Jobless mum spends £2k of benefits on christmas

[whoami]

DuncanM said:

rover 623gsi said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/welfar...

Excellent post but likely to be utterly ignored on PH.

Well done for trying though.

A cut and paste from The Huffington Post does not constitute excellence I'm afraid.

[Steffan]

DuncanM said:

rover 623gsi said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/welfar...

Excellent post but likely to be utterly ignored on PH.

Well done for trying though.

It is indeed an excellent post. Very well written. Convincing even. But it answers the wrong questions. It cheerfully ignores the fundamental problem. The UK cannot afford the current extent of government borrowing. Even under the current, less give away government, this is set to soar steadily year upon year upon year. That is the real difficulty in this matter.

What cuts are the supporters of the current Status Quo in government expenditure prepared to accept? Where are the cuts going to be made? I ask thus repeatedly and get no response. There is no other economic solution to our failing economy. Unpalatable it may be. But it is an economic fact.

[Mobile Chicane]

Steffan said:

DuncanM said:

rover 623gsi said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/welfar...

Excellent post but likely to be utterly ignored on PH.

Well done for trying though.

It is indeed an excellent post. Very well written. Convincing even. But it answers the wrong questions. It cheerfully ignores the fundamental problem. The UK cannot afford the current extent of government borrowing. Even under the current, less give away government, this is set to soar steadily year upon year upon year. That is the real difficulty in this matter.

What cuts are the supporters of the current Status Quo in government expenditure prepared to accept? Where are the cuts going to be made? I ask thus repeatedly and get no response. There is no other economic solution to our failing economy. Unpalatable it may be. But it is an economic fact.

The Baltics have the answer.

In Estonia, all public sector salaries were cut by 10%, and minister's salaries by 20%.

Guess what? Estonia's economy grew by 7.6% in 2011.

[rover 623gsi]

Steffan said:

It is indeed an excellent post. Very well written. Convincing even. But it answers the wrong questions. It cheerfully ignores the fundamental problem. The UK cannot afford the current extent of government borrowing. Even under the current, less give away government, this is set to soar steadily year upon year upon year. That is the real difficulty in this matter.

What cuts are the supporters of the current Status Quo in government expenditure prepared to accept? Where are the cuts going to be made? I ask thus repeatedly and get no response. There is no other economic solution to our failing economy. Unpalatable it may be. But it is an economic fact.

I accept that there is only so much money around and there is a need to make spending cuts across the board - and I actually believe that political scared cows such as health and pensions needs should not be exempt from cuts. But I think it is very wrong that the govt continually gives the impression that it is welfare and benefit 'scroungers' that has brought the country to its knees.

There are a number of reasons why Britain is facing economic difficulties and it will take a number of solutions to help get us in a better position, but the govt disproportionately promotes one solution - cutting benefits to the 'undeserving' poor.

[greygoose]

Mobile Chicane said:

The Baltics have the answer.

In Estonia, all public sector salaries were cut by 10%, and minister's salaries by 20%.

Guess what? Estonia's economy grew by 7.6% in 2011.

I suspect their flat rate tax of 21% had more to do with the growth than the pay cuts.

[Lotusevoraboy]

And this way she has enough cash to buy designer clothes and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.



With names like this are they Jewish...do they even celebrate Xmas?

[greygoose]

At the risk of being completely wrong, she doesn't look very Jewish.

[Deva Link]

greygoose said:

Mobile Chicane said:

The Baltics have the answer.

In Estonia, all public sector salaries were cut by 10%, and minister's salaries by 20%.

Guess what? Estonia's economy grew by 7.6% in 2011.

I suspect their flat rate tax of 21% had more to do with the growth than the pay cuts.

If you're an employer, how do fancy their employers NI rate - 33%?

[whoami]

greygoose said:

At the risk of being completely wrong, she doesn't look very Jewish.

What do you mean?

[Silver]

rover 623gsi said:

I accept that there is only so much money around and there is a need to make spending cuts across the board - and I actually believe that political scared cows such as health and pensions needs should not be exempt from cuts. But I think it is very wrong that the govt continually gives the impression that it is welfare and benefit 'scroungers' that has brought the country to its knees.

There are a number of reasons why Britain is facing economic difficulties and it will take a number of solutions to help get us in a better position, but the govt disproportionately promotes one solution - cutting benefits to the 'undeserving' poor.

Absolutely agree. The end result is that people come to believe that benefits = scrounger which is utterly wrong.

[Steffan]

Silver said:

rover 623gsi said:

I accept that there is only so much money around and there is a need to make spending cuts across the board - and I actually believe that political scared cows such as health and pensions needs should not be exempt from cuts. But I think it is very wrong that the govt continually gives the impression that it is welfare and benefit 'scroungers' that has brought the country to its knees.

There are a number of reasons why Britain is facing economic difficulties and it will take a number of solutions to help get us in a better position, but the govt disproportionately promotes one solution - cutting benefits to the 'undeserving' poor.

Absolutely agree. The end result is that people come to believe that benefits = scrounger which is utterly wrong.

So do I. But what are we going to do to solve the totally unsustainable overspending by politicians? That is the real question. Which as yet I have not seen examined in detail by anyone in PH.

The devil is in the detail of where the cuts will have to fall, not in hand wringing over the inevitably unpleasant consequences. We either face the problem as an economy or our economy will fail. Concern over the needs of the poor and protection of the weak are admirable attitudes and I share them. However they do not form the basis of sound economics. That is what is needed and that is what we need to concentrate upon.

[wolves_wanderer]

greygoose said:

Mobile Chicane said:

The Baltics have the answer.

In Estonia, all public sector salaries were cut by 10%, and minister's salaries by 20%.

Guess what? Estonia's economy grew by 7.6% in 2011.

I suspect their flat rate tax of 21% had more to do with the growth than the pay cuts.

I suspect the start from a very low base had more to do with it than either of those factors.

[JagLover]

DuncanM said:

rover 623gsi said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/welfar...

Excellent post but likely to be utterly ignored on PH.

Well done for trying though.

Historic comparisons are rather beside the point as welfare spending has been excessive since the 1980s, which is where we saw rapid growth in those reliant on welfare as a way of life. We may have been just about to afford this in the good times, but those times are gone. We are in a depression and the baby boomers are retiring to boot, we either tackle these built up problems or go into bankruptcy.

As far as I am concerned welfare spending for those who regard it as a way of life is a very large part of the 'structural' deficit. Consider your average worker, he goes to work and the economic activity he generates at that business generates a certain tax revenue. He earns a salary and pays Paye/NI at source. Just by travelling to and from work and by occupying a home he pays further taxes.

On average, over his life, he probably pays his way for all the government services he will consume, and if everyone were like that we would have budget balance. Add millions reliant on state benefits and not only are they not paying for their services they consume but drawing an income from the state as well. Rather simplistic it is true but I see in welfare the fundamental reason why many say that people are not willing to pay higher taxes for the public services they expect. They already pay those taxes, but those services are shared with those not contributing.

As for the low monetary value of Job Seekers Allowance. That is always cited by left wingers saying how benefits are so low. About the only people who are ever reliant on JSA is those who pay for it all who turn up at the Job Centre expecting something back in their temporary time of need, only to find that benefits have been ‘targeted’ on the most needy, so here’s a glorified luncheon voucher instead. JSA should be a proportion of your last salary, capped, say, at median eranings, but only for those who have paid in.