| Non-motoring > Autumn statement | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Roger. | Replies: 77 |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 18:44
Autumn statement - Roger.
|
| So - the May 2015 bribes are announced - will they work? |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 18:57
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> So - the May 2015 bribes are announced - will they work? Trouble is that so far we've only really seen the headlines. It'll take the economic correspondents until well into tomorrow to tease out all the detail. Meantime this seems likely to be last 'budget' on which there's even a modicum of support from the LDs. In fact Vince Cable has already been loosing off shots. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 19:44
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
Will they work? The opposition have nothing to offer. UKIP amounts to "We'd save 9 billion by stopping foreign aid" They may not work but they also won't hurt. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:13
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> They may not work but they also won't hurt. They'll hurt if you're part of the 3rd world underclass but since neither UKIP nor the Tories have any feel for the underclass generally I doubt that matters. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:15
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
>>They'll hurt if you're part of the 3rd world underclass You'll be referring to fatties and smokers? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30318546 |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:25
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> You'll be referring to fatties and smokers? No. The low wage earners and others dependent on tax credits etc. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:29
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
Nice to see Labour suggesting raising minimum wage to £10 an hour rather than perpetuating the expectation of working people to receive a variety of benefits. Oh hang on... Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 3 Dec 14 at 20:30
|
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:43
Autumn statement - Manatee
|
|
>> >> You'll be referring to fatties and smokers? >> >> No. The low wage earners and others dependent on tax credits etc. You lost your thread? You were writing about the third world/foreign aid. Not surprised about the Devon NHS policy. Reducing demand is the only solution for the NHS. It would be an age limit except there is a law against that. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:48
Autumn statement - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> It would be an age limit except there is a law against that. Sorry guv, it's the law innit? I know and you know that it's time for you to pop your clogs, knowImean?, but the regs just don't allow it. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 21:06
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> You lost your thread? You were writing about the third world/foreign aid. No, I responded to Lygonos on foreign aid but extended point to over the UK underclass. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 21:13
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
>>No, I responded to Lygonos on foreign aid Ah I see the ambiguity - I wasn't referring to stopping foreign aid as not hurting anyone - I was referring to Osbornes utterances today as not hurting their (the Tories) chances in May (as reply to the OP's closing question). I added that Labour have nothing distinctive to offer and UKIP's best pitch was "stop foreign aid, close 'a couple of Whitehall departments', and of course pull out of Europe" (paraphrasing Carsewell on R4 at lunchtime). LibDems are dead - SNP are more likely to influence the next UK Govt. We all know that the next government must cut spending further and increase tax revenues. No-one's giving a solid account (ie. not sound bite envy politics) of how they plan this, as it is political suicide to do so. We are sheep and deserve the morons we elect. Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 3 Dec 14 at 21:15
|
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 20:54
Autumn statement - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> No. The low wage earners and others dependent on tax credits etc. >> Unless I've missed something I can't see any reference to tax credits and Osborne has taken a lot of low earners out of the tax bracket altogether. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 21:00
Autumn statement - Haywain
|
|
"neither UKIP nor the Tories have any feel for the underclass generally" Does any party? Even the labour pigs seem to be walking on their hind legs. |
|
New Wed 3 Dec 14 22:40
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> They'll hurt if you're part of the 3rd world underclass but since neither UKIP nor >> the Tories have any feel for the underclass generally I doubt that matters. >> What happens if you do care about the disadvantaged...but... think that it is in the interests of the poor for the rich to be successful... and generate income, so that the country can afford to look after them... rather than the other way which is spend like crazy and/or tax the well off out of existence (or abroad), trying to level the playing field.. but have no realistic way of paying for it. There will never be true equality.. because some human beings are more motivated than others. We should encourage the motivated to do well and then look after the genuinely disadvantaged out of their endeavours, as long as we don't milk the cow too much. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 08:20
Autumn statement - Haywain
|
|
"in the interests of the poor for the rich to be successful... and generate income, so that the country can afford to look after them" ISTR that this was Maggie's view of economics 'make the rich richer - and the wealth will come cascading down'. Of course, ever since then, the gap between rich and poor has increased; the last Labour administration didn't help the situation either. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 08:54
Autumn statement - Manatee
|
| Quite. When the very wealthy are paying a smaller proportion of their income/capital growth than the average, there's something wrong. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 09:27
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> Quite. When the very wealthy are paying a smaller proportion of their income/capital growth than >> the average, there's something wrong. I think there has to be a happy medium... and by that I mean encourage the rich to become richer but nevertheless pay their way... but, I don't think it is a good idea to hammer the rich, it disincentives people and all they'll do is avoid taxes or live abroad. Don't forget the rich buy things and employ people and travel and stay in hotels etc, etc.... all of which benefits the rest of us, because everything they do is taxed anyway. I read somewhere of a flat rate tax idea.. for all... where no one pays a higher rate and as Maggie was quoted 'it all cascades down'. I don't know enough about the subject to know if it would work, but IMO the theory seems sound. The Left of course wouldn't 'see it' that way. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 09:43
Autumn statement - No FM2R
|
| www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22575135 |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 10:41
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The Left of course wouldn't 'see it' that way. It's been tried now both here and even more so in USA for over thirty years. Not much evidence of it working in either place; incime and assets are far more unevenly divided now than then. While it's obviously true that the rich spend some of their spare cash evidence suggests when the have lots much the greater proportion of it is rolled up into assets (shares, property etc). OTOH, spare cash in hands of ordinary working people tends to be spent either on better necessities or on those things just beyond the necessary. Thus the argument that the money 'created' by quantitative easing had been distributed on basis of £1k per head it would have provided a greater economic stimulus than it actually has. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 13:20
Autumn statement - madf
|
|
>> "in the interests of the poor for the rich to be successful... and generate income, >> so that the country can afford to look after them" >> >> ISTR that this was Maggie's view of economics 'make the rich richer - and the >> wealth will come cascading down'. >> >> Of course, ever since then, the gap between rich and poor has increased; the last >> Labour administration didn't help the situation either. >> The majority of income tax comes from the "rich".. The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom nine million, according to official Government statistics. tinyurl.com/qfdvdme Last edited by: madf on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 13:21
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 14:08
Autumn statement - Manatee
|
|
>> The majority of income tax comes from the "rich".. >> >> >> The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the bottom >> nine million, according to official Government statistics. tinyurl.com/qfdvdme It would be interesting to see the precise definition behind that. If this is extracted from the PAYE returns then it's pretty clear that it the majority of income tax comes from the highest paid, and a lot of wealthy people with income from other sources are probably excluded altogether or only included as to any PAYE. Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 14:10
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 09:49
Autumn statement - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> There will never be true equality.. because some human beings are more motivated than others. >> We should encourage the motivated to do well and then look after the genuinely disadvantaged >> out of their endeavours, as long as we don't milk the cow too much. >> There will never be equality because we're not all equal, some people are more talented than others in whatever area of life you care to look at. To strive for equality is a waste of time, what we need to concentrate on is ensuring fairness. Those without the ability to rise above the lowest level should still be assured of a certain standard of living - provided they are putting the effort in to do their bit. The feckless parasites who sit on their backsides expecting the rest of us to keep them should be left to rot. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 10:48
Autumn statement - Ambo
|
|
Good news about ISA inheritance i.e. income will remain untaxed. Now we want Broun's tax on ISA dividends removed. A propos, I believe there is no ISA tax on bonds. Does this apply to bond Unit and Investment trusts as well? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 12:59
Autumn statement - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> Good news about ISA inheritance i.e. income will remain untaxed. >> There have already been some confusing interpretations of exactly what he meant. That the survivor can retain the investment intact, inside its tax wrapper, merely being re-registered in the inheritor's name? (As with inheritance of any other sort of investment) That the survivor can cash in the ISA and make a payment into his/her own ISA without such payment using up his/her own annual allowance? Will the capital gains tax exemption also be inherited? Can the ISA be passed to any other category of beneficiary, as is now permissable under the new pension rules, or is it limited to spouses? Some commentators talk loosely about the "tax on inheritance". They don't mean Inheritance Tax, do they? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 13:09
Autumn statement - Cliff Pope
|
|
And another interpretation: "'From 6 April 2015, surviving spouses will be able to invest as much into their own ISA as their spouse used to have, on top of their usual allowance, " Which is something much more radical, if true. It says nothing about the continuing tax status of the inherited ISA, but seems to be saying that a widow or widower would from then on have TWO annual allowances. Indefinitely? Someone's whose spouse died young would have a double ISA allowance for life? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 16:06
Autumn statement - Mapmaker
|
|
Cliff, no. Only in the year of death. What it means is that the contents of your dead spouse's ISA may be transferred to your ISA. Nothing more, nothing less. The way it will work, mechanistically, is that you will sell your dead spouse's ISA and your own ISA allowance for the year of the spouse's death will be increased by the amount of the dead spouse's ISA. >>Of course, ever since then, the gap between rich and poor has increased; the last Labour >>administration didn't help the situation either. Do we care about the gap? Or the change to the living standards of the poor. If the unemployed can afford to be fed, clothed and housed, as well as having satellite dishes and 55" TVs, then they are incomparably wealthier than the poor of years ago. Meanwhile the rich continue to have anything they want, so are no better off than they used to be. Not to say that it's perfect. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 16:14
Autumn statement - Roger.
|
|
Life on the never-never......... www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11273458/Colossal-cuts-needed-after-General-Election-warns-IFS.html |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 16:15
Autumn statement - Haywain
|
|
" If the unemployed can afford to be fed, clothed and housed, as well as having satellite dishes and 55" TVs," Well, I don't think it's especially good if the unemployed, (for whatever reason) do better than hardworking folks who are on minimum/living wages. What encouragement is that for poorly-paid workers? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 16:16
Autumn statement - Old Navy
|
| The essentials of life are water, food, and shelter. There is little real poverty in the UK, the ones that amuse me are the £100k + income folk whining that they can't afford their lifestyle. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:32
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The essentials of life are water, food, and shelter. There is little real poverty in >> the UK, the ones that amuse me are the £100k + income folk whining that >> they can't afford their lifestyle. While I share your amusement at those 'struggling' in £100k there is plenty of very real poverty in the UK. Just that unless you put yourself in a position to meet those suffering you're never going to see it. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:44
Autumn statement - zippy
|
|
>> While I share your amusement at those 'struggling' in £100k there is plenty of very >> real poverty in the UK. Just that unless you put yourself in a position to >> meet those suffering you're never going to see it. >> Highlighted on Radio 4 on Tuesday night. A diabetic man who was sanctioned from benefits died because he could not pay the electricity bill to run his fridge and his insulin went bad. Food banks are reporting people asking for food that doesn't need heating as they cannot afford to run the cooker or pay for the electricity. Stop scrounges by all means but don't target those in real need. Remember that many have paid their National Insurance and are owed this money. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:49
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
| That's a common route Zippy. The benefit sanctions regime is applied on a target basis - thats a target to sanction n%, not targeting the real p takers. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:58
Autumn statement - Zero
|
|
being on benefits and not working, should never provide a better lifestyle than those who work and earn money. State benefits should provide only the basics of Shelter, Warmth, Food, Health and Education. Those ideals should never be debated, How you achieve this is open to debate and discussion, but generally its cheaper and more cost effective to not take money off people than take it off them and then give it back to them. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 18:01
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 18:13
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> being on benefits and not working, should never provide a better lifestyle than those who >> work and earn money. In reality it doesn't. The money allowed for a single person to feed, heat and clothe themselves for a week is a tad under £80. Might be manageable for a week or three but over a whole winter? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 18:27
Autumn statement - No FM2R
|
|
The UK public is outraged when cute child and nice mother are thrown out of the country by immigration for being illegal. The UK public is outraged when illegal immigrants are allowed to remain. The UK public is outraged when people are given benefits. The UK public is outraged when people are refused benefits. The UK public is outraged when someone gets more benefits than they need. The UK public is outraged when little Johnny doesn't get a new toy for Christmas because of money-grabbing officials. The UK public needs to get a life. And an education. And then work out what it wants. What it really, really, wants. And Bromp, not only is it entirely manageable to live on £80, many people do. You might find it unimaginable, they do not. And I have done it. (relatively; actually I lived on a much smaller amount, but it was a while ago). What you might want to try to understand is the mentality, standards and thought processes that come with such a lifestyle. Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 18:27
|
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 12:31
Autumn statement - commerdriver
|
|
>> That's a common route Zippy. The benefit sanctions regime is applied on a target basis >> - thats a target to sanction n%, not targeting the real p takers. >> Sorry Bromp, that is rubbish the sanctions rules in UC are for specific actions or lack of specific actions. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 12:48
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Sorry Bromp, that is rubbish the sanctions rules in UC are for specific actions or >> lack of specific actions. That's true as far in theory cd but your wrong to say I'm talking rubbish about sanctions being misapplied. There are records though of people being sanctioned for failing to attend JSP because they had a job interview. Others are wrongly placed in the work focussed group and lack the capacity to interact correctly with JSP. the diabetic referenced above is a case in point. And while DWP will insist there's no culture of targets officers/offices which are under average in imposing sanctions will be investigated. For a manager who wants to shine (on paper) that means a culture where there is in effect a target. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/controversial-benefit-sanctions-driving-more-young-people-to-homelessness-charity-warns-9868906.html |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 13:21
Autumn statement - commerdriver
|
|
>> And while DWP will insist there's no culture of targets officers/offices which are under average >> in imposing sanctions will be investigated. For a manager who wants to shine (on paper) >> that means a culture where there is in effect a target. Don't believe any office / officer is ever investigated solely because they are "under average in imposing sanctions". DWP do not want current level of sanctions to continue as system is rolled out as for "For a manager who wants to shine (on paper) that means a culture where there is in effect a target." that's how the civil service works, you spent long enough there surely, any "culture" is employee driven not management driven. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 13:31
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
cd, More stuff here from CAB on why sanctions regime falls down. www.citizensadvice.org.uk/policy_citizensadvice_response_indepreviewofsanctions_oakley_2014.pdf I was a Civil Servant for 35yrs though not in the benefits service. I've got personal experience of 'target cultures' (even those that do not formally exist) and the fear factor involved when managers find their professional reputation depends on meeting them. HQ of course will deny such a culture exists. Their denials are as disingenuous as those being spun out today over prisoners and books. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 13:32
|
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 14:00
Autumn statement - R.P.
|
| You're right Brompie....a couple of ex-JCP employees have defected to us as volunteers (and of course granted full Political Asylum) - confirm that the sanctions feature as targets. We have one from an English inner city and a couple from local towns. Amazing differences in ethos in the various offices. I run my outreach in one particular town where the JCP is staffed by what I would class as decent people. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 14:07
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
Thanks Rob, that's the message I was getting from (a) sitting in on a few gateway interviews and (b) talking the adviser/caseworker who is my mentor. Round here even getting hold of JCP is an exercise - most stuff goes to Birmingham. |
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 20:00
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
get to sanction n%, not targeting the real p takers. >> >> >> Sorry Bromp, that is rubbish the sanctions rules in UC are for specific actions or >> lack of specific actions. Even cabinet ministers hink the sanctions regime has gone to far: www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/07/nick-clegg-benefits-sanctions-food-poverty |
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 20:13
Autumn statement - commerdriver
|
|
Are you still seriously listening to Nick Clegg recently? He is one politician with a very short future to look forward to and whose desperation is showing. I accept what you & RP have observed in the CAB etc. I know the rules numbers etc for the small pert of the population currently affected by UC, I know the rules and the DWP management thinking on these and that the current levels of UC sanctions are unsustainable when it is rolled out to the whole country, hence the scepticism that there is any kind of official target for sanctions. If those involved are genuinely looking for work there is no reason for sanctions to be applied apart from mistakes, Last edited by: commerdriver on Sun 7 Dec 14 at 20:14
|
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 20:29
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If those involved are genuinely looking for work there is no reason for sanctions to >> be applied apart from mistakes, Mistakes and/or lack of co-ordination between JCP/DWP and the providers of back to work programmes are a major problem - see CAB link. I still maintain that a significant number of the 'mistakes' arise from a culture where, at least at local level, indicative numbers are seen as a target to be met. As you also acknowledge (a) UC is on a limited experimental roll out and (b) sanctions within the roll-out area are unsustainable. IMHO the unsustainable bit is equally applicable where sanctions are applied in other benefits. |
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 20:33
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
Amongst other things, I've seen sanctions applied to guys with dyslexia, and others who are simply illiterate, because forms weren't returned quickly enough. The truly workshy do generally get the message with sanctions, but the truly vulnerable can't magic new lifeskills out of their armpits and are the ones we end up reading about. |
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 21:19
Autumn statement - commerdriver
|
| Difference of opinion again Bromp, while the volumes currently seen in UC and elsewhere are not sustainable there is a need for sanctions to be available and to be rigorously applied because there is a significant number, still probably a minority, of benefit claimants who could work but who choose not to and choose not to do things which will get them into work if it means any effort, movement or temporary reduction in lifestyle even if it will improve things in the longer term. That culture is well understood by DWP client contact staff, or at least pretty well all of the number I have had contact with. |
|
New Sun 7 Dec 14 21:32
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Difference of opinion again Bromp, while the volumes currently seen in UC and elsewhere are >> not sustainable there is a need for sanctions to be available and to be rigorously >> applied because there is a significant number, still probably a minority, of benefit claimants who >> could work but who choose not to and choose not to do things which will >> get them into work if it means any effort, movement or temporary reduction in lifestyle >> even if it will improve things in the longer term. That culture is well understood >> by DWP client contact staff, or at least pretty well all of the number I >> have had contact with. I don't doubt any of that CD and if we're talking about (the small number?) of genuine shirkers then there's not even a difference of opinion. But it doesn't explain why CAB, Homeless charities, the Archbish of Canterbury, a GP on this site and the Deputy PM all say that sanctions are applied to the WRONG people. I've only done two sessions at CAB but have already come across subject. In at least one case the client's physical and mental impairments were as plain as the nose on your face. The success rates at Appeal Tribunals suggest that sanctions are not the only place JCP/DWP decision makers are getting it wrong. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Dec 14 at 21:33
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:51
Autumn statement - Roger.
|
|
Real need - yes. Utmost sympathy Money for fags, booze, play stations. iPhones et al - no. As an aside, Martin Lewis(Money Saving Expert) has long been campaigning for financial education to be compulsory in schools. Could this help, do you think? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:09
Autumn statement - Haywain
|
|
"As an aside, Martin Lewis(Money Saving Expert) has long been campaigning for financial education to be compulsory in schools. Could this help, do you think?" It might help, Roger, but some people are just plain stupid and state-dependent. A couple of years ago my daughter went with her (then) boyfriend to see his parents who live on benefits on a local council estate. They were in the living-room puffing away on cigarettes with the gas-fire at full-blaze. They decided that it was too hot in there so, instead of turning the fire down, they just opened all the windows and doors. Why should they care? My daughter could scarcely believe her eyes. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 17:49
Autumn statement - Pat
|
|
That's a fact Bromp. >> If the unemployed can afford to be fed, clothed and housed, as well as having satellite dishes and 55" TVs, then <<< then they need to sort out the benefit system that allows them to do this. Of course, it is only the minority we hear about in the press. The Media never tell us about the truly desperate cases who would love to work, but can't and are the real 'poor' of this country. Do we care? Yes, a lot of us do. Pat Last edited by: Pat on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 17:50
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 18:43
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
Why should being "unemployed and looking for work" attract a lower benefit income than "unfit to work"? Creates a disincentive to find work and incentive to feign illness/exaggerate stress-anxiety-depression issues instead. 20+% of working age adults in some areas 'unfit to work'? Yer Harris they are. The system didn't help when people were encouraged to 'go to their GP' for a sick line when they should have been helped to work. No work in your area? Move FFS - that's what humans have always done since the beginning of time. Increase Jobseeker Allowance and minimum wages, while increasing the threshold for business NI would be high up my agenda of social change - getting your pay topped up by XXX% through 'credits' simply by virtue of having kids isn't financially sensible. As Z says - taking money off people to then give them it back is inefficient and nonsensical. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:02
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> Of course, it is only the minority we hear about in the press. The Media >> never tell us about the truly desperate cases who would love to work, but can't >> and are the real 'poor' of this country. >> >> Do we care? Yes, a lot of us do. I've given you a 'green thumb' Pat, because I know what angle you are coming from. Trouble is, in my 31 year career, I saw many, many 'p' takers and IMO our estates are full of them. Those that think a big telly on the wall is more important than their kids shoes. My wife, a primary school teacher, used to do home visits...and her tales are most similar. I don't mind paying, through my taxes, for a pair of kids shoes... I do mind, greatly, if it's a luxury good*. Our benefits system has become warped and needs reining in...badly. It is too easy for people to sit around and do jack s***. * I'm not talking about the disabled/ unwell/ truly unfortunate... just the arrogant, lazy, excuse ridden. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:40
Autumn statement - zippy
|
|
>>My wife, a primary school teacher, used to do home visits...and her tales are most similar. I lost count of the times my ex would come home from school really upset about making jam sandwiches for kids again and again because they didn't have dinner money and their folks didn't give them sandwiches. It wasn't allowed of course and the head would regularly tut at her for doing it, whilst making sure there were enough basic supplies for the little ones. Support those in need and who have paid in. Make scrounges work for it! Last edited by: zippy on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 19:41
|
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:13
Autumn statement - No FM2R
|
|
>>Support those in need and who have paid in What about those decent and genuinely in need who have not paid in? What about those not so genuinely in need but who have paid in? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:47
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> What about those decent and genuinely in need who have not paid in? >> >> What about those not so genuinely in need but who have paid in? >> What you've paid in shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference IMO. We all pay in to have a fail-safe for those that need it, not pay in to take out. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:56
Autumn statement - No FM2R
|
|
>>What you've paid in shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference IMO. Well now, perhaps I agree. But can you guess what my next point might be? >>We all pay in to have a fail-safe for those that need it Exactly. And I don't care who or what or where from, if you don't deserve* it and you don't need it then you shouldn't get it. Now *that* would save the country some money, I bet. *"deserve" can be taken as qualifying according to reasonable and sensible rules. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 08:59
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> Exactly. And I don't care who or what or where from, if you don't deserve* >> it and you don't need it then you shouldn't get it. >> >> Now *that* would save the country some money, I bet. I could never understand why we as two professional people earning a good wage in London, we received child benefit. I took it of course, who wouldn't, but the reality is someone in my income bracket shouldn't have been offered it. A State benefit in my mind should be a fail safe, an emergency measure to tie you over if your finances dictate. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 09:04
Autumn statement - Old Navy
|
|
>> I could never understand why we as two professional people earning a good wage in >> London, we received child benefit. I took it of course, who wouldn't, but the reality >> is someone in my income bracket shouldn't have been offered it. >> It was a bribe to buy votes. Not specifically aimed at your income group. Now difficult to get rid of. Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 09:08
|
|
New Mon 8 Dec 14 08:38
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It was a bribe to buy votes. Not specifically aimed at your income group. Now >> difficult to get rid of. Originally part of the Beveridge scheme of universal benefits. Reformed in 1977 to subsume the former income tax allowances for children and pay cash to the Mother. It's been effectively means tested since the current government proposed stopping payment to any household above the higher rate tax threshold. To make that politically acceptable they had to add a taper. The anomalies thus created are an object lesson in why even the simplest means testing is crude instrument with costs that rapidly eat away its savings. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:43
Autumn statement - Robin O'Reliant
|
| A major step forward would be an end to automatic housing for single mothers. We have contraception, morning after pills, abortion and adoption. If someone chooses to forgo all those options and have the child anyway they should not depend on the rest of us for support. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:49
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
Contraception can fail, partners can run away/shack up with someone new, adoption isn't common since the infertile can dream about IVF, and state child care is littered with noncery. Which leaves abortion. Voting UKIP perchance? ;-) |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 19:54
Autumn statement - CGNorwich
|
| And the child? What has he done wrong that he should not be fed, clothed or have a roof over his head? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 20:33
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> A major step forward would be an end to automatic housing for single mothers. We >> have contraception, morning after pills, abortion and adoption. If someone chooses to forgo all those >> options and have the child anyway they should not depend on the rest of us >> for support. There is no automatic housing for mothers, single or otherwise. Contraception is not infallible and I'll bet you were no more a willing user of the condom than I or the rest of our generation. And as somebody with AIUI Irish heritage you must surely understand that abortion is not always an option. But if push=shove what do they do? Live on the street? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:04
Autumn statement - Fullchat
|
| I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the above may be the reason that poor girl from Bristol has chosen to take her own life and that of her baby. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:14
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the above may be the reason that >> poor girl from Bristol has chosen to take her own life and that of her >> baby. Reading only slightly between lines of media reports she had mental health problems. Given that, however good the care is, very occasional tragedies like this are inevitable. Nobody on the maternity ward should be hung out to dry for 'failing to prevent' but I'm not holding my breath. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:54
Autumn statement - Westpig
|
|
>> Reading only slightly between lines of media reports she had mental health problems. Given that, >> however good the care is, very occasional tragedies like this are inevitable. Nobody on the >> maternity ward should be hung out to dry for 'failing to prevent' but I'm not >> holding my breath. >> The system for dealing with mental health AND physical health is truly appalling. By that I mean someone with mental health problems who also needs attention for physical health problems. So if you are one or the other i.e. mental health or physical health there are systems in place to help you, albeit IMO the mental health one is by far the poor relation. However, if you are both e.g. in an A&E unit, but also have acute mental health issues .. then you are on your own. If you walk out...you walk out. That's it. It'll be the same with the maternity ward ..and that'll be why we are discussing two deaths. Why can't one part of an NHS system agree a decent protocol with the other?... and then more importantly implement it. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 22:28
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> The system for dealing with mental health AND physical health is truly appalling. By that >> I mean someone with mental health problems who also needs attention for physical health problems. I agree wholeheartedly with analysis but solving the problem...... Detention under section is rightly a 'digital' question; pt is a threat to self or others and they can be detained. But if they're just going to do stuff which is 'ill advised' but not currently dangerous then there's little option, absent an available advocate to help, to letting them get on. Mrs B's friend discharged herself and child from hospital 48hrs after her second Caesarian. Strong willed woman acting inadvisedly or should she have been detained? |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 22:33
Autumn statement - Haywain
|
|
"It'll be the same with the maternity ward" But the maternity ward should know about post-natal depression and its severe forms. My mate's wife, a delightful lady, suffered with puerperal psychosis - and it was horrendous. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 22:59
Autumn statement - Lygonos
|
|
>>puerperal psychosis About the only 'brown trousers' psychiatric diagnosis I've encountered - usually quite obvious something is wrong, eg. new mother is convinced her child is the devil and must be killed, or that they must kill themselves (often in a gruesome fashion such as setting fire to themselves in a car, or jump in front of a train) Makes paranoid schizophrenics look like a walk in the park. Also one of the few conditions where ECT is still considered a very effective treatment. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 10:28
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> But the maternity ward should know about post-natal depression and its severe forms. My mate's >> wife, a delightful lady, suffered with puerperal psychosis - and it was horrendous. And if the problem is as severe as the psychosis you describe there are probably avenues the hospital can follow. But if it's somebody just acting inavisedly, even if they have a history of (controlled) mental illness, attempting to detain them is fraught with practical difficulty and quite rightly engages 'Human Rights'. |
|
New Thu 4 Dec 14 21:34
Autumn statement - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> But if push=shove what do they do? Live on the street? >> No, you continue to live where you're living now. Exceptions can be made in cases of genuine hardship, but there are too many people who produce kids without the means to support them because they know the state will step in. Two useless wastes of space used to live in my road, both pregnant at sixteen and housed nearby despite their parents having the space to keep them and both now on sprog number two despite not yet being twenty years old. The father in one case is in prison, girl number two's first injector disappeared and the current one visits when he feels like it. None have ever worked and have no intention of doing so. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 09:51
Autumn statement - Ambo
|
|
>>>satellite dishes and 55" TVs Up to date TVs are often highlighted by the media and politicians as evidence of vice in poor households, with "flat screen" to indicate cases of particular depravity (in spite of this now being the normal type). I'm surprised "curved screen" has not yet been a common form of denigration and I have the feeling that when it is police intervention will be advocated. Yet for those trapped in households with no prospect of work, sometimes housing two or more generations of unemployed people, any home entertainment must be a lifeline. It probably also reduces the likelihood of resort to truly vicious pursuits. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 10:01
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
'twas always such Ambo. Iain Sproat, Tory MP for Aberdeen South, made a name for himself in late seventies with similar invective about 'Social Security Scroungers' and colour tellies. How I laughed when, having scuttled to a supposedly safer seat in the Borders after a marginal hold in 1979, he lost in 83 to a Liberal. His Tory successor in Aberdeen was returned in the post Falklands landslide. About the only thing for a leftie to laugh at in that election. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 10:03
Autumn statement - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> Yet for those trapped in households with no prospect of work, sometimes housing two or >> more generations of unemployed people, any home entertainment must be a lifeline. It probably also >> reduces the likelihood of resort to truly vicious pursuits. >> If someone genuinely can't get a job, fair enough. But there are plenty who won't take jobs, deliberately mess up interviews and get themselves sacked or leave within a short time of getting one and do it time after time. These people should be refused welfare. Talk to anyone who works in a Job Centre, they know scores. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 10:17
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Talk to anyone who works in a Job Centre, they know scores. And the JSP tests should be focussed on such people rather than vulnerable 'easy targets' who too often get sanctioned. There's also a hard fact that a small percentage of the labour force, while not having a diagnosable condition, are incapable/unsuitable for any form of work. There will also be a proportion who are unable to achieve basic literacy or numeracy. At one time they'd have found jobs sweeping floors or some repetitive manual task. Few if any jobs like that now exist. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 10:27
Autumn statement - Old Navy
|
|
>> >> Few if any jobs like that now exist. >> I remember the MOD dockyards and navy shore bases had some cleaners of limited mental ability. They were always well looked after in their workplaces, earned a reasonable wage and had benefited from a structure in their lives. This all changed when budgets became the priority, there was a major clear out, they still costed the taxpayer, probably more, but lost out personally. |
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 17:12
Autumn statement - Auristocrat
|
|
I worked for DWP and its predecessors for 37 years. With news stories about people who have been 'undeservedly' sanctioned, just be aware that you only ever see one side of the story - that of the person who has been sanctioned or someone who is connected in some way with that person. So the full circumstances never get into the public eye. Those people who are unable to work have 'work capability assessments' to determine whether they are fit for some type of work and to determine whether, instead of Jobseekers Allowance, they should be moved onto one of the two types of Employment Support Allowance. People's circumstance do change, and even if people are on ESA, they are still subject to 'work capability assessments' - and these are undertaken by a contractor on behalf of DWP. As regards jobs for people who needed additional support (eg the dockyard people doing sweeping up), this was known as 'supported employment', and subsidies were paid by DWP to the employers to retain these supported employment posts. Companies such as Remploy (owned by DWP) and Shaw Trust were also contracted with to provide supported employment opportunities. Remploy also used to operate a number of factories throughout the UK, to provide sheltered employment for those who couldn't cope with open employment, for whatever reason. However, during the period of this current government, it was reported that people in both supported and sheltered employment would be better helped by mainstream services. Most of Remploy's factories were closed. The provision of supported employment was contracted out to a variety of organisations. Some of the people who were in the old style of sheltered or supported employment are now still unemployed. Bear in mind that help for the unemployed is subject to the policies of whatever government are in power at the time. When new administrations come into power, they want their own programmes put into place - and this includes programmes for the unemployed. However, few governments are capable of re-inventing the wheel - so new programmes which get contracted for are often in reality, re-hashes of what we've had before. Last edited by: Auristocrat on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 17:17
|
|
New Fri 5 Dec 14 17:32
Autumn statement - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> With news stories about people who have been 'undeservedly' sanctioned, just be aware that you >> only ever see one side of the story I was aware of that risk which was why I referenced housing charities and CAB rather than the many claimant's blogs on the internet. These bodies should act as a filter for the 'dodgy' claimants while giving a better handle on the real problems. >> Those people who are unable to work have 'work capability assessments' to determine whether they >> are fit for some type of work and to determine whether, instead of Jobseekers Allowance, >> they should be moved onto one of the two types of Employment Support Allowance. People's The decisions themselves should still be made by the DWP on the basis of the WCA report and other evidence such as statements by the claimant's family, carers and medical advice eg from GP, CPN phsio etc. There seems though to have been a culture in JCP of giving undue weight to the WCA, in effect rubber stamping its conclusions. See the work of Professor Malcolm Harrington in reviewing the WCA process. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 17:36
|
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
