BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill

Subject: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Kampervan
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:54 AM

We need to move to a higher wage/lower welfare benefit society, says the chancellor.

Ok, but surely, given that most of the welfare benefits are means tested, all we have to do in to grow wages. Reductions in the cost of welfare will then follow automatically.
We don't need to cut the benefit (as the new universal credit system will still do), because, if wages really do go up, then fewer will need them.

Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:53 AM

You are missing an idealogical commitment to a smaller state and growing inequality. And also the fact that he is lying about wages going up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:15 AM

I. Order to receive higher wages one must have a job! Many on benefits have not found jobs, so a wage increase will. Of help .

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:18 AM

Shod read , wage increases will not help.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Kampervan
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:19 AM

Stinks, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:00 AM

Reducing the welfare bill has involved putting genuine benefits claimants under dreadful pressure. Jobsworths at benefits offices can impose financial sanctions for the slightest bureaucratic transgressions. It is next to impossible to get ESA even if you're critically disabled. Jobseekers are forced into soul-destroying and fruitless hoop-jumping exercises, often involving three days a week spent at job centres, writing hopeless applications and being constantly vetted and interviewed. Everything is now means-tested to death (not that some things shouldn't be, but the rules are draconian).

They can do all this because the unemployed and the disabled haven't got a powerful lobby group or a trade union to fight back on their behalf. Contrast their plight with the immunity enjoyed by tax-avoiding corporations, large, profitable employers who pay so little that the rest of us have to top up wages with in-work benefits, millionaires with offshore accounts and armies of accountants, non-doms, the royals, landlords with tax reliefs who rake all those housing benefits that we're suckered into thinking are feeding a benefits culture, and all the rest of the sleazy parasites.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST, DTM
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:30 AM

I always use this question when assessing a person's character. "Would I buy a car from this person?'

George Osborne? I would buy a bus ticket from him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM

Even if job-seekers benefits, in-work benefits and disability support benefits were cut to zero, there would be only a short-term gain as more than 50% of state welfare spend is on pensions and this will continue to increase both as a percentage and as a cost.

Secondly, without a commitment to egalitarian wealth/income redistribution universal high wages will not happen - the economy would not sustain in.

Thirdly, virtually all state welfare payment is 'spent' - a proportion is recycled back to the exchequer through indirect taxes, the rest trickles up to those who own capital - landlords, shareholders, corporations - and a proportion of this is retained to prop individual wealth up further - thus the living wage vs tax credit debate, and the believe by the hard right that by cutting the safety net, the trickle-down effect will fulfill this function.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:02 AM

Don't forget that this government is bent on filleting the unions so that those in work can be more readily oppressed, filleting legal aid so that those with rights cannot enforce them in court (unless rich) and even filleting financial support for the function of opposition political parties, so that political opposition is rendered nugatory. It's the modern version of the divine right of kings, and will I fear now only be ended as bloodily as the believers in the divine right of kings were overthrown.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:52 AM

Add to the above the fact that the UK media are overwhelmingly right-wing, and that the feeble-minded Daily Mail, Telegraph and Sun readers are easily brainwashed into believing the propaganda they print.

Believing the lies of right-wing propaganda is far easier than thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

I did a calculation back in the late 70's and reckoned about 70% of my income went in either direct or indirect taxation. If the same holds true today (I've not checked) someone who receives 100 in benefits pays 70 in tax of one description or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:15 PM

Ah Raggy just shows how poor your calculations were then doesn't it.

Basic rate tax is what now - 20%
VAT on some goods is 20%
Then you have duty on fuel
Plus duty on alcohol and cigarettes

Hells teeth Raggy to match 70% tax you must have been smoking like a chimney and drinking like a fish - hope you weren't driving while you were doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:09 PM

The 70% may not be all that fantastic. After all there is income tax on money you earn and then there are all sorts of secondary taxes on money you spend. There is vat at 20% on a lot of stuff, and there is duty on fags, booze and fuel. Don't forget that fuel duty increases the cost of goods you buy that have been transported, and therefore increases the vat due and stuff brought in from abroad is liable to duty from the importers. Some stuff you buy will have involved multiple taxings. Some counties charge a data tax on phone and computer usage!

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:32 PM

Believing the lies of left wing propaganda is easier than thinking as well. I am somewhat tired of people accusing people with whom they disagree of stupidity because they may have views that are slightly right. One of the things That is terribly wrong with the left is their assumption that everyone but the left is brainwashed. And, before I am accused of intellectual inferiority, I am neither right nor left but tend more toward a middle ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:41 PM

Richard Bridge & Backwoodsman make good points.
The Oxbridge Clique are going to keep on stretching the rope. One day it will snap and ... well, it ain't gonna be nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:53 PM

You're not half as tired as I am, HiLo - tired of lying, thieving, scrotey Self-Servative shits operating a Robin-Hood-In-Reverse system in order to benefit themselves and their cronies.

Anyone who can't see that's the way of it is either truly stupid, or enjoys taking it up the arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:06 PM

.. or truly ruthless and enjoys shoving it up our arse...

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM

Work and live well, don't work, drop endless children and scrounge.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

Just as an example Teribus, you might think there is no tax on foodstuffs.

That, on paper, is correct.

However, for instance, the wagon that delivers the goods uses diesel, tax is paid on diesel. The company builds in that cost (diesel) into what they charge me.

So that tin of beans the production of which is (for arguments sake is 5p) is subject to a whole raft of indirect taxation. Tax on the production costs, tax on the transportation, tax on the profit of the company etc etc.

Thus the 45p I pay for a tin of beans goes towards all those costs and a considerable amount of that is in taxation

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:26 PM

So what do you suggest, Raggytash? Your brilliant alternative is....?

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM

Keith, It was an observation nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:52 PM

Land Value Tax would enable some of the burden on the poorest to be alleviated.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:55 PM

You can get a tin of beans for less than 32p at Waitrose if you buy a four-pack, Raggytash. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:03 PM

They are possibly less when on offer elsewhere.

Just as an aside Heinz beans are c**p these days. The company seem to have taken most of the sugar and salt out. I buy Bachelors for my Sunday morning fry-up.

But we digress.

Back to the UK Welfare Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Penny S.
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:16 PM

"Welfare" has been, or is in the process of being Newspeaked, so that what was a word for a good thing has become something to be seen as an evil. Other words affected have been "refugee", although that seems to be arguing back again, by being compared with "migrant", and "asylum", which, attached to "seeker" was used as a replacement for "refugee" until it too became a bad thing. "Radical" has been stolen from its original historical meaning - you wouldn't see any Liberal claiming to be Radical nowadays, would you? (Or being mocked in quite the way John Buchan did in "The Thirty Nine Steps.")

I was watching an old broadcast about Thomas Cromwell, which mentioned his concern for the commonweal, a thing which our lords and masters wouldn't recognise if it were to jump up out of their PPE reading list and bit them. (He was probably concerned about it because he could see what would happen if the country was full of sturdy beggars with nothing to do and no means to do it with.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

Well said. I've been saying it for years. We tax people's efforts and still expect them to be enthusiastic about work. We allow major landowners, who did not make the land, and who have inherited that land from ancestors who stole it from ordinary people, to make fortunes out of their holdings and wield inordinate power. A graduated land value tax (taking land quality and size of holding into account) would be just, and it might even get some of the landed gentry to offload some of their holdings in a hurry. Just think. Much smaller parcels of land would be much better looked after, as you'd have to do that to make a living. There would be far more diversity and the more intensive husbandry would mean more rural employment and a far better environment. Anyone objecting to this would need forcibly reminding that agriculture in the UK contributes a pathetic 0.75% of GDP. We don't need all these agribusiness moguls anywhere near as much as we, or they, think. They are a blight on the nation, frankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

That was to Guest Dave. Penny, don't forget the latest obnoxious pejorative, "bed-blockers".

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:33 PM

Well backwoods an , I will now to your evident expertise on "truly stupid" !

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:24 PM

The largest number of people on benefit in the UK are of course people on retirement pensions. Of the others, the largest proportiin are in fact in work, but not earning sufficient to gget by.

Of course there is a contradiction between the stated objectives of this governmennt and what actually happens. That is the kind of government it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:33 PM

True, but people on state pensions have contributed towards that for the whole of their working lives, and what they get depends on the contributions they've made. That is reasonably predictable and accountable. Most other benefits are contingent on the vicissitudes of life. Not the same thing. It's also worth mentioning that the UK old age pension is just about the poorest in the developed world.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:17 AM

"Just think. Much smaller parcels of land would be much better looked after, as you'd have to do that to make a living. There would be far more diversity and the more intensive husbandry would mean more rural employment and a far better environment."

Worked really well in Ireland didn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

Nothing new about "bed blockers" but with the non joined up thinking where social care spending is dramatically cut, bed blocking just gets worse. The NHS is then said to be in crisis when patients who are frail but don't need to be in hospital any more cannot be safely discharged. Care homes cannot afford sufficient staff so residents who are poorly are pushed into hospital instead.

The term isn't a nice one and is demeaning to the patient but the situation has been the norm for so long now, the accuracy of the term has overtaken the stigma. Of course, it is because of caring for the patient rather than chucking them out that causes the problem. In any event, if you discharge them to a home environment that cannot continue their care properly, you'll only get them back and trusts are monitored and fined on readmission rates. Yet on a "he is more unwell than her" basis people are discharged with our fingers firmly crossed.

Meanwhile, NHS services that were handed to councils the other year (public health) are being slashed to the point of not being safe but allow ministers to say NHS funding isn't being slashed by them. Osborne announced the needed £4billion the other day but forgot to mention the £20billion cut (efficiency savings) that go with it. The press meanwhile are asking what additional services will be provided with the new money (minus £16billion.)

When the welfare state crumbles, health and social care need goes up. Sorry, we are being fucked up the arse too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:23 AM

"Well backwoods an , I will now to your evident expertise on "truly stupid" !"

My 'expertise' is in English. Yours clearly isn't.
No expertise required in order to recognise stupidity - just close observation and careful thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

I think the question should not be how to reduce the welfare bill, but how to pay for a fair and vital welfare system. This could easily be achieved by increasing taxation on those who are immoderately remunerated for the work they do and closing the tax loopholes for large corporations.

Our welfare state forms the very fabric of our society, created at a time when the country was bankrupt by giants who understood that an equitable society is a stable one, and that the correlation between inequality and crime, ill health and economic stagnation was well-proven. Moreover, as Toby Judt says in 'Ill Fares the Land', "..the welfare state of the mid-20th century established the profound indecency of defining civic status as a function of economic good fortune." Chamberlain said: "My aim in life is to make life pleasanter for the great majority; I do not care if in the process it becomes less pleasant for the well to do minority." Or, as Kolakowski puts it, "…the welfare state entails protecting the weak majority from the strong and privileged minority." It is this protection that the present government – and Tories from Thatcher onwards – is seeking to remove; eradicating the system that has protected tens of millions of British people from the obscenities of poverty and sickness. We support what they are doing at our peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:00 AM

Best post on the subject by theleveller (above).
Key line is "Protecting the weak majority from the strong and privileged minority".
One thing is for certain, the strong privileged minority don't, and will never, give a damn about the weak majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Kampervan
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:06 AM

'One thing is for certain, the strong privileged minority don't, and will never, give a damn about the weak majority.'

Not until it comes to election time and then,unfortunately, they manage to persuade/bribe/con enough people to vote them back in.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:37 AM

From: theleveller - PM Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

Bravo! Yanks, take note of the above.

Greg (a Yank)

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM

Not only is theleveller astute in his political/social observations, but s/he's one helluva poet too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM

Welfare recipients in the UK: banks, big business, Tory politicians and their friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:54 AM

Well, Backwoodsman, I am quite good at English. What I am not good at is Eyesight. You are a rude wee man aren't you ?

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:43 PM

Only with people who provoke me. Otherwise, those who actually know me tell me I'm quite a likeable sort of chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:47 PM

I don't recall having provoked you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM

Very disingenuous of you. You know very well that your badly-spelled comment was intended to carry a barb.

Like I give a fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

"And, before I am accused of intellectual inferiority, I am neither right nor left but tend more toward a middle ground."

Trouble is, the "middle" seems to keep moving right!

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 03:04 AM

spot on, leveller. michael foot said something like - government is not for the wealthy and powerful, they can look after themselves. government is for everyone else. i have found it amazing and very depressing how quickly we have lost many positive things in this country that i have always taken for granted. i was discussing the possible reintroduction of a limited form of sick pay with management at work on wednesday. 'sick pay? no care providers pay sick pay these days. our solicitors have advised.......'

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:27 AM

Just how long can a sitting government(and their supporters) blame a previous government.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM

i'm pretty sure that 'newport boy' is being ironic here

---

Troll post and some responses removed. That wasn't newport boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:55 AM

"Just how long can a sitting government(and their supporters) blame a previous government."

I'd bet my pension they'll still be blaming the last Labour government for the world-wide financial crash of 2008 at the next election in 2020. And the stupid, feeble-minded and readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun will still fall for their lies and deceit.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

Backwoodsman, I appreciate the sentiment, but if you are betting your pension, you may not be taking as much of a risk as you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Reducing the UK welfare bill
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM

I don't think I'm taking a risk at all, Dave. I'm certain they'll still be doing it, I'm certain the stupid and feeble-minded will still believe them, and I'm certain my pension is safe as a result!