BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

hi SW

Many thanks for the explaination of the breakdown of the allocation of Departmental Budget Cuts.

However my point really was that the message that the current Government appears to be getting across ( or not as the case may be) was that the NHS Frontline Services would be protected at all costs.

We know that is blatantly untrue by the many cases of such service cuts being made and planned to to made.

It appears to me that it is a case of "Creative Accounting" where duplicity and deliberate confusion occurs.

IMHO the Spending Review has been ill-conceived and they are making it up as they go along.

Having been in opposition for so long the Government is finding it difficult to understand that you can't just keep coming up with policies that you don't have to own and to live with.

Thanks

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

For all the pious buggers;

The Inland Revenue do accept voluntary contributions.



Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

Arthuritus; you're yawning at me; I'm laughing at you. I asked you to read some other comments on the board; couldn't be arsed, could you? Read any of the stuff suggested? No; don't want to know anything that challenges your one-eyed view of the world, obviously. The reason for looking back is to learn, and avoid making the same stupid mistakes. As for original ideas; you haven't said anything so far that I can't provide a reference for. You haven't read any of the authors, but your ideas are not original. I'll try one more time to show you why history is important; try reading 'The End of History and the Last Man' by Francis Fukuyama, a much respected right-wing American academic. It's a challenging read, but it might help you to understand why what is happening now is merely a different version of what has happened before, and why outmoded solutions such as those proposed by our government will produce the same results; i.e. long term failure.
I don't understand your comment about 'try to be inclusive'. Can you explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:55 PM

"MandoTim, I am yawning at you. You are so boring."
Is this really from the feller who believes that the answer to life, the universe and everything is to write to him MP?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

I have no ISAs.

I pay my tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

LOL it is indeed Jim

Mando Tim
How do you know if I have read all the posts. I have indeed read every post.

This thread is all about telling the present government how fucking stupid they are and that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Well I happen to agree, but I have no idea how to get us out of the mess we are in. Neither did the Labour government.

So come on, you seem to know what's best. Spill it baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

I do have ISAs. The stocks and shares ISA took a huge hit at the start of the international recession, but slowly, taking time, it is coming back. The cash ISAs are not really worth much in reality, as the difference between gross and net on annual interest on the limit you can put in is about a few pints of beer.

All this about ISAs being tax evasion?? What the Hell are some people on? Tax is what the government needs to do the work we ask of it. The rules on tax are whatever the government says they are, so having ISAs is nothing to do with evading tax liability. The ability to have an ISA has the same standing in law as the ability to pay tax. It is part of the overall tax rules.

If anybody tells you they don't have ISAs as part of a holier than thou stance, tell them to 1) grow up and 2) tell them to stand still whilst you take pity on their warped view of the world.

Oh, and 3) refer them to my thread up the page that says the Inland Revenue accept voluntary contributions over and above your due.

That should shut them up for a while whilst the adults are talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM

Quote
If anybody tells you they don't have ISAs as part of a holier than thou stance, tell them to 1) grow up and 2) tell them to stand still whilst you take pity on their warped view of the world.

Unquote

I don't have any. I couldn't afford them even if I wanted. You must be wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

"tell them to 1) grow up"

This must be your favourite phrase!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:47 PM

hi Arthur

I am not wealthy but I do have ISA's. You don't need to be wealthy to have ISA's surely ???

If you have a bank account with anything in it you can transfer it into a cash ISA account, And you will then qualify for tax free savings on the interest you will have earned on that account. The maximum has just been increased to £5100 per person.

There are also Stocks & Shares ISA's which are slightly more complicated but we don't have any of these.

ISA's are a legitimate Government perk to encourage people to save. It is not tax evasion/avoidance.

As SW says the return is very low but it is available to anyone who wants to save a few bob.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:18 PM

I hear what you say Mike, but we live from hand to mouth and do not have anything to put on one side.
That's life and I am not complaining.

However, when I listen to some of the crap posted on here, it makes me want to puke.

We will have to live by whatever we get dealt, irrespective of what any government has to hand out.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM

But they won't think twice about spending far more than the average person puts in an ISA on booze (they know who they are!!!), rent, cigarettes and holidays in England!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM

Well I don't smoke or drink

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:23 PM

ISAs are made tax attractive by the government for political purposes.

Loopholes (tax avoidance) are drafting errors.

Evasion is lying.

Yes, there is a difference, for the benefit of members of the colonies who know no better.

I still don't do any of them. I grew out of it and decided to pay my dues. Not gifts. Dues.

The figures above that I gave stand. We are not "all in this together". The Brown government was in surplus before the bank crisis. The bank crisis was caused by greed and and political limits on the amount of regulation that the prophets of greed had whipped up. Tne conservatives' only complaints on bank regulation was that there was STILL too much of it.

The polluter should pay - but he doesn't. The rich in Vodafone have been given £6 BILLION. The rich tax cheats with loot stashed in Swiss banks have been let off £40 BILLION. The fat cats have put their own pay up 55% while screaming that the poor should be made poorer.

There is a solution that will work. Tax and spend. Far more elegant than Desai's proposals of today for time limited cash to force consumers to spend!

Another might be to nationalise banks without compensation and for the government then to use the money therein on say infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Medway
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:51 PM

I can only imagine that our Americans friends must look at the British members on this site and see them as winging miserable old moaners that are satisfied with absolutely nothing in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:58 PM

Arthuritus; how do you know if I'm boring? You've never met me or anyone who knows me! If you've read every post, then you know what I think should be done. Unless, of course, you are choosing to ignore those posts that you don't agree with. You admit you have no idea what to do about the present crisis, but you feel qualified to criticise anyone who offers information or ideas. Why not take the hint, get some education and formulate some coherent ideas of your own instead of spewing bile over those of other people. Here are some ideas to be going on with;
1. Make tax evasion and avoidance the same thing, and collect the tax due from those who don't pay their fair share. Start with George Osborne and his family trust, include bank bonuses, stop loopholes for premiership footballers etc. and make tax avoiding companies like Vodaphone either cough up what they owe or have all their UK assets sequestered. Pursue tax avoiders through the courts and apply the same draconian penalties proposed for benefit fraud. This measure alone is enough to reduce the deficit by the Tories target amount over one parliament. Prosecute accountants who encourage their clients to avaid tax. Once the deficit is down to manageable levels, reduce corporation taxes, but only for companies that can demonstrate that the money they save is going into reinvestment, not dividends.
2. Freeze an amount of UK bank capital equivalent to the taxpayer bailout, and prevent this money from being moved abroad. Set a fair rate of payback and interest to the taxpayer, perhaps 15 years to pay back the entire sum, and pass legislation to make it illegal for a bank to trade unless they meet this obligation. Any bank that refuses to play ball should be nationalised immediately with no compensation to shareholders.
3. Instead of slashing benefits, apply a progressive tax regime to all income (including benefits), with a threshold for tax exemption at or around the level of net income on minimuum wage.
4. Increase the minimum wage to a point where the employed no longer need to be in receipt of benefit to achieve a living wage. This would prevent employers riding on the back of the taxpayer by paying low wages and leaving the benefit system to pick up the rest of the tab for their employees' work.
5.Restore top tax rates to pre-Thatcher levels and place severe limits on the movement of capital abroad.
6. Use a significant proportion of the increased revenue to invest in infrastructure projects, training/retraining (compulsory if necessary) for the long-term unemployed and further and higher education. This investment is necessary to ensure future competitiveness in a knowledge economy, and investment in infrastucture (eg fibre optic cabling for broadband) provides employment, thus reducing welfare costs and increasing tax revenues.
7. Reconstitute the Industrial Training Boards and place a training levy on employers which they can avoid paying if they carry out effective training for their employees. Proper apprenticeships should receive a high weighting for rebate.
8. Place restrictions on personal credit, with a mandatory 20% deposit for any credit purchase and a salary check for all loans above £5000.
9. Do some proper research into the level and types of benefit fraud (at the moment no-one knows what the level is, apart from the Daily Mail, apparently) and tackle the true fraudsters without penalising those in genuine need.
10. Take a long-term view of health spending and invest heavily in health promotion and public health initiatives. Raise the price of cigarettes to £10 per cigarette. In 20 years time health spending will be reduced by 35% in real terms (W.H.O. estimate)

The rich and the large corporations will squeal and try special pleading; this should be ignored, as history (remember history?)tells us that they will not actually be able to do anything about it without risking their own wealth even further. They will claim that paying people more will cost jobs; history (there it is again)tells us that economies that specify a proper minimum wage create jobs at a faster rate than those that don't. Bankers will claim that large banks are too big to allow them to fail; fine; nationalise them and break them up into local or regional banks, with a remit to serve their communities. History (damn, again!) says that this type of banking system is much more resilient in the face of global financial crises.
Come on Arthuritus; I showed you mine, now show us yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:02 PM

"I can only imagine that our Americans friends must look at the British members on this site and see them as winging miserable old moaners that are satisfied with absolutely nothing in their lives. "

A lot of them are, especially the lefties who cannot tolerate any other views but theirs - they are all here, the same half dozen, some fatter than others!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM

ooh you dirty devil Tim

In actual fact you are not far from my ideals.

I would add that all people who have to go into a care home, should not have to sell their home to meet the costs. It should be free.

I would also invest in the health service and get rid of the burocrasy (can never spell that right). I would put all wards in control of matron's who are qualified and who will run the wards.
If people have an appointment at 8:00am for an op, they are in the operating theatre at 9:00 and not have to wait all day to be told to come back another time (that is disgraceful). I know, i have been there.

Apart from that we are in agreement.

However there isn't a Government who has the ability or understanding of what we need.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Oh I would like to add that any young person who can't be arsed to get a job, should be drafted into the army and sent to the front.

Any asbos should be treated the same.

Stop the 24 hour drinking culture and give the police the power to bang those drunken twats into the cells and fine them heavily so they can't afford to drink.

Give us the power to kick fuck out of anybody who dares to break into our homes, without any comeback from the law (scumbags).

Give teachers the right to discipline the couldn't give a fuck youngsters and stop them being disruptive.

We have sunk into a lawless society and we need to get a knicker grip on things.

There said my peace and stand by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM

@ the incompetent accountant:

Given the insanity apparently breeding in the USA right now I take that as a badge of honour.

Incidentally, I am quite satisfied - save that justice is not being done to those who steal from the poor to give to the rich. I am however angry - particularly at those who failed to learn "noblesse oblige", but also at the wilfully stupid and sociopathic aspirant lower middle class busily trying to pull up the ladder yet here displaying their own human failures.

@ the rheumatoid (or osteo) cripple:

In the interests of a level playing field (and incidentally it looks as if the government has come around to my view of using the tax system to claw back family allowances - albeit not geared) the rational thing to do would seem to be to calculate the benefit costs of those in care homes (of every kind, eliminating the current differences between accommodation and nursing care etc) and make those taxable (but with a deferred recovery against estates - Recovery From Estates Division could deal with that).

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

PS - well said mandotim - I might differ on some details but hte overall thrust is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:57 PM

So to get back to an issue I've raised before:

Does anybody care to justify the proposal to take away the mobility payment to people with disabilities who have to live in residential care homes?

It won't go away.

......................

As for ISAs, the point is,they aren't dodgy schemes set up by crafty accountants trying to get round the law, they are a way in which the government tries to encourage people to save.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM

"Does anybody care to justify the proposal to take away the mobility payment to people with disabilities who have to live in residential care homes?

"

No

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM

I've really enjoyed watching Screaming Lord Sutch videos on Youtube this evening.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

Blimey I remember seeing him live in a night club in Birmingham, many many many years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM

So Arthuritis draws the line somewhere short of endorsing the full set of cuts. Good for him.

How about other members of the George Osborne Fan Club?

"I'd do anything for love - but I won't do that..."

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:25 PM

Hey Mcgrath, I am not an Osbourne lover. However somebody has to do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

I saw Lord Sutch & the Savages many times between 1962 and 1965 - infintiely more fun than worrying about a proper government trying to undo the complete hashup of the previous labour mob - although the no smoking law was very welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM

Taking away the mobility payment from people in residential care is not undoing what the Labour Government did - this was introduced by the last Conservative government back in 1992.

Still I supppose that's no reason for Bonzo not to welcome it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:03 AM

Richard III just mentioned nationalising the banks without compensation.

I suppose by that logic if I lost my Jag I could just drive off in one of your knackered old Volvos and if you complained, shoot you.

As I type, I notice the Google ads below the text box. They are for tax advice companies... Gives me a giggle anyway.

I note someone else complained when I said that ISAs are not tax avoidance. His complaint was that he couldn't afford to save. Well obviously my comment wasn't aimed at you then.

Reading many posts in this thread, I see envy wrapped up a a strive for equality. I have two issues with equality;

1. Orwellian concerns about some pigs being more equal than others.

2. A recent bill that this government saw fit to carry through but was presented prior to the election by Harriet Harperson, possibly the most irrelevant yet dangerous Minister this country has seen.

I am a firm believer in equal opportunity, but not some of the more sinister interpretations of equality put out by people who would claim to be of the liberalish left.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

I can see a few posts indicating a preference for reducing inequality in society, but I can't see any of these "the more sinister interpretations of equality" - if there are any I don't think they can be "many posts in this thread".

Too much inequality is bad for everyone. It messes up just about everything in society. The happiest societies seem to be those where the level of inequality is relatively modest, significantly lower than the UK (or the USA).

As for nationalising banks without compensation, I can't really understand where compensation should come into it, when the institutions in question go broke and have to be bailed out, with us having to take over their debts.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:53 AM

Returning to McGrath's residence "loopholes", I would suggest that you read the rules set out in the HMRC website. The "loopholes" as you call them are in fact the law, law reviewed annually no doubt by the last labour governments with few changes being made. Get your facts straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:12 PM

If the reviews don't stop people getting out of paying tax they ought to, the reviews aren't adequate. No matter which party is in power.

There needs to be a position that if a scheme reduces tax liability it's counts as tax evasion, unless it can be proved that it has some other valuable consequence which cannot be achieved in another way which involves paying tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM

Perhaps my point is that nationalising banks is the same as getting rid of them and returning to a barter system. Banks are not national institutions, they are international, so you would be just saying "Screw us to make sure no other country claiming to be a Western democracy interferes with the system."

That is not agreeing with, liking or condoning banks with the morals of a dog on heat, it is just stating a fact.

Anyway, as a retired CEO in the private sector, chairing one of these quangos that are being abolished and now interfering in a quango that is not being abolished, I reckon I have seen enough to at least say this;

if you say nationalise banks, you clearly want banks to exist. So as well as owning them, (as has been the case,) you want banks to be RUN by the government? If you just want them to own them, then it is in the taxpayers' interest for banks to amass huge profits through the means they know best ie the stunts they are accused of pulling. If however you want them to be RUN by civil servants...

Let me tell you something. the quango I am doing work for started 18 months ago, bringing together three commissions into one. You can imagine the workload, new instructions via new legislation, harmonising pay / conditions etc etc, reducing headcount whilst keeping the shop open. What a lot of work eh? By six months in, the website proudly announced the following;

1. All equality schemes had been approved.
2. Lesbian, gay transsexual group had been set up and had their first meeting.
3. A poster was in the London canteen celebrating black history month.
4. the Chairman had left and all the top posts announced last month are now being reviewed.
5. the BBC stops seeing us as the oracle, and starts questioning us instead.

Now.. I would expect the above to be in there somewhere, but at that point, it was all the new glorious leaders had managed to announce. No working policies adopted, no assimilation of workforce, no harmonisation of practice, nothing. Everybody on legacy contracts and hoping for the best.

Is this how a bank would be run?



Oh, regarding loopholes. Tax is an arbitrary system and what is taxed at what rate is set out in law. This is revised annually as some things are not happening as intended. The intention of ministers is not always what is written into law and what we call loopholes is a media term for legal minimising payment. Moral choice? Doesn't come into it.

I have always used tax accountancy firms to ensure I pay what I am legally required to but no more, not a penny more.

I am therefore in the same position as somebody who collects child benefit but if they thought about it, could live without it. I am the same as somebody who lives in South Yorkshire and gets subsidised public transport. The same position as somebody who visits the Science Museum but doesn't make the voluntary donation.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:07 PM

"Oh, regarding loopholes. Tax is an arbitrary system and what is taxed at what rate is set out in law. This is revised annually as some things are not happening as intended. The intention of ministers is not always what is written into law and what we call loopholes is a media term for legal minimising payment. Moral choice? Doesn't come into it."

Absolutely, but the usual misguided lunatics who post here don't agree - more fool them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM

I've no problem with that summary. I don't believe in the idea that morality is the way to get people to pay more than the law requires. I gather David Cameron believes that.

Morality is for guiding people as to what they do with what's left over after paying tax.

So far as tax is concerned, the way to deal with it is to set the rules in such a way that people can't avoid paying tax by clever ploys. Call them "loopholes" or "legal minimising schemes", either way, the thing is that, if we can block them and raise more tax, that's in everyone's interests. Including the people who take advantage of them. A somewhat more equal society is better for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:42 PM

You then are freeloaders - worse indeed than the benefit claimants you despise because you cost the country more.

The principle in IRC -v- Westminster is part of the problem.

The duty to contribute to society is not purely a statutory construct. It is the basis of a workable society. Humans are fallible, but the English principles of statutory interpretation and precedent have ossified the ability of governments to collect the taxes that are part of their manifesto commitments. It is thus the avoiders who undermine a participatory democracy.

The place to start would be a tax code built on the principle that it is the duty of the citizen to contribute - reversing IRC -v- Westminster, and greatly widening the principles in IRC v Ramsay (1981) followed by Furniss v. Dawson (1984) and indeed putting such principles on a statutory footing.


In European VAT law the principle of "abuse of right" may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Abuse_of_Rights_II_WHA_-_the_Elephant_on_Closer_Inspection_HLM.pdf

This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM

hi arthur

I hope that you didn't think me pompous and denigrating by my comments about ISA's.

I was not trying to be clever like some people here.

I understand your position only too well and sympathise with you and any others in your situation.

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs - PM
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM

< But they won't think twice about spending far more than the average person puts in an ISA on booze (they know who they are!!!), rent, cigarettes and holidays in England!!!!! >

Hi bonzo I often struggle to try to understand what ( if any ) points you make but I just for the life of me can't fathom out what the hell people taking holidays in England have anything to do with anything !!!!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:05 PM

Bridge thinks he is very clever by quoting endless legal bollocks - nobody takes any notice of you lad!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:16 PM

That's alright Mike :-) I understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM

"In European VAT law the principle of 'abuse of right' may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes...This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Legal bollocks? Sounds like common sense to me.

The notion that there's nothing that can be done to drastically reduce "legal tax avoidance" seems ridiculous - and very suspicious as well. It has the appearance of self-serving camouflage. "They would say that, wouldn't they."

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:15 PM

Something is wrong when a hard working couple have less coming in than a couple on benefits. There has been some ridiculous examples of scaremongering and stories of sheer fantasy used on this thread, Bonzo seems to be the only one talking any sense.

Take an example, Imagine a family living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.

Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in.
Mr Abdi Nur

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.

They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.

The family's new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit, which is administered by local councils but funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Rules currently allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish.

The £2,000 per week is paid directly to Mr Nur and his family, who then pay their landlord.

Under coalition proposals housing benefit for a four bedroom home will be capped at £400 a week, or 21,000 a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM

One in every eight people who receive housing benefit are in fact unemployed. The vast majority are either pensioners or in low paid work.

It's just not true that people can just pick a posh house where they want and get housing benefit for whatever the landlord chooses to ask. In fact it's hard for people on housing benefit to find a landlord who will rent to them - it's also true that there are landlords who take advantage of this to jack the rent they charge to housing benefit tenants while providing dumps which they'd never be able to rent to private tenants.

There's life beyond the Daily Mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:49 PM

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.
They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.


Intriguing. Damon Albarn of middle-class upbringing seems to be the only member of that group who have actually had to work to get where they are. I guess being paid for being someone's kid is a good job if you can get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

Too dim to follow, Bonzo?

As for the elective rent, actually, most councils do already limit the amount they will approve for rent. For a while I had a very long standing friend lodging with me - it was a condition of his bail while awaiting trial for attempted murder, eventually knocked down to GBH for which he got a 2 year suspender. He was a hero in the defence of his country - SBS - shot for the Navy at Bisley - dangerously bipolar (if I told you of his experiences you probably would be too) crippled with a degenerative spine disorder. No chance of working (at least without killing his supervisor if the bipolar flipped). Rent capped well below the market figure.

Likewise his mate - an ex tankie with a damaged hand where he had shut the tank lid on it (!) and degenerative bone conditions in his feet.

The council would only pay the same for them to live in my house (which is quite nice as those who have been to the Lower Coke Winter Sings can testify) as in a council flat on Rat Island in Gravesend.

Mind you, you'd ahve to pay me quite a lot to live with some of the naighbours (sic) in Kensington.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM

Some nice sites here showing debt numbers.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=2000_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

National debt rose from £300 bn in 2002 to £500 bn in 2008, and then to around a £1000 bn in 2010. About £150 bn of latter is direct financial intervention in Northern Rock etc.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:02 PM

Total cost of the bank bailout (excluding Northern Rock) stands at £1050 billion, and climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:28 PM

Doesn't that exceed the market price of the banks at the time? In which case we own them, without any "compensation" being needed.