Tories pressing the self-destruct button?
Discussion
heppers75 said:
What I don't get is why you would argue that fact, the welfare bill has rocketed since 1997... for reference in 1995 it was a little over £40bn so in growth terms it played out with inflation until labour came to powert then it exponentially increased.
The pensions bill was little over £40billion in 1995, the total social security bill was just under £95billion. Health spending was £46billion in 1995 compared to the £124billion we will spend on it this year. Keen mathematicians among you will note the NHS costs almost three times more than it did just 17 years ago, although even health spending is already costing us less than pensions. It's not just the Welfare bill which has increased by a large amount.
martin84 said:
heppers75 said:
What I don't get is why you would argue that fact, the welfare bill has rocketed since 1997... for reference in 1995 it was a little over £40bn so in growth terms it played out with inflation until labour came to powert then it exponentially increased.
The pensions bill was little over £40billion in 1995, the total social security bill was just under £95billion. Health spending was £46billion in 1995 compared to the £124billion we will spend on it this year. Keen mathematicians among you will note the NHS costs almost three times more than it did just 17 years ago, although even health spending is already costing us less than pensions. It's not just the Welfare bill which has increased by a large amount.
heppers75 said:
As for your third point, if I may contend a slightly desperate point to extrapolate your argument. 4/10 must try harder!
Not really, unless you feel the pensions bill is not something we need to address and the £129billion spent on it this year is to be ringfenced and protected. I've said countless times I think the pensions bill is a bigger issue than things such as out-of-work benefits and disability benefits, because the pensions bill will only go up and last longer.If anything if you did include pensions in your inflation calculations you may find it even further backs up your point about skyrocketing social security bills.
martin84 said:
heppers75 said:
As for your third point, if I may contend a slightly desperate point to extrapolate your argument. 4/10 must try harder!
Not really, unless you feel the pensions bill is not something we need to address and the £129billion spent on it this year is to be ringfenced and protected. I've said countless times I think the pensions bill is a bigger issue than things such as out-of-work benefits and disability benefits, because the pensions bill will only go up and last longer.If anything if you did include pensions in your inflation calculations you may find it even further backs up your point about skyrocketing social security bills.
king stupid! If you and your leftie pals do not get this then someone needs to explain it to them and perhaps draw it in crayon! As it is about to bite us in the ass big time!heppers75 said:
Look Martin the whole system is utterly screwed it has grown out of all proportion and the level of support fot the none working classes in the country is if unchecked going to bankrupt us. To rail against executive remuneration and shareholder revenues when our problems exist at a more fundamental level is as insulting as it is fking stupid! If you and your leftie pals do not get this then someone needs to explain it to them and perhaps draw it in crayon! As it is about to bite us in the ass big time!
What did I say to prompt such a boorish response? I thought you were willing to discuss things in a civilised manner? king stupid! If you and your leftie pals do not get this then someone needs to explain it to them and perhaps draw it in crayon! As it is about to bite us in the ass big time!I didn't say anything about executive remuneration, shareholder revenues and I'm not sure who you're referring to by my so called 'leftie pals' exactly. All I said was we should include pensions in discussions about social security spending.
martin84 said:
heppers75 said:
Look Martin the whole system is utterly screwed it has grown out of all proportion and the level of support fot the none working classes in the country is if unchecked going to bankrupt us. To rail against executive remuneration and shareholder revenues when our problems exist at a more fundamental level is as insulting as it is fking stupid! If you and your leftie pals do not get this then someone needs to explain it to them and perhaps draw it in crayon! As it is about to bite us in the ass big time!
What did I say to prompt such a boorish response? I thought you were willing to discuss things in a civilised manner? king stupid! If you and your leftie pals do not get this then someone needs to explain it to them and perhaps draw it in crayon! As it is about to bite us in the ass big time!I didn't say anything about executive remuneration, shareholder revenues and I'm not sure who you're referring to by my so called 'leftie pals' exactly. All I said was we should include pensions in discussions about social security spending.
The whole expenditure is VASTLY increased and way above its ability to support itself, we have blown all the governmental payments out of proportion and the only ay we can bring it back into line is to curtail them.
I just used the examples I did of ones that do not solve this problem but are perceived to do so!
martin84 said:
jaedba2604 said:
i believe it was you who said something about the appeal process of the validity testing they do showing the initial test is flawed, it doesn't just show that
It does show that. If your system works then your appeal success rate should be very low, but its 40% for ESA when assessed by an independant - ie not Atos - tribunal. Thats far too high to just be human error for instance.martin84 said:
jaedba2604 said:
it shows how badly some people want this free money. and how the government know that free access to left wing lawyers mean the appeal process could escalate into an expensive exercise.
I think need is the word, not want. If you are disabled and cannot work you need this money or you die of starvation and homelessness. i note also you bleat on about pensions a great deal, i completely agree with you, the liability as it stands is too high, but at the moment, cash flow is this government's problem, a future liability needs to be dealt with, but it is not real cash going out of the door every day.
moreover, you have to work to get a pension of the magnitude you are denigrating. i assume this is your problem - you appear to defend everything that involves dishonesty and laziness.
if you do insist on quoting me, please do not do it out of context; that is the reserve of guardian journalists as far as i am aware. i'd imagine that's your paper of aspiration. after socialist worker...
jaedba2604 said:
if you do insist on quoting me, please do not do it out of context; that is the reserve of guardian journalists as far as i am aware. i'd imagine that's your paper of aspiration. after socialist worker...
I read the online version of the Guardian on a daily basis, together with that of the Telegraph, Indi, and Mail. I have recently stopped subscribing to The Times online.To suggest, as you do, that the preserve of quoting out of context is that of the Guardian tends to indicate a lack of awareness.
martin84 said:
Am I right in essentially saying this year the Government will spend around £125billion more than it brings in? I'm trying to find a concrete figure and thats the best I've found so far.
there is no concrete figure - there are unknown savings to overlay and unknown liabilities to settle.i think this is either a subject you 'get' or one you don't. we are not going to plug a multi billion pound hole over night by targetting welfare scroungers, but there is a compunded effect.
the productivity of this country is at an all time low - there are lots of reasons for this, but the apathy of a great big chunk of our nation is responsible for that.
martin, you are naive if you believe everyone who claims disability benefit (i don't know what it is called now, thankfully it is not a pertinent subject in my life) is honest and needs it. there is progression in this country, there are 3 generations sitting together in one house who have never worked because they don't need to, not because they can't get, or do, a job. and it is not fair to assume everyone is innocent when the country is running out of money, if it means assuming everyone is guilty to solve the debt issue, then what's the problem with that? i'm guessing we have more than one family where someone is fraudulently claiming disabled benefit and their partner or child is claiming a carers' allowance...just to compound the issue further.
i'm sorry if my disagreement with you and your cause is annoying you, but, quite frankly, i find it quite jarring that there are people who have no concept of doing something they don't want to, because they don't have to.
i think it's called sacrifice...
jaedba2604 said:
there is no concrete figure - there are unknown savings to overlay and unknown liabilities to settle.
Semantics. There must be a general figure the Government is working on when it's deciding what to cut, how much it needs to cut and how much it needs to raise. That figure seems to be roughly £125billion with it projected to fall to about £90billion by the end of this Parliament.jaedba2604 said:
martin, you are naive if you believe everyone who claims disability benefit (i don't know what it is called now, thankfully it is not a pertinent subject in my life) is honest and needs it.
I believe most people need it and even the Government's own figures back me up on that. There's always odd examples of supposed cripples caught playing golf or roller blading but they are the exception. Disability Living Allowance has a very low fraud rate for instance, mainly because its extremely difficult to get in the first place. You can be a quadruple amputee with no head and they'll still say no at the first time of asking.Maybe if it was a pertinent subject in your life you'd get your head out of your arse
jaedba2604 said:
there is progression in this country, there are 3 generations sitting together in one house who have never worked because they don't need to, not because they can't get, or do, a job.
Three generations? So you mean these people weren't working when the dear leader Thatcher was in office either? Bit unfair to blame the entire thing on Gordon Brown isn't it?jaedba2604 said:
and it is not fair to assume everyone is innocent when the country is running out of money, if it means assuming everyone is guilty to solve the debt issue, then what's the problem with that?
Because we work on 'innocent until proven guilty' in this country. Why is it fair to assume everybody is guilty? That seriously is the most moronic comment I've seen on this forum, congratulations by the way because I didn't think anything could beat some of the previous ones.jaedba2604 said:
i'm guessing we have more than one family where someone is fraudulently claiming disabled benefit and their partner or child is claiming a carers' allowance...just to compound the issue further.
Yes there's probably thousands but thats still a tiny minority. Spending thousands to take someone to court for pocketing £20 as well as their carers allowance is hardly going to solve the problem is it? Treating every citizen like a criminal will only get the Government to one place - the opposition benches.i suspect i may be wasting my time, like i said you either get it or you don't.
the country is running out of money...do i care? not really.
i think a casual check of post count suggests one of our number is a perrenial irk who has nothing better to do than fight their corner, day in, night out.
and, like a fool, some of us bite.
the country is running out of money...do i care? not really.
i think a casual check of post count suggests one of our number is a perrenial irk who has nothing better to do than fight their corner, day in, night out.
and, like a fool, some of us bite.
rich1231 said:
BlackVanDyke said:
Er, yes. That'll be the landlords.
My entitleometer just went red with that.Are you saying that its all the blame of the evil landlords that a large number of people feel entitled to have all their living expenses paid by the state?
Not as if it's given to spend at will.
BlackVanDyke said:
No, I'm saying that benefits recipients do not receive tens of thousands of pounds of cash housing benefits - it goes straight to their (our) landlords.
Not as if it's given to spend at will.
And how does that matter, money in pocket or they benefit from it in other ways - roof over ead or otherwise?Not as if it's given to spend at will.
rich1231 said:
BlackVanDyke said:
No, I'm saying that benefits recipients do not receive tens of thousands of pounds of cash housing benefits - it goes straight to their (our) landlords.
Not as if it's given to spend at will.
And how does that matter, money in pocket or they benefit from it in other ways - roof over ead or otherwise?Not as if it's given to spend at will.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff