of those that vote do not consider the tories to be a laughing stock and demonstrate what a serial fantasist you are and why nobody on this site who has any desire for the truth gives your post any credibility.

MORE importantly is the fact that capping benefits at 23,000 will save a mere 35 million. The cost benefit of the debt reduction achieve in relation to pain caused to those families is questionable
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 29 2015, 11:28 AM


I would suggest that in the forthcoming election at least a third of the seats will go to the Tories. This will pretty clearly demonstrate that a third of those that vote do not consider the tories to be a laughing stock
That is because a 1/3rd of the electorate are not aware they are being lied to by the Tories. In their case ignorance is bliss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I would not take too much notice of anything on Zero Hedge, why even I have had heavily edited articles published on there! ;D

Submit some yourself, the more outlandish and improbable the better the chance of it being accepted.

Edited by Tigger, Jan 29 2015, 11:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 28 2015, 07:54 PM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 05:50 PM


Go on where is your proof that Cameron does not believe a £23k cap would cause a massive increase in job take up?
Given Iain Duncan Smith already has had a public bollocking from the statistics commissioner for telling the same lie months ago, it is completely inconceivable Cameron did not know when he talked to the Telegraph.
An analysis of the data by Full Fact, which should be on their website in the near future according to an email I had from them earlier, found that analysing the off flows from the benefits cap, the maxium number of people who "stampeded" to the jobcentre was a mere 2000.
Where is the proof? Or is that an example of what you call a lie?
It is true that there are now less people claiming JSA than hitherto, however, whether those that stopped their claims ran to the Job-Centre or were pushed is a matter of analysis. If you want to make a cultural change in established habits then best change opinions and it is only right and proper that the State tells those that are fit and able that they have no alternative but to try and get a job.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 29 2015, 09:35 AM
Steve K
Jan 28 2015, 09:54 PM
That is your opinion as to a potential future outcome,
It is a fact, that the first cap did not cause a "stampede to the jobcentre," and that is backed up with actual data.
Cameron has made himself look a bloody fool. It is obvious that some people on this forum need to widen their sources of information.
Some of you seem to think I am in minority of one.

In their desperation to stay in power, the Tories are making themselves a laughing stock.
"Stampede" is a subjective term and certainly requires less than 2,000 to take part

And you really don't seem to have noticed that Cameron has proposed a new and much lower in real terms cap. As surely anyone knows there is always a trigger point when a relatively small change can tip the scales

Since you have neither shown that Cameron believes his statement to be false nor retracted your accusation that he is a liar, you have clearly admitted that English is not a natural language to you as you find even simple to understand words like ""lie" bewildering. By your previous posts you believe you should be deported, please close the door on the way out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:38 PM

It is true that there are now less people claiming JSA than hitherto,
It is, but the vast majority of those not claiming JSA anymore have "disappeared" they are not in work or any other benefit.
That is IDS's big lie.
There has been no "stampede to the jobcentre."
I have already referenced the research for that several times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 30 2015, 08:51 AM
RJD
Jan 29 2015, 02:38 PM

It is true that there are now less people claiming JSA than hitherto,
It is, but the vast majority of those not claiming JSA anymore have "disappeared" they are not in work or any other benefit.
That is IDS's big lie.
There has been no "stampede to the jobcentre."
I have already referenced the research for that several times.
As I said I have no idea whether they ran or were pushed.

Thought you might like this one:
Quote:
 
I suspect that you were as appalled as I by the plight of young mum, Marie Buchan, from Selly Oak in Birmingham. She has eight children – called stuff like Latoya and Tia – and currently claims a meagre £26,000 per year in benefits to feed them all. But now the government’s benefits cap has started to bite and Marie will see her income reduce to £23,000. She said: ‘I am being forced into work. You’re going to get similar cases as to what happened with the bedroom tax – people taking their own lives due to the financial pressures they are feeling. It will hit people that hard.’ You and I can only guess at the trauma facing Marie and her lovely children. A choice between killing herself and being ‘forced into work’. That’s something completely alien to the rest of us, being ‘forced into work’, isn’t it? Someone send her ten thou, quick, or my heart will burst. Or maybe twelve thou, in case, in between writing this and it being published, she conceives another ‘love-child’
. - Rod Liddle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 11:44 AM
.


Thought you might like this one
Rod Liddle? RJD, how much did Tory HQ pay your example to take part in their propaganda?

After all this time you CANNOT understand the difference between a newspaper article that supports your views and research that has found a whole 2000 people have found work out to those who were capped. It is a BIG stretch to state that 2000 were "forced into work" because of the "churn" in onflows and offlows.
There was no "Stampede to the Jobcentre" and there won't be if the cap is reduced to £23000, because what people CANNOT get through their thick heads is few people are on that level of be benefit, and the majority of those that are live in London.

Data for numbers capped:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370587/benefit-cap-statistics-to-aug-2014.pdf

Key findings
Cumulative measures
Since the introduction of the benefit cap on 15 April 2013 to August 2014:
• 51.2 thousand households had their housing benefit capped.
• 46% of households affected by the benefit cap were found in London.
• Of the top 20 Local Authorities with the highest number of households affected by the benefit cap, only two were outside London – Birmingham and Manchester.
Snapshot measures
Of data extracted in August 20141:
• 27.2 thousand households had their housing benefit capped. This is in line with the caseload in recent months (27.0 thousand in May 2014 and 26.5 thousand in both June and July 2014).
• 59% of capped households had between 1 and 4 children and 36% had 5 or more children.
• 61% of capped households constituted a single parent with child dependants.
• 80% of capped households were capped by £100 or less a week.
Off-flow measures
Since the introduction of the benefit cap on 15 April 2013 to August 2014:
• 23.9 thousand households (47%) who have (previously) been capped are no longer subject to the cap as at August 2014. Of these, 9.6 thousand are exempt with an open Working Tax Credit claim, which is 40% of those no longer subject to the cap.
• 28.3 thousand households in total had a spell off the cap. This includes cases not capped as at August 2014 and cases who have been capped, left the cap and then been capped again. Of these, 34% had a recorded Working Tax Credit claim at time of off-flow.
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 30 2015, 12:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes because single moms with 8 kids are really representative of those in receipt of benefits. I imagine that single moms with 8 kids is a vanishingly small percentage of the population. What those of us interested in truth rather than dogma would like to see are worked examples so we could decide for ourselves whether the benefits system is too harsh or overly generous rather than extreme example like this...don't forget the philpots while you are at it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 12:12 PM
Yes because single moms with 8 kids are really representative of those in receipt of benefits. I imagine that single moms with 8 kids is a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
It is barely a percentage. Chart on page 2, specifies families not single mother so the numbers are less than that:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223241/foi_3222_2012.pdf
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 30 2015, 12:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Interesting stats PS but it does clearly say that 50 thousand households have had their benefits capped

While it does support your claim that overwhelmingly that is in London does that not suggest that benefit caps should reflect the average wages in the geographical area. Maybe a tad higher in London but a lot less elsewhere to end up with an average £23k?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:27 PM
Interesting stats PS but it does clearly say that 50 thousand households have had their benefits capped


So what, out of millions of claimants. There already are local benefit caps. Housing Benefit (Local Housing Allowance) is set at a maximum of the 30th percentile of local average rents. (Many councils are only paying 70-75% of that.)
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 30 2015, 01:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes but if you have extra kids in Doncaster then the cap hits you less than it does in London

That we have so few in your eyes finding work instead of benefits when we still have to import people to pick crops suggests the cap is too high.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:27 PM
Interesting stats PS but it does clearly say that 50 thousand households have had their benefits capped

While it does support your claim that overwhelmingly that is in London does that not suggest that benefit caps should reflect the average wages in the geographical area. Maybe a tad higher in London but a lot less elsewhere to end up with an average £23k?

The thing is steve that none of these savings are really making much of a dent in the deficit. Consequently it does seem to add strength to those who suggest this is ideologically driven rather than economically. Most of the Welfare budget is in Pensions, housing benefits and in Tax credits. This just smacks of headline grabbing posturing, I mean how many people feel genuinely sorry for a single mom with 6 kids? So they are easy targets for the shaft.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 01:57 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:27 PM
Interesting stats PS but it does clearly say that 50 thousand households have had their benefits capped

While it does support your claim that overwhelmingly that is in London does that not suggest that benefit caps should reflect the average wages in the geographical area. Maybe a tad higher in London but a lot less elsewhere to end up with an average £23k?

The thing is steve that none of these savings are really making much of a dent in the deficit. Consequently it does seem to add strength to those who suggest this is ideologically driven rather than economically. Most of the Welfare budget is in Pensions, housing benefits and in Tax credits. This just smacks of headline grabbing posturing, I mean how many people feel genuinely sorry for a single mom with 6 kids? So they are easy targets for the shaft.
Yes the way to a successful end result does not seem to be clear so it looks like bash the workless, smells like bash the workless and walks like it is bash the workless

I suspect the Tory plan is to continue to cut that cap in real terms until we do see serious 'stampedes' for jobs. Not that that will easily happen until more jobs are on offer and all the time our NMW makes our labour rates high in world market terms that's not happening at any pace.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:55 PM


That we have so few in your eyes finding work instead of benefits when we still have to import people to pick crops suggests the cap is too high.
It suggests there are not enough jobs, it does not matter how you spin it, no-one can get a job unless someone offers them one.
No matter how much benefits are cut, nothing can change that.
As it is the cuts so far are hitting harder where I live, there is now a food bank in the next village.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 30 2015, 02:17 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:55 PM


That we have so few in your eyes finding work instead of benefits when we still have to import people to pick crops suggests the cap is too high.
It suggests there are not enough jobs, it does not matter how you spin it, no-one can get a job unless someone offers them one.
No matter how much benefits are cut, nothing can change that.
As it is the cuts so far are hitting harder where I live, there is now a food bank in the next village.
Yes see post 68

I have a big issue with applying a benefit cap that impacts children that were conceived before it was announced.

But I similarly despair that we employed so many Romanians picking crops even when they had no automatic right to work here because so many Brits turned up their noses at hard work
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 02:31 PM


But I similarly despair that we employed so many Romanians picking crops even when they had no automatic right to work here because so many Brits turned up their noses at hard work
The ONLY reason for why Brits cannot get crop picking job is the gangsters, sorry gangers, who are usually foreign will not employ local people.
It is NOT a case of Brits not wanting to do the work.
The press/media and Tory politicians can repeat the lie Brits, don't want the work as much as they like, the reality is no-one has the guts to stand up to the gangers because they don't want to end up dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sadly I believe there is a fair amount of truth in that. But if Brits had been more willing to take the work then the foreign gangmasters would have barely got a look in
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 02:31 PM
papasmurf
Jan 30 2015, 02:17 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:55 PM


That we have so few in your eyes finding work instead of benefits when we still have to import people to pick crops suggests the cap is too high.
It suggests there are not enough jobs, it does not matter how you spin it, no-one can get a job unless someone offers them one.
No matter how much benefits are cut, nothing can change that.
As it is the cuts so far are hitting harder where I live, there is now a food bank in the next village.
Yes see post 68

I have a big issue with applying a benefit cap that impacts children that were conceived before it was announced.

But I similarly despair that we employed so many Romanians picking crops even when they had no automatic right to work here because so many Brits turned up their noses at hard work
Ah Steve you are echoing my approach. That changes should be phased so that people can respond to them and if they choose not to it is there responsibility.

You are also like me in that you would like a worked example of how painful these cuts are. That said I suppose we could work it out with Rangers help.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 02:50 PM

You are also like me in that you would like a worked example of how painful these cuts are.
That really is getting boring, "a worked example." Work out what is the absolute minimum you need to live on, and then compare it with what a laughingly called by one person on this forum, "generous benefits."
You will come up worryingly short, a significant number of people in work are ending up at food banks because of the cuts to benefits.
They just do not have enough income to cover the bills they HAVE to pay.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 30 2015, 03:33 PM
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 02:50 PM

You are also like me in that you would like a worked example of how painful these cuts are.
That really is getting boring, "a worked example." Work out what is the absolute minimum you need to live on, and then compare it with what a laughingly called by one person on this forum, "generous benefits."
You will come up worryingly short, a significant number of people in work are ending up at food banks because of the cuts to benefits.
They just do not have enough income to cover the bills they HAVE to pay.
What is truly boring is your evasion on this topic when asked.

If it is that simple why don't you tell us?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 03:47 PM
What is truly boring is your evasion on this topic when asked.

If it is that simple why don't you tell us?
There is no evasion involved, I suggest you find a family who end up at a food bank, and get their financial details, and try and see if you can get them out of the poo.
What you are finding so difficult to comprehend about the close to the edge financial difficulty 18 million people are currently in I personally find incomprehensible. You must be like Cameron, Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith living in an insulated bubble from the reality facing many people around you.

I suggest looking at the chart on page 11 of this and at the very low income levels of millions of people. It does not take a worked out individual example to see the size of the problem. (That so many people have an income far below a level that even you must be able to see is causing serious problems is a national disgrace)

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf
Edited by papasmurf, Jan 30 2015, 04:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 01:57 PM
Steve K
Jan 30 2015, 01:27 PM
Interesting stats PS but it does clearly say that 50 thousand households have had their benefits capped

While it does support your claim that overwhelmingly that is in London does that not suggest that benefit caps should reflect the average wages in the geographical area. Maybe a tad higher in London but a lot less elsewhere to end up with an average £23k?

The thing is steve that none of these savings are really making much of a dent in the deficit. Consequently it does seem to add strength to those who suggest this is ideologically driven rather than economically. Most of the Welfare budget is in Pensions, housing benefits and in Tax credits. This just smacks of headline grabbing posturing, I mean how many people feel genuinely sorry for a single mom with 6 kids? So they are easy targets for the shaft.
It's mindset that is important. It is vital that the mindset of those that can contribute do and that they know their is little room for freeloading.

Clearly welfare should be judged regionally, like wages, not nationally. I prefer the Swiss system where it a Kantonal responsibility and yes they do take different attitudes that reflect prevailing local conditions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jan 30 2015, 04:27 PM
ACH1967
Jan 30 2015, 03:47 PM
What is truly boring is your evasion on this topic when asked.

If it is that simple why don't you tell us?
There is no evasion involved, I suggest you find a family who end up at a food bank, and get their financial details, and try and see if you can get them out of the poo.
What you are finding so difficult to comprehend about the close to the edge financial difficulty 18 million people are currently in I personally find incomprehensible. You must be like Cameron, Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith living in an insulated bubble from the reality facing many people around you.

I suggest looking at the chart on page 11 of this and at the very low income levels of millions of people. It does not take a worked out individual example to see the size of the problem. (That so many people have an income far below a level that even you must be able to see is causing serious problems is a national disgrace)

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf
We managed with a lot less during and post WW2. You are not claiming that absolute poverty exists only the relative variety and relative to 60-70 years ago material standards of consumption are significantly higher today even among the poorest 10% of society. As for living at the financial edge as you call it, what's new about that. What do you think paid for a high portion of material consumption under the last lot?
As for the financial details of many who visit Foodbanks well that has been exposed and the cost of food absolutely and as a percentage of income is not the issue, it is only the outward symbol of the plight they find themselves in caused by many factors.
By the way the graph on page 11 shows and income distribution and does not equate this to absolute poverty. It really is simple, put relative poverty as equivalent to absolute poverty and your claims are blown. It really is very lazy to infer that what we consider to be current relative poverty equates to absolute poverty when it doesn't.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The bottom line is that these reforms have not actually led to a reduction in Welfare spending (real terms) ........ and surely that is what the Government would be aiming to do if as they insist 'these reforms are necessary to reduce the deficit'?
Welfare spending has increased, whilst benefits themselves have been cut ....... the conclusion being that more and more people are now benefit dependent.

Posted Image

However, if the real purpose is to cut benefits and increase hardship, they surely have been effective.

Edited by Affa, Jan 30 2015, 08:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 05:34 PM

By the way the graph on page 11 shows and income distribution and does not equate this to absolute poverty.
Well given how many millions are the wrong side of £300 a week mark with a significant number with next to (expletive deleted) all a week to live on, just how little a week do you think people need to keep a roof over their head and eat properly?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply