Yesterday the prime minister said in 5years the deficit interest in loans would be somewhere in the region of £70billion. The UK motorist contributes £56 billion per year in taxes to the exchequer.
Thats it then use all taxes recieved from motorists for 2 years the deficit would vanish with cash to spare.
|
Sadly you misunderstand the enormity of the problem. The £70 billion figure is just the annual interest figure. The 56 billion tax contributed by UK motorists is barely enough to pay 8 months interest.
The actual amount of debt to be repaid is around £900 billion. Prepare for a period of austerity like you have never seen before.
|
|
I stand corrected CG. Them bankers have a lot to answer for don't they.
|
|
Could have been better regulated. £56billion per year in taxes from motorists is a lot of money. Will or should we say how much will be directed at clearing the deficit at the expense of not maintaing the road network infrastructure.
|
|
Brentus, 56 billion is small change in these times. You can forget *any* chance of the road network being maintained, let alone improved.
|
>> I stand corrected CG. Them bankers have a lot to answer for don't they.
>>
Not that much, really.
For thirteen years the Labour government spent more than it was collecting in taxes by borrowng money. At some point or other the deficit was going to grow to a size that would plunge the economy into chaos, in the same way that you personally would go bust if you were using credit cards in order to spend more than your income. The banking crisis was merely the puff of wind that brought the house of cards down, not the root cause. The cause in this country was the worst Chancellor of The Exchequer ever appointed.
Exactly the same happened in Iceland and the group of countries known as the PIGS. Countries who managed their economies with the good sense of a fourteen year old looking after his pocket money have caught a cold the crisis, those who behaved like a spoilt brat in a sweetshop have got pneumonia.
|
|
I wont disagree Robin but there is evidence that the bankers were not helpful. Look at the bonuses they paid out for failure.
|
Well export our way out of this mess, just get all those factories running again.
You know, the ones that were demolished wholesale in the 70's and 80's when we put all our eggs in the finance basket backed by the ever nation building service industries.
There's no coming back from the mess successive governments have created over the last 30 years it's over, we are kaput.
You can't run a house on juggling credit cards without an adequate income so how can you run a country moving money from one company to another without an adequate income.
There'll be much gnashing of teeth and wailing when mortgages hit 15% again and they will.
Chickens roost home come.
Christmas voting turkeys for like.
|
|
GB i only said to the missus the other day how long to mortgages back to 15%. Greedy bankers eh. But again will the motorist pull us out of this deficit.
|
No, the motorist revenue is already being used for something else.
Forget mortgages, wait till inflation hits 15%...that's how the debt burden is quickly reduced
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 8 Jun 10 at 21:05
|
|
along with fuel duty and increased vat.
|
Soooo...
All the failing countries had duff Chancellors? There may or may not be a lot wrong with what any previous party did, but this is a global event. Too easily obtainable credit in the whole economy is to blame, and we are all guilty of using that, to one degree or another, whether it's credit cards, mortgages, government PFI schemes - one way or another, having things now when we couldn't really afford them.
I think it's hard to blame any one group. The banks certainly played their part, with the man in the street just being a small cog in that respect. They loaned money for businesses to buy other businesses at ever inflated prices - billions of it. Government borrowing increased to pay for more and more layers of consultants and expensive projects.
But unfortunately for us all, it became a way of life which is ultimately unsustainable.
On the politics front, I don't believe it mattered who was in office - pretty much the same would have happened. As Labour said earlier, you didn't hear the Tor MPs refusing to have new schools and hospitals in their constituencies because they couldn't be afforded.
|
Interest rates (and hence mortaages) will rise for sure, but talk of 15% is a bit on the over gloomy side. I rememeber the only time it happened int he last 30 years and it was only briefly (Just as well because my mortgage became unpayable in the space of hours)
8% is distincly possible as a base rate, with a mortage rate of 10% on the cards. People who have had their first mortgage in the last 10 years will get a nasty shock, as they will find it unsupportable.
Glad I got rid of mine. At the right time as well. I wil be completely debt free (of any sort) by the end of July.
|
I agree zero, interest rates are unlikely to hit 15% but will be significantly higher than they had been for a long time. I can see mortgage rates hit 8-10%. I do wonder how the buyer of our house would service the loan even on his salary if interest rates go up like they will.
I too am glad my mortgage was gotten rid of in December. I would therefore like interest rates to be higher from a selfish perspective because I intend saving the mortgage payments.
|
|
Brentus, if the £56million that motorists pay in tax were to be used towards paying the interest on our debt, what would replace the £56million of motoring taxes that is currently being spent on things like schools, hospitals, etc.? Close them all down?
|
Do you not think getting rid of a load of public sector staff and putting them on the dole is going to be a disaster?
I can see the cuts really hurting local businesses and the country will just enter yet another deep recession.
In the 1930s the government introduced a road building programme to try and get people back into work. Unless there is new employment for all these axed public sector staff there is going to be a serious social disaster in the UK.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 8 Jun 10 at 23:00
|
|
They have to go, we cant afford them or their pensions.
|
But then its people like me that will suffer because all my customers will be unemployed! If I was in government I would make sure everybody drinks at least ten pints a night, that will soon sort the pension problem out!
Its why I don't care about my health because we have nothing to live for anyway, the country is screwed we may as well just enjoy today.
OK I may be being a bit dramatic but I just can't see what the long term future is.
|
I should add that I have been busier than ever lately, and I finally went we coming out of the recession. Then this government got in power and are threatening to seriously halt any growth from businesses. I am bitter and annoyed about it.
I really don't know what the answer is. I suspect the solution is some where inbetween Gordon Browns and Camerons ideas.
|
|
Rattle, we were down the plughole before this gov came in. The Labour party would have had to do the same thing. Its partially their fault we are in this mire. You cant blame this lot.
|
|
I understand cuts needs to be made but it is too much too soon in my opinion.
|
(I think it is) Suffolk County Council have a PR man who they pay £188,000 (with possibly a pension to match). There is excessive capacity and pay in the public sector - it has to go before we all turn Greek. Out-source it to the private sector like the Canadians did, save shed loads of money, but people still keep their jobs (well not everyone, obviously).
Yes, some people will suffer, just like overweight people who are put on a diet feel hungry to start with. But they soon feel better and are healthier in the long run.
|
I hope you're right. I have thought about setting up a fiscal agency where my company advices the government on tax matters. I could charge them £5000 an hour.
I will say this though I know both an NHS trust and a certain local council are wasting a fortune on managers managing managers. If I was in charge of cuts I would start by stream lining management and cutting back on outside consultants.
I would also cut back on public sector marketing and branding schemes. The NHS trust I am talking about seem to spend as much on management consultants and marketing experts than they do on nurses.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Wed 9 Jun 10 at 01:34
|
Good post Rattolo. But they are all at it of course. Mrs Thatcher was right about the trade unions and the Falklands, but they weren't so important. What was important, and criminally disgusting, was the ghastly American carp she imported to screw up all the public services by making them more expensive, a damn sight more expensive, and less efficient.
Criminal, criminal, criminal.
Stand by for a rearguard action by a whole layer of empty, hugely overpaid self-righteous suits who have never done a day's work in their lives but systematically devalued and sabotaged the work of others.
|
>> The NHS trust I am talking about seem to spend as much on management consultants and marketing experts than they do on nurses.
>>
Thats better than some.
I've heard of trusts that spend more on the management than nurses.
|
>> .......... I know both an NHS trust and a certain local
>> council are wasting a fortune on managers managing managers.
They should embrace the Business Process Reengineering philosophy of Michael Hammer, as my employer successfully did. A percentage of employees were sent on a seminar run by Michael Hammer and his business associate, and the rest of the company assimilated the philosophy via literature produced by Michael Hammer's company. Everyone's job title was changed to reflect their status rather than the content of their job. I became an Enabler.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 9 Jun 10 at 07:58
|
>> (I think it is) Suffolk County Council have a PR man who they pay £188,000
>> (with possibly a pension to match).
Unfortunately if you cannot handle press and PR properly Fleet St and it's local immitators will make monkeys of you. These guys have no interest inthe truth; just the latest 'scandal' that will sell a few more papers.
|
>> ...... we have nothing to live for
>> anyway,
What's with the "we", paleface? Me Tonto, me have plenty to live for!
|
>> Its why I don't care about my health ..........
That might be OK if you could guarantee that you would be in good health one minute and dead the next. But it's possible that an unhealthy lifestyle might result in you having many years of pain and suffering, both mental and physical.
|
>> Soooo...
>>
>> All the failing countries had duff Chancellors? There may or may not be a lot
>> wrong with what any previous party did, but this is a global event. Too easily
>> obtainable credit in the whole economy is to blame, and we are all guilty of
>> using that, to one degree or another, whether it's credit cards, mortgages, government PFI schemes
>> - one way or another, having things now when we couldn't really afford them.
>>
100%.
Locally, we took a kicking, but NOT as bad as most other nations.
Why? Because our "chancellor", three years back, brought in a new national credit act, which made borrowing very difficult.
Effectively, you had to prove your ability to pay back any loans or financing you entered into BUT the onus was on business amd banking NOT to lend if the chances of a repayment were low.
IF the punter defaulted, and it was discovered that the provider hadn't means tested him properly, then it was the provider's fault.
The days of blokes having 18 months of disposable income tied up in finance agreements - credit cards, clothing and HP accounts etc - were over.
Motoring took a slight kick, but in the long term it worked out for the best for everyone - and Manuel, the Minister of Finance, is hailed as a hero.
|
>>Whatever ANY Politico does now is likely to be short termism to make them look attractive.>>
That is simply not the case, David C and pals are taking very prudent steps though have pre warned us all about the necessity, rather like a surgeon who advises that you need an operation, you would rather not have it done though you accept that it is needed and that it will be done properly.
I dont see the pressure on interest rates, at least in the medium term, consumer expenditure is unlikely to be at a level that will fuel inflation and the gov / BofE will want to keep rates low to maintain consumer expenditure and to grow the economy so we trade our way out of the mire.
|
What is the difference beween Andy Cap and a labour government . . . . .
Andy Cap makes his money last until closing time.
For those who are old enough we had the same issues the last time we had a Labiout government, anyone remember the IMF telling Denis Healey what his eccomonic policies were!
The bankers are e red herring used by Labour to direct the public ire away from themselves - Bankers have been donng the same things for as long as the banking system has been around without issues. The problem is that you cannot spend more than you earn, Labour consistently borrow to "invest", how many new school buildings are there churning out children with no better education than the old building s did, how many new doctor's surgery's, but is the care any better.
The problem is politicians who like spending our money, Brown was buying votes and it worked for two electinons but it was not sustainable and now we see how dangerous his policies were.
I hope people remember what happened the next time we are asked to vote.
Now back to topic - better enforcement (zero tolerance) of mobile phone use, vehicle offences and speeding would see huge amounts raised, and as a voluntary tax I have absolutely no objection to them doing it, I won't be paying.
Last edited by: IJWS14 on Wed 9 Jun 10 at 08:23
|
For anyone who thinks this is a global event:
Very few if any Australian banks went bust during the credit crunch.
The Australian Government ran a budget surplus.
There is NO inexorable law which says if others screw up, then we must as well.
It's just a smokescreen promulgated by incompetent lying toerags who want to cover up their own mistakes.
As for short termism and politicians, the Government is going to be very unpopular.. because of its actions to cut spending. If you think otherwise, you obviously believe people like having less money to spend, lower pensions and pay higher taxes.
If you do so believe, then feel free to make voluntary donations to the Chancellor. We will all applaud you. :-)
|
Madf - it IS global. That doesn't have to mean mean 100%, but most major countries are in it to one degree or another. The mistakes (whatever they may have been) were global (albeit manifesting themselves and impacting in different ways in different countries). It is harsh to single out the UK Labour Party as being the sole cause.
Governments are always unpopular, especially when times are hard, the measurement is which is least unpopular.
|
Most countries are in it because when the US suffers it does not buy as much from abroad
Also the coutries in it the worst are those who have been spending borrowed money.
|
>> Well export our way out of this mess, just get all those factories running again.
>>
>> You know, the ones that were demolished wholesale in the 70's and 80's when we
>> put all our eggs in the finance basket backed by the ever nation building service
>> industries.
>>
You cannot survive in the long term if you protect uneconomic factories from the markets. The communist countries of behind the iron curtain discovered this and so did protectionist countries like India which are now beginning to enjoy the fruits of capitalism after opening up their markets to foreign companies in the last 15 years or so.
>> Madf - it IS global. That doesn't have to mean mean 100%, but most major
>> countries are in it to one degree or another. The mistakes (whatever they may have
>> been) were global (albeit manifesting themselves and impacting in different ways in different countries). It
>> is harsh to single out the UK Labour Party as being the sole cause.
>>
Yes it was a global crisis caused by the G6 super consumer nations, but what happened to Gordon Brown's claim that Britain was best placed to ride out the storm?
As far I recall, the crisis stemmed from the two major items that families spend their money on - huses and cars. The banks lent money very easily (toxic assets), house prices rocketed, lending continues on 6 times or more multiples of income, people bought big gas guzzling cars, etc etc. Then the price of oil shot up in a few months to $150 plus and suddenly the ability to repay debts collapsed. Banks in the USA and UK and EU found that the solid brick assets on which the money had been lent were unsaleable, and you ahd the bust. Demand for goods dived and with it affected prudent countries such as China and India which were running surpluses.
The long term solution is, as gordonbennet said, is to get our economy back in to a surplus. To do that, it means we have to live within our means, and we have to produce goods and services that are competetively priced on the global scale. It means a low wae economy, it means BA cabin crew accepting that they are competing with low cost international cabin crew on other airlines, it means British factories producing cars at a lower cost then Inida, China, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, etc. etc.
|
no wonder why there are 250,000 to 500,000 people emigrating then.
Shame you do not hear how many are coming back to the UK ......
|
|
Should i have changed post title to. Don't Worry Motorist will clear defecit.
|
>> Should i have changed post title to. Don't Worry Motorist will clear defecit.
>>
No it should be 'Everyone has a moan about the economy'.
|
£10 Billion/year in overseas 'aid' which has been protected by Cameron.
WHY? We give a billion to India, which has been spending tens of billions re-equipping it's armed forces, has a space programme and nuclear weapons.
We give aid to CHINA for goodness sake. A country with the biggest surplus in modern history.
The country is bankrupt, but at least the Politicians can feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
|
|
Stop every single penny of overseas aid- if they starve - tough: Charity begins at home !
|
|
Overseas aid is not usually just a charity donation - there is usually a trade off in some respect - it may not always be immediately obvious but it's usually there somewhere
|
Yes - the trade off is that the local war-lord/ politician/ gangster gets his/her cut, there is an army of civil service paper pushers to administer the sending of the aid and the small amount which is left left is returned to the UK as useless, throw-away, plastic toys which last for two minutes!
It would be cheaper to cut out the middlemen and keep the money for Britain.
Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a damn about foreigners holding out their grubby paws for the UK tax pound.
(I DO pay UK tax, so I Do have an interest)
|
|
I want to come back to England - trouble is today's exchange rate @around 1.22 € to buy £1 doesn't help!
Last edited by: landsker on Thu 10 Jun 10 at 19:48
|
>> I want to come back to England - trouble is today's exchange rate @around 1.22
>> € to buy £1 doesn't help!
>>
If you're ready to move your money quickly, just wait until the forthcoming sterling crisis. I reckon there will be a lot more volatility between the pound and the euro. It'll be hard to get the absolute optimum time, so you'll have to be brave if you're taking this route.
|
|
Best I got yesterday was 1.17 to the pound! Though I agree with the sentiment, it seems strange that we are even giving money to countries that really don't need it...
Last edited by: hobby on Fri 11 Jun 10 at 09:09
|
...agree with the sentiment, it seems strange that we are even giving money to countries that really don't need it...
I think the phrase 'currying favour' may come in to play here.
Those who support the giving of aid would say countries who receive it are more likely to buy British goods and serivces.
|
If it's about currying favour, what does China buy from us? Seems to be pretty much one-way traffic to me (cheap goods of every type under the sun).
If it's about currying flavour, surely that is one-way traffic from India too? ;-)
|
...Seems to be pretty much one-way traffic to me...
Tend to agree, although I don't have information to hand to make a truly informed judgment.
|
|
Yes, I wonder what our balance of trade with China is? Does anyone know?
|
China take a lot of Jaguars and Range Rovers from us, dashed benevolent of them.
I don't like the things our mainstream politicians do any more than the next man and dubious foreign aid is high on the ludicrous list, however i didn't vote for them.
No good wingeing afterwards, should have thought of this *before* voting.
|
|
Yeah..we could have voted to keep the idiot that got us into this mess in power!
|
>> Yeah..we could have voted to keep the idiot that got us into this mess in
>> power!
>>
i include that motley crew in the 'mainstream'.
I heard a rumour that someone managed to get a fag paper between the three main parties...it was only a rumour.
|
|
Vat under last government went down for a period to 15%. In a fortnight the emergency budget vat may rise to 20%. Don't forget that rise means higher fuel prices for the motorist. At one time of day you may well have said the drinker & smoker will clear the defecit. Nowadays its the motorist.
|
The fact is that successive Govts. have pursued similar short-sighted, narrow-minded and destructive policies.
We are paying the price of many years of running down our engineering capabilities. If you don't believe me then go around your typical University and look at resources available for some of the engineering and technical courses. It was the Tories that were responsible for the 'bums on seats' funding of higher education, forcing universities to act more like businesses. It didn't take them long to realise that it was far more profitable shovelling eighty media studies undergrads into a lecture hall rather than running the techncial courses with all the specialised equipment.
It was the Tories that took us down the expensive PFI route and were the ones who deregulated the City leading to the sowing of the seeds of the financial mess we're now in.
So yes the Labour Govt. did many bad things and certainly were not voted for by me. But the rot set in with the Tories. All Labour did was continue the party and accelerated the mess. The ship was already heading towards the rocks, the rudder having been welded in position by the Tories. All Labour did was speed up the engine a bit.
If we are going to clear up this mess then some serious cuts have got to come. Cameron talking about 'efficiency savings' is just guff. We need to hit the big ticket items. I would implement the following:
1. Abandon Trident replacement
2. Means test the state pension.
3. Abolish free prescriptions, bus passes, tv licences etc.
4. 10% pay cut for ALL public workers unless earning under 20K
5. Higher rates of income tax. There should be a 60% rate.
6. No tax credits for families earning above 25K
7. Rid the NHS of managers, business consultants, business process managers etc. We need a few suits to manage things but when you have a situation where there are more managers than beds or whatever it is, there's something seriously wrong.
8. Break the strangle-hold that the 'preferred bidders' have in the public sector. I heard of a case recently where a public sector establishment needed an extension built to one of its buildings. Local builder was going to do it for a certain amount but they could NOT employ him. They had to use the preferred bidder at almost twice the price. I heard of another ludicrous case a year or so ago - again public sector - the shower in the gents broke, maintenance contracted out to fairly large facilities company who then had the shower's maintenance contracted out again! Needless to say it was going to take weeks since the second contractor only covered that part of the country once a month or something ridiculous. Too many levels of contracting, too many snouts in the trough. I dread to think what the eventual bill to the tax payer was - all it needed was a plastic hinge, 99p from your local hardware shop!!!
If you think I'm being harsh then just you wait and see where we are in two years' time.
The problem we have is what level of unemployment is acceptable to balance the books?
|
I vote The Melting Snowman for Prime Minister!
|
>> I vote The Melting Snowman for Prime Minister!
>>
I most certainly don't.
1. Abandon Trident replacement
It's a bit naive to think that we simply don't need a strong deterrent. We do not know who our enemies will be in 20 years time. If we were a country with a long history of neutrality, with no real legacy, then, perhaps - alas we aren't in that position, and we never will be.
2. Means test the state pension.
That further entrenches the idea that if you work hard and save the state will punish you while rewarding the profligate. Again, a naive policy IMO. Getting rid of the state pension altogether, and reducing tax pro rata would be better - it would force people to consider their future old age provision more soberly.
3. Abolish free prescriptions, bus passes, tv licences etc.
OK, but, I expect this won't actually pay for much, and will simply antagonise people.
4. 10% pay cut for ALL public workers unless earning under 20K
Far better to reduce the headcount by 10%, because this will lead to knock on savings in facilities too.
5. Higher rates of income tax. There should be a 60% rate.
The politics of envy clearly inform the metling snowman's views.
We need people who have the drive and ambition to build businesses and employ people - we shouldn't be discouraging them with punitive tax regimes.
6. No tax credits for families earning above 25K
OK
7. Rid the NHS of managers, business consultants, business process managers etc. We need a few suits to manage things but when you have a situation where there are more managers than beds or whatever it is, there's something seriously wrong.
I think the real problem is that most consultants in the NHS have a conflict of interest between their private work and NHS work, and no matter how much money you throw at the NHS, they will conspire to ensure there's always a waiting list.
I think that nothing less than a full review of what the NHS should and should not provide, followed by a real contraction in the range of services offered is required.
8. Break the strangle-hold that the 'preferred bidders' have in the public sector.
I tend to agree that many centrailsed purchasing operations don't work particularly well - however, I would be happier to see a sharp contraction in the scope of what "public sector" means. There is an irreducible core that the state must provide - defence and law and order - everything beyond that IS optional.
|
We need a strong deterrent but it doesn't have to be on our own. Closer collaboration with the EU is the way to go.
In point 7 I was referring to business consultants rather than medical ones.
Many of the debates at the moment seem to imply we have a choice in these matters. We simply don't. If we don't get our finances in order then we could easily end up like Spain, who got a rude awakening this last week, having to pay nearly 1% more than last month to issue 18 month debt.
Even relatively modest savings can send out the right message.
You can rest easy, I don't intend coming out of semi-retirement to be the next Mr Cameron...
|
>>Closer collaboration with the EU is the way to go.
I tend not to agree. The chances of ever getting agreement from the EU to take ANY action in the timeframe which would be needed is minuscule. If we put our defence interests in with the EU, we may as well give up any idea of defending ourselves.
>>In point 7 I was referring to business consultants rather than medical ones.
Yes - contrary to popular opinion, I think the business consultants are actively hampered by the medical ones. Sort out the medical ones first, and the need for so many business consultants will reduce of its own accord IMO.
>>Many of the debates at the moment seem to imply we have a choice in these matters. We simply don't.
There, I agree with you fully.
>>Even relatively modest savings can send out the right message.
Modest savings will just hack people off for no good cause. Although there might be a propoganda effort to be enjoyed, with people making some notional (and doubtlessly ultimately pointless) sacrifice and participating in the "we're all in it together" spirit.
Your suggestion of scrapping Trident is really good in that respect because it saves a big wedge of cash in one swoop - however, strong defence is one of those irreducible things our state simply must do - I think the big savings need to come from the optional parts of state provision that we have all come to rely upon far too much since 1945.
|
You are all avoiding the elelephantS in the room.
The benefits system is mad and apart from the NHS the biggest single spend. Any system designe to let people live on it and contribute nothing in their lifetime is clearly one designed by idiots as it is inherently unstable.
No doubt the authors of it will disagree but a something for nothing culture is designed to ensure as few work as possible. In the long term, 50% savings are going to happen: by neccessity rather than choice I suspect.
|
I would like to see you get disabled and live on nothing.
At the end of the day, most people on benefits, were at some stage, contributing..
What should happen is that unemployment benefit should be paid, but only by working, doing menial jobs for the state. Mowing verges, picking litter, clearing parks, dredging ditches etc etc.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 19 Jun 10 at 20:18
|
>>The benefits system is mad
I fully agree madf - it would be near the top of my "optional" list, and ripe for taking the axe to.
|
>> >>The benefits system is mad
>>
>> I fully agree madf - it would be near the top of my "optional" list,
>> and ripe for taking the axe to.
>>
Fine and dandy if you are in good health and have skills which are in demand, but a different story if you are either disabled or live in a low employment area and are one of fifty applicants for every vacancy.
Abuse of the system should be clamped down on, but let's not make the error of dismissing every claiment as a scrounger. Remember, it only takes a change of circumstances for each and every one of us to need the welfare state.
|
Every benefit should be means tested or qualified.
I took child benefit, and child tax credits, I didnt need either. I'll get lots of other benefits when I get to 65, that I probably dont need. To be fair tho I have paid for them.
|
|
Apart from your pension what other benefits do you get when you're 65?
|
>> Apart from your pension what other benefits do you get when you're 65?
>>
A flat cap and membership of the Middle Lane Owners club.
|
|
your tax allowance goes up, you get a bus pass, cold weather payments, and other stuff.
|
>>Fine and dandy if you are in good health
Yes, there are some people, an irreducable number who *need* help, and, yes, it is a civilised thing to do to help them.
>>and have skills which are in demand
Again, there are some who are not capable of obtaining the skills necessary to work, but many capable people lazily choose not to gain the skills.
>>but a different story if you are either disabled
Yes, some disabled people need the state's help, but, more positively helping disabled people into work should be encouraged.
>>live in a low employment area and are one of fifty applicants for every vacancy.
Here, people must be prepared to move to obtain work. My grandparents - on both sides of the family moved a long distance to obtain work - not to mention their forbears who left Ireland to avoid starvation during the potato famine - SWMBO and I have also left our families behind in the search for work - my grandparents simply didn't have the choice to sit on their backsides and obtain state handouts, and I don't want handouts either.
|
Let the motorist clear the deficit - CGNorwich
