BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise

Subject: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:53 AM

Tories consider an in effect retrospective change to rules on benefit rises because they don't like the outcome of present rules:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8834955/Setting-benefits-by-inflation-is-unfair.html

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 04:58 AM

Another flammer thead started to create trouble. How long before it gets closed down too?

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:18 AM

If a Right Wing paper like the Torygraph runs a story like this , there is truth to it .Clicky

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:22 AM

How many more of these flammer threads is this individual to be allowed to create today ? I imagine they are going to attract a lot of interest, a lot of comments from a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:51 AM

It's on teletext too!

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:52 AM

"Flamer" is the more usual spelling isn't it?

I can't imagine there'd be too many people who'd be annoyed at the suggestion that it's wrong to retrospectively change the rules inn this way. So how is this flaming, spelt any way?

I wonder if the same "senior MPs" would be protesting if the blip had been the other way round?

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 06:08 AM

One would think that as their actions in raising VAT was the cause of a large part of this increase, then either they should honour their commitments, or reverse the increases.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 07:58 AM

I believe benefits should be cut, no more living off the back of the taxpayer.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Lox
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:13 AM

Agreed - the Bankers have been paid unprecedented amounts of money off the backs of the taxpayer for too long - not to mention all the tax that they themselves owe ...

... enough to pay off our debt in fact ...

... well ... their debt really ...



Funny - bluesman calling people a flamer is like julian clary calling someone camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:16 AM

"Flamer" is the more usual spelling isn't it?

I think he meant trolling rather than flamming/flaming...

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: jacqui.c
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 08:39 AM

Problem is, there are getting to be less taxpayers in both the UK and the USA. Jobs are being moved out of both countries by the big corporations to where they can pay peanuts for manufacturing and call centres etc. Investment in both countries is not happening - small businesses are faced with higher costs for everything and so reduce staff or go under altogether.

Somewhere along the line there are casualties - those who live in high unemployment areas (most of the UK falls into the category as far as I can see), those hit but health problems that prevent them from working, the older worker who is turned away on the basis of age. What do we do with those people? Let them starve? Let them end up out on the streets because they are unable to find work? Not all those on benefits are wastrels and may will have paid into the system for many years before losing their source of income.

As a UK pensioner I am in receipt of one of those benefits - should my small pension be taken away because the taxpayer is effectively paying it? For many years, while I was working, I paid for others to receive that benefit as well as contributing to the cost of education for the taxpayers on whose backs I now live off of.

None of us know what is waiting for us around the corner. For a self employed person a catastrophic illness could end their ability to pay their own way. We have all seen the number of companies that have gone to the wall in the last few years leaving many people out of work through no fault of their own. Too few jobs, too many people chasing them. Too few opportunities in today's financial setting to go out and start businesses (banks don't want to lend money!). At some time we could all end up 'living off the back of the taxpayer'. To think otherwise is not to learn the lessons of history and is, basically very naive.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 09:13 AM

When you are on a pension , the possibilities of an increase in available Spending power is severly limited , and with low interest on any savings and inflation at ridiculously high levels just keeping ones head above water is hard emough . To suggest that , having paid MY share all my working lifeto say I should now be penalised by High Inflation seems a bit naughty to say the least

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 09:18 AM

Tories consider an in effect retrospective change to rules on benefit rises because they don't like the outcome of present rules:


Of course, the current rules mean some people are 'trapped' in benefit as they would get less money by taking low paid work than by claiming benefits.
If benefits rise in line with inflation, but emplyment wages do not rise by as much, then the problems with the 'benefit trap' increase.

Why should those on benefits get an automatic annual increase when those in employment do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 10:13 AM

Have you noticed, it's only those on benefits that can shop every day and get drunk at weekends. Those that work have household bills to pay. We could all life a nice lifestyle if your weekly/monthly bills were paid for you.

The cuts to the benefit system is long overdue.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 10:35 AM

I too am puzzled why you keep up these anti-Tory rants up, Richard. Those of us who detest the Tories as much as you do know very well what they are up to - but you're never going to convince people with an 'empathy deficit', like 'Bluesman'.

As I said in another thread a better use for your time would be to help make Labour electable again. But then Labour and its supporters never listen - which is part of the reason why they lost the last election ... and let the Tories in ...

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 11:29 AM

Following intervening events, please now redirect discussion regarding this thread here – to my original "Nobody likes a Tory" thread - thread.cfm?threadid=140808#reply

It will save multiple postings of the same objections to criticisms of conservatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 01:56 PM

Dickie, you start seven threads within 23 minutes, now you tell people not to post on them, was somebody buying drink last night ?

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: jacqui.c
Date: 19 Oct 11 - 05:10 PM

Have you noticed, it's only those on benefits that can shop every day and get drunk at weekends.

Not the people that I know of on benefits and that includes me a number of years ago when my ex left me with two children under school age.

There may be some who abuse the system but, on the whole, those at the bottom of the pile would love the opportunity to get out from under.

I was lucky in that I was able to go back to further education, with a grant, and then get a decent job. Nowadays the cost of further education is getting to be prohibitive and there aren't that many jobs out there even if you do succeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: banjoman
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 05:50 AM

bluesman - I hope you never get to the position of needing to claim benefits. Your comments show how little you really know. No matter what system a government institutes, there will always be a very few who will find a loophole and exploit the system. Please do not judge the majority of claimants by the actions of a small minority.Your remarks are inflamatory and ill founded - get a life

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 10:33 PM

About this sending the jobs out of the country. Don't those fat cats know they are killing their own country?

"The Capitalist will sell the rope that hangs him." (Karl Marx)

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: kendall
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 10:38 PM

I'm also struggling to get by on a pension, I earned every dime of it. While you land lubbers were asleep in you warm stable beds, I was out there on the raging main risking life and limb saving lives and property. And not just 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, but a month at a time, 24/7 in all kinds of weather. Example, the Davis Straights in January.
I'm 77 and I have been on the Dole for many years. Sorry for living so long!

Subject: RE: BS: Rule change to evade due benefit rise
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM

A damp squib for those who actually got past the headline.

At the bottom of the article, it stated that George Osborne will most likely use September's figures.

Again, according to the article, it was proposed that when something needed changing, change should be planned ahead, not carried out on the instant because you don't like the status quo.

Don T.