Opposition grows to benefit cap

[PorkInsider]

Sheepshanks said:

And bear in mind the country needs lots of children - an ageing population is economic disaster.

Yes. A giant Ponzi scheme.

Just what every economy needs.

[xjsdriver]

sidicks said:

Corporation tax is paid on profits - don't make a profit, don't pay tax. Very simple...

Easily changed if there is the political will..... Clever accounting to show a company running at a loss just isn't on.....How do you think Greece got into it's mess? Nobody paying tax, from big corporations to the man/woman in the street.

[NicD]

xjsdriver said:

Easily changed if there is the political will..... Clever accounting to show a company running at a loss just isn't on.....How do you think Greece got into it's mess? Nobody paying tax, from big corporations to the man/woman in the street.

I am sure they were 'just following the rules'

seems to excuse amoral behaviour.

[nikaiyo2]

Derek Smith said:

Not sure if you were around at the time, but you've missed the most important aspect of the selling off. Firstly, councils were not allowed, they were forced in most cases. Secondly, they didn't just sell, they sold at a loss. Thirdly, councils were strictly limited to whether they could replace the houses. This did not take into account the fact that the loss on the deal would have limited their ability to replace all, or even most.

I reckon Thatcher was one of the two best post war PMs we've had. But she made mistakes.

When she made decisions based on politics she always cocked-up. Selling council houses was intended to get a house-owning majority more likely to vote tory. The unintended consequence has been the current lack of housing stock because successive governments has seen increasing house prices as a sop to the middle voters.

So houses did indeed disappear. You can see the lack of them everywhere.

The benefits cap is, as someone pointed out, gesture politics. The real target should be those who fiddle their claims but the emphasis has not been on them. The suggestion is that the amount that is fiddled is not quite as high as suggested by the government.

Each investigator brought in considerably more than the cost of their employment but this has not stopped, at least down my way, their numbers being reduced. Oddly enough, to save money.

It beggars belief, or rather generates a shake of the head.

What council houses were sold at a loss in the 80s?
I was under the impression that most of the property sold was post war building boom stock...

[xjsdriver]

edh said:

That's just too simplistic - you really believe that the majority of benefit claimants are choosing that life? Millions of people of ESA and DLA because of illness or disabilities would love to be well enough to work.

Do you propose to stop benefits for the millions of in-work claimants earning more than your 80% NMW threshold?

How about the construction worker with a family, 3 kids under 5, renting privately, who gets injured at work. Serious back injury leaving him unable to do the manual work he's experienced in. His firm (agency) tell him they have terminated his employment. Do you think they can survive on 80% of NMW? (or is that 2 x 80% for a couple?)

The benefits system is very complicated because people's circumstances are all very different. that's why universal credit is taking so long.

It's taking so long, because it's been a total fk-up from start to finish, just like the oxygen thief in charge of it's creation!!!

[Steffan]

Derek Smith said:

sidicks said:

xjsdriver said:

Rents are at an all time high, due to every incumbent at 10 Downing Street, since the reign of Maggie the Merciless allowing councils to sell of their housing stock, but not to replenish them by building more homes........and it has been a downward spiral ever since.

When these houses were sold did they disappear or are they still there, just with different owners?

Not sure if you were around at the time, but you've missed the most important aspect of the selling off. Firstly, councils were not allowed, they were forced in most cases. Secondly, they didn't just sell, they sold at a loss. Thirdly, councils were strictly limited to whether they could replace the houses. This did not take into account the fact that the loss on the deal would have limited their ability to replace all, or even most.

I reckon Thatcher was one of the two best post war PMs we've had. But she made mistakes.

When she made decisions based on politics she always cocked-up. Selling council houses was intended to get a house-owning majority more likely to vote tory. The unintended consequence has been the current lack of housing stock because successive governments has seen increasing house prices as a sop to the middle voters.

So houses did indeed disappear. You can see the lack of them everywhere.

The benefits cap is, as someone pointed out, gesture politics. The real target should be those who fiddle their claims but the emphasis has not been on them. The suggestion is that the amount that is fiddled is not quite as high as suggested by the government.

Each investigator brought in considerably more than the cost of their employment but this has not stopped, at least down my way, their numbers being reduced. Oddly enough, to save money.

It beggars belief, or rather generates a shake of the head.

interesting and informative observations.

I also thought Thatcher one of the best PM's we have had post war. I also agree she was not at her best being political. Her awareness of the cost of eveything and interest in who was going to actually pay for the dreamsof Socialist spenders was exemplary IMO. The current problem with housing, or the lack of it, was not helped by the sales of council houses.

Quite how any solution to the housing problems that now face the UK with growing immigration and a very high birth rate I have no idea. Nor do any of the politicians. Unlike me, they will pretend they have answers, whilst quietly pocketing the gravy train monies modern politics produce. There are no easy answers indeed given the precarious finances of the UK no answers. This one will run ad run, sadly.

[xjsdriver]

crankedup said:

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market. Problem is there will always be the winners and losers. In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

Employers on here: Who would you prefer worked for you? Some (native) mong who has no interest in putting in a hard day's work - or someone from outwith our shores with a work ethic? I know who I'd employ first of all.
That said, it's only a small percentage of those who wilfully refuse to find a job - the majority of the unemployed detest not being in work, but it seems to be more and more acceptable these days to tar them with the same brush.

[vescaegg]

Has anyone seen the arguments about on the Internet about Katie Price and the fact that her disabled child gets his travel to and from school paid for by the government?

I thought my view in that if she could reduce the costs the government is having to cover by paying for it herself (she's worth £40m evidently) then she should. My friends all say I'm wrong though and there is nothing wrong with it. I was surprised to be honest. Am I a tt?

[NicD]

vescaegg said:

Has anyone seen the arguments about on the Internet about Katie Price and the fact that her disabled child gets his travel to and from school paid for by the government?

I thought my view in that if she could reduce the costs the government is having to cover by paying for it herself (she's worth £40m evidently) then she should. My friends all say I'm wrong though and there is nothing wrong with it. I was surprised to be honest. Am I a tt?

bks no!
She is a st bag for a. not living close to the appropriate school and b. accepting the free service when she can easily afford it.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

I see what you did there.

Seriously, they won't wait for the tax demand to land on the plush mat. Ask supersocialist Hero Hollande.

crankedup said:

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market.

AKA lower corptax, lower income tax.

crankedup said:

Problem is there will always be the winners and losers.

Good luck with the egalitarianist eugenics programme to put a stop that. Gene equality, what every young socialist would give their shoulder chip for?

crankedup said:

In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

What's balance, and who decides? Forget the tricky bit of the solution that gets there. Just define the 'balance' point first. We can forget the issue of who is doing the deciding and, what authority or validity they bring

Definition of balance is easy peasy, equilibrium neither weighted north or south from a centralised point.

I would agree with the notion of less payable personal tax if the prospect of higher living standards were to be achieved. Also that equilibria between high incomes and low incomes resulted in the % of income wealth was fair. Note the Government have made a start with this by increasing the personal allowances, thanks to the Lib-Dems

Lower Corp tax - agreed, provided the closing of tax loopholes that are used by Corporations are continued with gusto.

We cannot question the Authority or validity of an elected Government. Well we can of course but have to accept the consensus of democracy.

I'm not sure that the persons born into wealth do not demonstrate with Leftwing activists on occasion. But when the young wealthy individual grows up and then suddenly realizes which side the bread is buttered. Those that make their own wealth, it is not so clear cut perhaps, Brand,Gilmore et all.

[turbobloke]

xjsdriver said:

sidicks said:

Corporation tax is paid on profits - don't make a profit, don't pay tax. Very simple...

Easily changed if there is the political will.....

If it's easy, what are the changes?

xjsdriver said:

Clever accounting...

That'll mean following the rules then.

xjsdriver said:

How do you think Greece got into it's mess? Nobody paying tax, from big corporations to the man/woman in the street.

Nobody? Not even close.

You're not attempting to compare proportional (GDP) levels of tax evasion in Greece with notional tax avoidance in the UK by any chance?

NicD said:

I am sure they were 'just following the rules'

seems to excuse amoral behaviour.

You must be psychic

What's amoral about paying what's due? Particularly when tax isn't a moral issue.

This PH is spot on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2163658/...

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

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.

There is a lot that can have reductions in expenditure without losing what I would see as the essentials.

Whilst many might consider every aspect of the NHS sacrosanct, it was never set up to provide unlimited treatment regardless of cost. Certain cancer drugs, for example, might extend lifespan by a couple of months but their £100,000 cost might be better spent elsewhere. A bit harsh on the individual but for the greater good of the greater number.

The pot isn't limitless and therefore choices have to made. There should be no sacred cows.

I would agree with that in principle and it is the case. My 'problem' comes with the example you use, the cancer drug that extends lives for a short duration. The wealthy can afford access to this treatment of course which makes our Society even more divided. If that were not bad enough it is likely that many individuals would have contributed to funding 'cancer cure research' and yet those very treatments will not be available for that person. We can only hope the cost of the drug becomes less expensive.
Its an unequal Society due to wealth inequality, always has been and I expect always will be. I do not see a sensible solution but felt it worthwhile to post the 'other side of the fence' POV.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

I see what you did there.

Seriously, they won't wait for the tax demand to land on the plush mat. Ask supersocialist Hero Hollande.

crankedup said:

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market.

AKA lower corptax, lower income tax.

crankedup said:

Problem is there will always be the winners and losers.

Good luck with the egalitarianist eugenics programme to put a stop that. Gene equality, what every young socialist would give their shoulder chip for?

crankedup said:

In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

What's balance, and who decides? Forget the tricky bit of the solution that gets there. Just define the 'balance' point first. We can forget the issue of who is doing the deciding and, what authority or validity they bring

Definition of balance is easy peasy, equilibrium neither weighted north or south from a centralised point.

WTF? Is the point Birmingham by any chance? Too far south? Talk about transparently avoiding the question...

crankedup said:

Lower Corp tax - agreed, provided the closing of tax loopholes that are used by Corporations are continued with gusto.

Just lower the tax. Corporate tax lawyers and the best accountants will always be ahead of the curve.

As a strategy it has a track record after all, illustrated by income tax (USA) and CGT (Ireland) to cite just two examples.

[crankedup]

xjsdriver said:

crankedup said:

Tax till it squeaks the uber wealthy for re-distribution to the less well off.

Seriously the Government needs to increase the tax take by getting more into work created by improving the U.K. competitiveness in the Global market. Problem is there will always be the winners and losers. In a successful industrialised Country we should have a Society that is fair and reasonable. Simple, it's the solution to getting the balance that is proving tricky.

Employers on here: Who would you prefer worked for you? Some (native) mong who has no interest in putting in a hard day's work - or someone from outwith our shores with a work ethic? I know who I'd employ first of all.
That said, it's only a small percentage of those who wilfully refuse to find a job - the majority of the unemployed detest not being in work, but it seems to be more and more acceptable these days to tar them with the same brush.

The tone of the question is so biased!

It depends upon the actual work required, with that in mind I would want to be sure that whoever I employed would be able to demonstrate the wherewithal to 'grow' with the Company. I wouldn't go for an individual who wasn't able to speak English which obviously puts up a barrier to learning new skills and education.
If its purely graft required I would choose the person with the biggest muscles

Unfortunately the wages have been driven down to such an extent that young individuals, broadly speaking, are unable to be able to afford a home of their own, whilst imported labour chooses to send their wages back home which represents a small fortune for them Unequal playing field so we have to drop to that lower standard?

[anonymous-user]

Steffan said:

So houses did indeed disappear. You can see the lack of them everywhere.

Are you serious? The council house sell off was a change of ownership, that's all. It has no bearing on what has or hasn't been built since.

[xjsdriver]

fblm said:

Are you serious? The council house sell off was a change of ownership, that's all. It has no bearing on what has or hasn't been built since.

Imagine you are a council, and you have - let's say 50 homes and you sell 20, but don't go on to rebuild 20, then you no longer have 50 homes you can rent out..... and a shortfall is the situation that's been created.
This happened with just about every council up and down the country and surprise, surprise it was the nicest, in best state of repair of the council stock that went first. If you can't see this has been anything but a disaster in the making then you are truly deluded - I pity the day my daughter has to try and buy a place of her own.

[PugwasHDJ80]

xjsdriver said:

Imagine you are a council, and you have - let's say 50 homes and you sell 20, but don't go on to rebuild 20, then you no longer have 50 homes you can rent out..... and a shortfall is the situation that's been created.

In your example where have the extra 20 householders from from, and what were they doing before the council created this "shortfall" of yours?

Surely the council had 50 people needing houses, it housed them in 50 houses. It then sold 20 of the houses to those householders.

You still have 50 people needing houses- just now 20 of them own their own homes and 30 are being housed by the council.

where's the shortfall?

[davepoth]

Well, the problem is that there was historically a waiting list for council houses, so there were tenants waiting to go into them.

Right to Buy was quite a sensible policy really - the properties that were sold (certainly locally to me) were getting older and increasingly high maintenance, so it got those off the books in a way that made a lot of people happy. My grandparent's 1950s jobby had a stream running under the floor that had caused a distinctly lopsided floor. Goodness knows how they ever got a mortgage for it.

If the councils had only managed to replace them with modern housing stock at the same time, it would have been a genius move.

[Countdown]

nikaiyo2 said:

What council houses were sold at a loss in the 80s?
I was under the impression that most of the property sold was post war building boom stock...

All council housing is sold at a significant discount to market value (35% upwards). The ONLY people who benefit are those people that buy, and their nearest and dearest (who often encourage mummy/daddy to buy, on the hope that they get a nice little inheritance once they pass on or move into sheltered accommodation).

[Countdown]

davepoth said:

Well, the problem is that there was historically a waiting list for council houses, so there were tenants waiting to go into them.

Right to Buy was quite a sensible policy really - the properties that were sold (certainly locally to me) were getting older and increasingly high maintenance, so it got those off the books in a way that made a lot of people happy. My grandparent's 1950s jobby had a stream running under the floor that had caused a distinctly lopsided floor. Goodness knows how they ever got a mortgage for it.

If the councils had only managed to replace them with modern housing stock at the same time, it would have been a genius move.

It really wasn't (a good policy). All council houses should be at a "Decent Homes" standard (thus preventing situations such as your grandparents). The cost of maintaining them is far less than the amount you and I end up paying to BTL landlords to provide accommodation for the needy. And councils were not allowed to keep most of the income from RTB sales - it had to be given back to Central Govt.