Therese Coffey on removal of universal credit uplift
Discussion
ZedLeg said:
You realise that applying negative stereotypes to whole groups of people based on a bad experience you’ve had is the basis of prejudice though, right?
I've applied the term 'lazy sods' to the sods who expect their idle lifestyle to be subsidised by the state rather than trying to make their situation better. I'm prejudiced against idle whingers, certainly.If I want something I expect to work for it rather than have it provided for me from other's work & earnings. I think it reasonable to expect the exact same from others.
Northernboy said:
No, you suggested that you aren’t capable of funding her to the point that she doesn’t need benefits, which I just don’t understand. Having your partner need money from the state if you aren’t disabled or unwell just isn’t something that I understand.
You are complaining about the uplift to her UC being removed, as though it’s the state’s job to support her, not yours.
That’s where we differ. I understand that you don’t want to explain what you’ve done in life to mean that you can’t support your other half, but you then seem to have a real problem with people who’ve made different decisions and aren’t in your situation.
In essence you want me, and others like me, to pay for your family’s living costs as you won’t.
I don't think you really understand the job and wage situation for some in this country at all. There are a great many people who could not support there partners if one of them lost their job, its a very common situation people find themselves in. Sometimes people need some short term help (the majority of people on benefits want to be back working as soon as they can). Thankfully we live somewhere that helps people that sometimes need a boostYou are complaining about the uplift to her UC being removed, as though it’s the state’s job to support her, not yours.
That’s where we differ. I understand that you don’t want to explain what you’ve done in life to mean that you can’t support your other half, but you then seem to have a real problem with people who’ve made different decisions and aren’t in your situation.
In essence you want me, and others like me, to pay for your family’s living costs as you won’t.
It's weird how Johnson and Co (and all Governments) can waste untold £billions on vanity projects, contracts for their mates and all the other corrupt s
t they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.
But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
t they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
MonkeyMatt said:
Northernboy said:
No, you suggested that you aren’t capable of funding her to the point that she doesn’t need benefits, which I just don’t understand. Having your partner need money from the state if you aren’t disabled or unwell just isn’t something that I understand.
You are complaining about the uplift to her UC being removed, as though it’s the state’s job to support her, not yours.
That’s where we differ. I understand that you don’t want to explain what you’ve done in life to mean that you can’t support your other half, but you then seem to have a real problem with people who’ve made different decisions and aren’t in your situation.
In essence you want me, and others like me, to pay for your family’s living costs as you won’t.
I don't think you really understand the job and wage situation for some in this country at all. There are a great many people who could not support there partners if one of them lost their job, its a very common situation people find themselves in. Sometimes people need some short term help (the majority of people on benefits want to be back working as soon as they can). Thankfully we live somewhere that helps people that sometimes need a boostYou are complaining about the uplift to her UC being removed, as though it’s the state’s job to support her, not yours.
That’s where we differ. I understand that you don’t want to explain what you’ve done in life to mean that you can’t support your other half, but you then seem to have a real problem with people who’ve made different decisions and aren’t in your situation.
In essence you want me, and others like me, to pay for your family’s living costs as you won’t.
Rivenink said:
It's weird how Johnson and Co (and all Governments) can waste untold £billions on vanity projects, contracts for their mates and all the other corrupt st they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.
But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
It's not weird it's their ideology.t they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
LargeRed said:
well Boris has just cancelled the 'Silly Tunnel' that would have allowed silly NI and Jocks to visit each other.
£15B ....Saved
It has not been ‘saved’ as there was no spending earmarked for it (maybe a few quid on a feasibility study perhaps).£15B ....Saved
It’s a bit like saying I’m no longer buying a Rolls Royce that I can’t afford so I’ve saved £250k. Never had to begin with.
It’s was just another Boris pipe dream anyhow.
Northernboy said:
ZedLeg said:
What a load of nonsense.
First of all, my partner is unwell. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. Again reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit..
I never said your partner should work. I said that I don’t understand why you think that it’s the state’s job to support her rather than yours.First of all, my partner is unwell. As I mentioned earlier in the thread. Again reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit..
You feel that it’s more the responsibility of others rather than of you. And let’s not have you criticising the ability of others when you are pretending that you don’t have the ability to support your family despite supposedly being of sound body and mind.
It’s this refusal to take any responsibility that I just find strange.
I almost wonder at this point if you are a parody account, you are happy to insult others yet get self-righteous when someone politely asks why you are so unwilling to take on extra work to help out your own partner.
ZL has already mentioned that his partner is unwell and unable to work. We don't know the familial circumstances, income and overheads.
I don't think many would begrudge help to those who are unwell and need it.
I suspect it's not quite as easy as clicking one's fingers and finding another job to cover a significant drop in income if one partner is suddenly unable to work from ill health.
MonkeyMatt said:
don't think you really understand the job and wage situation for some in this country at all. There are a great many people who could not support there partners if one of them lost their job, its a very common situation people find themselves in. Sometimes people need some short term help (the majority of people on benefits want to be back working as soon as they can). Thankfully we live somewhere that helps people that sometimes need a boost
I do understand this. What I don’t understand is someone choosing not to take on extra work while complaining that it’s the state’s responsibility to pick up the slack instead.That “state” money comes from other working families, choosing not to pick up some weekend or evening work but just to complain about benefits makes no sense at all to me.
g3org3y said:
I think you're being overly harsh tbh.
ZL has already mentioned that his partner is unwell and unable to work. We don't know the familial circumstances, income and overheads.
And it’s right that the state offers support.ZL has already mentioned that his partner is unwell and unable to work. We don't know the familial circumstances, income and overheads.
Where he and I differ us that while I’d feel grateful that we have a system like this in place he prefers to complain that they aren’t getting more.
The benefits are what they are; if you want more you need to take on additional work to cover it.
I just think it reflects a very different outlook on life and entitlement. Despite his trying to play the victim here, he knows that it’s not his partner’s not working that I am questioning, it’s his attitude that he has no responsibility to take on a second job to help.
And for someone so keen to insult others, his complaints of victimisation here don’t ring true either.
I'm still waiting for you to point out these insults, I'll happily apologise for any as they weren't intended.
Again, I wasn't complaining about my situation. I said we would manage but a lot of other people wouldn't.
I'm very grateful for the state support we get and as a socialist I would fight for the rights of anyone who needs it.
You are reading things I'm not saying into my comments, I'm not sure why.
Again, I wasn't complaining about my situation. I said we would manage but a lot of other people wouldn't.
I'm very grateful for the state support we get and as a socialist I would fight for the rights of anyone who needs it.
You are reading things I'm not saying into my comments, I'm not sure why.
Northernboy said:
And it’s right that the state offers support.
Where he and I differ us that while I’d feel grateful that we have a system like this in place he prefers to complain that they aren’t getting more.
The benefits are what they are; if you want more you need to take on additional work to cover it.
I just think it reflects a very different outlook on life and entitlement. Despite his trying to play the victim here, he knows that it’s not his partner’s not working that I am questioning, it’s his attitude that he has no responsibility to take on a second job to help.
And for someone so keen to insult others, his complaints of victimisation here don’t ring true either.
This doesn't seem a particularly fair view. You can criticise 'good' state systems without necessarily being entitled, particularly as everyone pays some share of it through a mixture of taxation (good luck avoiding VAT, even if you're on benefits) and adhering to the social contract.Where he and I differ us that while I’d feel grateful that we have a system like this in place he prefers to complain that they aren’t getting more.
The benefits are what they are; if you want more you need to take on additional work to cover it.
I just think it reflects a very different outlook on life and entitlement. Despite his trying to play the victim here, he knows that it’s not his partner’s not working that I am questioning, it’s his attitude that he has no responsibility to take on a second job to help.
And for someone so keen to insult others, his complaints of victimisation here don’t ring true either.
MrMan001 said:
This doesn't seem a particularly fair view. You can criticise 'good' state systems without necessarily being entitled, particularly as everyone pays some share of it through a mixture of taxation (good luck avoiding VAT, even if you're on benefits) and adhering to the social contract.
Actually something like 50% of all households pay no taxes (net) as they are more than offset by benefits and tax credits.If the Conservatives take any lesson from this episode it will be to never again give a temporary uplift in benefits at times of crisis, as rather than people seeing it as a positive action they will instead just criticize when the situation returns to normal.
Northernboy said:
Actually something like 50% of all households pay no taxes (net) as they are more than offset by benefits and tax credits.
If the Conservatives take any lesson from this episode it will be to never again give a temporary uplift in benefits at times of crisis, as rather than people seeing it as a positive action they will instead just criticize when the situation returns to normal.
I'd suggest that simply paying taxes in any form (net contributor or not) and following the general rules of society are enough reason to have a say on how tax revenue is spent, without being considered entitled.If the Conservatives take any lesson from this episode it will be to never again give a temporary uplift in benefits at times of crisis, as rather than people seeing it as a positive action they will instead just criticize when the situation returns to normal.
Rivenink said:
It's weird how Johnson and Co (and all Governments) can waste untold £billions on vanity projects, contracts for their mates and all the other corrupt st they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.
But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
The £20 a week temporary increase works out at over £6 billion a year. BBC News this morning reckoned there were 5.9 million people claiming Universal Credit.t they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
I worked in a supermarket for 10 years, after taking early retirement. About 70% of the staff worked 16 hours a week - just enough to qualify for UC, and not be affected by the taper. The youngsters and middle-aged workers wanted more hours, as they didn't qualify for UC.
Women with kids at home just wanted to stick with their 16 hours, getting the maximum benefits for the minimum amount of work.
I can't say I blame them for playing the system, but it doesn't make it right for the country when we are facing a labour shortage.
Rivenink said:
It's weird how Johnson and Co (and all Governments) can waste untold £billions on vanity projects, contracts for their mates and all the other corrupt st they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.
But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
A better comparison is the £50,000 bounce back loans, nobody seemed to kick up much of a fuss when people who were typically wealthy were getting these dished out without checks. t they do. £12 billlion for Track and Trace, that was massively ineffective. MoD spaffings £billions on mismanaged projects by defence companies that run massively over-budget.But an extra couple £billion a year paying £20 a week to UC claiments who have been means tested, and are in genuine need of public money is too much for some people.
Fiddling with the deck chairs while the proverbial ship sinks.
My boss used his to pay 50k off the mortgage on his second home. Plenty of people went out and bought a nice car or something. Loads more took them out with the intention of folding the business.
Could cost the tax payer 27bn. This society prefers to punch down rather than up.
https://www.accountancydaily.co/defaults-bounce-ba...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff