Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
AJS- said:
I'm plenty loud about it. Spending hasn't worked, maintaining the status quo of a bloated state hasn't worked. Cut spending, cut regulations and let the economy breathe.
Forgot to mention, the Government have realised their mistake and are now pushing ahead with major infrastructure spending. Cutting red tape- yes I'm with you on that one. Cutting the bloated State - to a point, but I wouldn't want to see essential services lost or decreased. By that I mean education, health, fire and rescue, care for the elderly, those are IMO sacrosanct.turbobloke said:
Yes you said that, so have others.
Beyond that I can't remember any 'outbursts', and the merry bunch 'on here' includes crankedup unless an impostor has blagged some log-in details.
Libdems are Labour in a yellow romper suit these days and are part of the problem not the solution. Growth may be helped by not only reviewing and trimming regulations alongside cuts in spending, but by more direct assistance to the private sector.
We do fundamentally agree, although for a change I was shot down in flames for saying that the Government should be supporting young industries, I did example Green Energies and I was told I was *$()$!@(&*$%$**. Very select choice of words used and very personal,not suggesting it came from you but its always possible I suppose.Beyond that I can't remember any 'outbursts', and the merry bunch 'on here' includes crankedup unless an impostor has blagged some log-in details.
Libdems are Labour in a yellow romper suit these days and are part of the problem not the solution. Growth may be helped by not only reviewing and trimming regulations alongside cuts in spending, but by more direct assistance to the private sector.
The other point I disagree about is your assertion regards the Lib-Dems, but you know that anyway. Its also handy to have a memory dysfunction occasionally, very handy.
turbobloke said:
Yes cuts in spending, and deregulation particularly for small businesses but more besides.
The recipe I would like to see includes a limited but welcome cut in corporation tax now, a commitment to reverse the last NI increase asap, and further increases now in the basic and higher tax thresholds to give money to working people instead of banks (directly) as even if people put some of the money in a bank they would be more likely to spend it i.e. wbuy goods and services from businesses if there was more in their pocket to start with. These measures would help now and provide something to look forward to as well, improving sentiment.
I am very surprised to note that you have not mentioned a reduction in VAT?The recipe I would like to see includes a limited but welcome cut in corporation tax now, a commitment to reverse the last NI increase asap, and further increases now in the basic and higher tax thresholds to give money to working people instead of banks (directly) as even if people put some of the money in a bank they would be more likely to spend it i.e. wbuy goods and services from businesses if there was more in their pocket to start with. These measures would help now and provide something to look forward to as well, improving sentiment.
crankedup said:
Forgot to mention, the Government have realised their mistake and are now pushing ahead with major infrastructure spending. Cutting red tape- yes I'm with you on that one. Cutting the bloated State - to a point, but I wouldn't want to see essential services lost or decreased. By that I mean education, health, fire and rescue, care for the elderly, those are IMO sacrosanct.
From an economic point of view it doesn't really matter what is cut, the point is that with the public sector controlling nearly 50% of the economy, growth is nearly impossible. It's exactly what most of continental Europe has been experiencing for 20 years. I just don't know why Britain rushed to join them. Get that figure down to something like 25% and things would be a lot better. Personally I don't see health or education being "free" at the point of delivery as sacrosanct. Have assistance for the poorest, but if we continue down this road then we simply won't be in a position to help, educate or cure anyone.
25% of GDP is easily enough to educate and cure those who can't afford private provision, and quite a lot else besides. I would imagine you could save that much without touching the NHS or Education.
Have a look here
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/doc...
I could rip through that lot, and easily half the size of the state in a 20 minutes.
crankedup said:
We all make mistakes in grammar, and spelling occasionally 
And is that the Royal 'we' or do you see yourself in some sort of clique here?
No, I just expect everyone to abide by the forum rules, and for them to be applied equally. I don't see how calling people 'ponces' is acceptable. And is that the Royal 'we' or do you see yourself in some sort of clique here?turbobloke said:
So am I but I did have time to mention other things you ignored.
Also, anything unaffordable isn't sacrosanct but may deserve special consideration.
No, I disagree, the items that I suggest are to me sacrosanct and it would be political suicide for any Government to interfere/reduce/kick into touch or any other word play you like to use. Those items I mention are all affordable and if the day ever came when they are not is the day we loose democracy.Also, anything unaffordable isn't sacrosanct but may deserve special consideration.
I didn't ignore those other things you mentioned , just didn't see the point in repeating.
Bing o said:
No, I just expect everyone to abide by the forum rules, and for them to be applied equally. I don't see how calling people 'ponces' is acceptable.
That's rich coming from you, almost laughable. My use of the word ponces is perfectly acceptable on this forum in the context of the usage. It is not a term I have directed to any person or persons in this forum. It is used as a collective to describe my opinion of the Tory Party, that is a group of people quite happy to extract their knowledge from their partners in Government and use it for their own betterment. Now get over yourself, your not the brightest torch on the block and the more you post silly things such as those two recent posts the more you discredit yourself.crankedup said:
That's rich coming from you, almost laughable. My use of the word ponces is perfectly acceptable on this forum in the context of the usage. It is not a term I have directed to any person or persons in this forum. It is used as a collective to describe my opinion of the Tory Party, that is a group of people quite happy to extract their knowledge from their partners in Government and use it for their own betterment. Now get over yourself, your not the brightest torch on the block and the more you post silly things such as those two recent posts the more you discredit yourself.
Well, having looked up the alternative definitions of the word, I will happily apologise to you as i can see how you meant it. I'm not an ignorant person in general, but I was wrong on this occasion.Bing o said:
Well, having looked up the alternative definitions of the word, I will happily apologise to you as i can see how you meant it. I'm not an ignorant person in general, but I was wrong on this occasion.
Thank you, I respect that you have taken the time and trouble to post back.AJS- said:
crankedup said:
Forgot to mention, the Government have realised their mistake and are now pushing ahead with major infrastructure spending. Cutting red tape- yes I'm with you on that one. Cutting the bloated State - to a point, but I wouldn't want to see essential services lost or decreased. By that I mean education, health, fire and rescue, care for the elderly, those are IMO sacrosanct.
From an economic point of view it doesn't really matter what is cut, the point is that with the public sector controlling nearly 50% of the economy, growth is nearly impossible. It's exactly what most of continental Europe has been experiencing for 20 years. I just don't know why Britain rushed to join them. Get that figure down to something like 25% and things would be a lot better. Personally I don't see health or education being "free" at the point of delivery as sacrosanct. Have assistance for the poorest, but if we continue down this road then we simply won't be in a position to help, educate or cure anyone.
25% of GDP is easily enough to educate and cure those who can't afford private provision, and quite a lot else besides. I would imagine you could save that much without touching the NHS or Education.
Have a look here
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/doc...
I could rip through that lot, and easily half the size of the state in a 20 minutes.
Unless we get manufacturing and the desire to make things and add value and the work ethic back into our economy in volume we will never get back the prosperity those attributes generated.
We have to create the understanding that the responsibilities of an individual are at least as necessary and important as their rights.
Otherwise we will continue into the slough of Despair that we are ploughing into headlong.
We have lost industries, wholesale, over the last 50 years. We have to replace that loss.
The over bloated public sector is the primary cause of our massive excessive state borrowing.
This simply canny go on.
We can choose to do something about it or nosedive into the arms of the IMF who will insist upon draconian changes. The changes must come: we can make our own choices or face unelected bureaucrats making the choices for us.
There simply is no other way.
Our benefits system cannot support an unsupportable lifestyle on benefits for anyone because the nation cannot afford it.
The Ostrich position is not a good one economically and the refusal to face the reality that the country cannot afford the benefits it is trying to sustain, is Ostrich economics.
Changes must be made. We may discuss the level of cuts needed and the form of the cuts required. We simply cannot pretend any longer that we can support any individual at a cost that we cannot afford.
This is about economics not needs.
We can only offer what we can afford to benefits claimants, just as I can personally only spend what I have earned and saved over forty years now that I am retired and living on a pension Which I paid into all my life?.
I would like more. Seven cars are not enough.
But I am not expecting someone else to buy me one.
Why should benefits claimants be any different?
Bing o said:
Well, having looked up the alternative definitions of the word, I will happily apologise to you as i can see how you meant it. I'm not an ignorant person in general, but I was wrong on this occasion.
You're not going to let him off for the misplaced apostrophy(sic) though, are you? 
Bing o said:
crankedup said:
That's rich coming from you, almost laughable. My use of the word ponces is perfectly acceptable on this forum in the context of the usage. It is not a term I have directed to any person or persons in this forum. It is used as a collective to describe my opinion of the Tory Party, that is a group of people quite happy to extract their knowledge from their partners in Government and use it for their own betterment. Now get over yourself, your not the brightest torch on the block and the more you post silly things such as those two recent posts the more you discredit yourself.
Well, having looked up the alternative definitions of the word, I will happily apologise to you as i can see how you meant it. I'm not an ignorant person in general, but I was wrong on this occasion.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pon...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non...
The ideas about getting the economy going sound mostly good. So I don't understand why the government don't do them?
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
So am I but I did have time to mention other things you ignored.
Also, anything unaffordable isn't sacrosanct but may deserve special consideration.
No, I disagree, the items that I suggest are to me sacrosanct and it would be political suicide for any Government to interfere/reduce/kick into touch or any other word play you like to use. Those items I mention are all affordable and if the day ever came when they are not is the day we loose democracy.Also, anything unaffordable isn't sacrosanct but may deserve special consideration.
I didn't ignore those other things you mentioned , just didn't see the point in repeating.
Crazy britain 
Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
nigel_bytes said:
Crazy britain
Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Good job he's Cuban and not British!Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Halb said:
nigel_bytes said:
Crazy britain
Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Good job he's Cuban and not British!Debbie Purdy: I would be better off on benefits
Right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy spoke today of her outrage after being told she would be better off if her husband quit work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
The system is completely unaffordable with benefits advisers, employed through our taxes, telling workers to give up work because they will be better on benefits thus adding to the cost of this system for their employers, the Taxpayer.
It is unsustainable and there MUST be permanent changes reappraising our whole approach to the acceptability of lifestyle choices being allowed to determine the need of an individual to work for a living.
Excessive drinking, being grossly overweight or having ten illegitimate children is NOT a right. It is a choice.
Individuals must be responsible for the consequence of their own decisions,
Currently, such choices have resulted in long term permanent lifestyles, supported entirely by benefits at unaffordable cost to the taxpayers.
This HAS to change.
Society cannot pay out more on benefits than the country can afford. Therefore there must be an upper limit to the benefits any individual or family can receive from benefits alone.
Economics have their own discipline. We cannot afford the current system.
crankedup said:
Bing o said:
Well, having looked up the alternative definitions of the word, I will happily apologise to you as i can see how you meant it. I'm not an ignorant person in general, but I was wrong on this occasion.
Thank you, I respect that you have taken the time and trouble to post back.Thank feck that opinion hasn't rendered civility obsolete in this neck of the internets.
Well done both of you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff