... you talk as if he had a choice.... there was no choice, either coalition or another election..

 

Neither Labour or the Lib Dems had any money to fight another election, they were both skint after this one, had talks broken down and another election called it would have bankrupted both parties so neither had any real aces to play

The welfare cuts are in housing benefit where fraud and sponging is rife, the £400 a week cap is the best thing that has been bought in in years in welfare, it should be even lower, I would have lowered it to £250, you may want to see spongers like that Somalian bus driver living in plush mansions but the majority of tax payers rightly want that kind of thing stopped, the budget also targeted those that are milking the system in disability benefit, the majority of disability claimants are trying it on, it is good sense to get them off disability benefit and onto job seekers allowance, pure common sense.

 

JSA an pensions are not being cut, the rate of disability benefit is not being cut, the money you referred to is coming from stopping people defrauding the system by living in mansions and from moving people capable of work off to the lower paid job seekers allowance.

 

Both are excellent measures.

That 'Somalian bus driver' is a one-off case. You clearly know nothing of the difficulties most people already on housing benefit face if you think £400 a week is the best thing brought in in years (and would've lowered it further to £250 :wacko:), given that the National Housing Foundation has estimated 200,000 do face eviction.

 

Christ Craig, the least I'd have expected in your time off would've been for you to READ what the coalition is doing! JSA and disability benefits have both been slashed by 10%.

 

It is right that the poor should face the highest burden, the middle class and the rich are the people who keep the High St alive so the less burden they face the better as the economy and service industry is dependent on them spending, the poor not spending much is something I can live with, as long as they have running water and are not dying of starvation or dysentry then I see nothing wrong in them shouldering the biggest burden of the debt repayment.

 

Cut the money supply to the middle classes and the rich you risk strangling the service sector, not a good idea

:manson::manson::manson::manson::manson:

 

You are a f***ing c**t Craig. The bolded parts of that sentence are possibly the most horrific things I've ever read from you, and god knows there's a lot of competition.

 

Let's have a nice little metaphor shall we? A thief steals from a victim. Who should pay for most of this - the thief or the victim? You seem to think the victim should pay as the thief's actions help the economy. Funny how you have morality except where money's concerned, you f***ing hypocrite.

 

Ever dealt with strangling debt repayments accrued just to live day to day? With your benefits being cut at the same time? Whilst barely making the breadline? You'd gladly have the poor crushed into the dust just so the rich could carry on gambling huge amounts of money and getting fat off money they ought to be paying back to society for bailing them out, you vile, immoral hog.

That 'Somalian bus driver' is a one-off case. You clearly know nothing of the difficulties most people already on housing benefit face if you think £400 a week is the best thing brought in in years (and would've lowered it further to £250 :wacko:), given that the National Housing Foundation has estimated 200,000 do face eviction.

 

Christ Craig, the least I'd have expected in your time off would've been for you to READ what the coalition is doing! JSA and disability benefits have both been slashed by 10%.

:manson::manson::manson::manson::manson:

 

You are a f***ing c**t Craig. The bolded parts of that sentence are possibly the most horrific things I've ever read from you, and god knows there's a lot of competition.

 

Let's have a nice little metaphor shall we? A thief steals from a victim. Who should pay for most of this - the thief or the victim? You seem to think the victim should pay as the thief's actions help the economy. Funny how you have morality except where money's concerned, you f***ing hypocrite.

 

Ever dealt with strangling debt repayments accrued just to live day to day? With your benefits being cut at the same time? Whilst barely making the breadline? You'd gladly have the poor crushed into the dust just so the rich could carry on gambling huge amounts of money and getting fat off money they ought to be paying back to society for bailing them out, you vile, immoral hog.

 

Do you have any links about these 10% cuts ? I have read nothing about this in my absence nor can I find anything about it online, the only thing I remember Osborne saying last month is that benefits will RISE at a slightly lower scale prices index so over 2 years the most that benefits will fall buy will be about 1%, nothing like 10% unless of course you can show me the evidence.

 

Housing benefit capped at £400 a week = £1600 a month, no one needs to go out and rent a property at those sort of prices, if they do then they can pay the extra themselves

 

Actually yes I have, while I have never claimed benefits I have been bankrupt and know what it is like to be chased up by debt collectors. I know what it is like to lose near enough everything thank you.

 

The poor are not forced to be poor, they can go out and make something of their lives, make sacrifices, put in effort, start businesses, get a job, if they want to sit around feeling sorry for themselves and wanting pity as opposed to fighting to break out of poverty then they deserve to be poor.

 

I was born on a council estate, I lived my school years on a council estate, I am not some old Etonian born with a silver spoon in his mouth, I know what it is like to share a bedroom with 3 or 4 people, taking it in turns to sleep on floor so each of us would get a bed for 2 or 3 nights in the week, I know what it is like to have to walk miles an miles across snow drifted fields to work as we didn't have a car, I know what it is like to be poor, you know what ? it was the best thing that ever happened to me because it gave me the drive and determination to break out from those surroundings, others don't want to do that that is not my problem

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

My manifesto for welfare reform

 

1) Child benefit only payable for the first child and only available to households earning less than £30,000 a year

 

2) Automatic prison sentences for benefit cheats and fraudsters

 

3) Housing benefit capped at 400 p/w for London/SE and 250 p/w nationally

 

4) No benefits for any immigrant until they have paid taxes for 5 years

 

5) Unemployment related benefits only paid on a 1 years tax = 1 months benefit basis, claimants get a months benefit for every year they have paid tax

 

6) Life ban from welfare for anyone caught faking a disability or mental illness

 

7) Charities take over providing assistance to unemployed once their qualifying period for benefits (see 5) is over

Do you have any links about these 10% cuts ? I have read nothing about this in my absence nor can I find anything about it online, the only thing I remember Osborne saying last month is that benefits will RISE at a slightly lower scale prices index so over 2 years the most that benefits will fall buy will be about 1%, nothing like 10% unless of course you can show me the evidence.

 

Housing benefit capped at £400 a week = £1600 a month, no one needs to go out and rent a property at those sort of prices, if they do then they can pay the extra themselves

 

Actually yes I have, while I have never claimed benefits I have been bankrupt and know what it is like to be chased up by debt collectors. I know what it is like to lose near enough everything thank you.

 

The poor are not forced to be poor, they can go out and make something of their lives, make sacrifices, put in effort, start businesses, get a job, if they want to sit around feeling sorry for themselves and wanting pity as opposed to fighting to break out of poverty then they deserve to be poor.

 

I was born on a council estate, I lived my school years on a council estate, I am not some old Etonian born with a silver spoon in his mouth, I know what it is like to share a bedroom with 3 or 4 people, taking it in turns to sleep on floor so each of us would get a bed for 2 or 3 nights in the week, I know what it is like to have to walk miles an miles across snow drifted fields to work as we didn't have a car, I know what it is like to be poor, you know what ? it was the best thing that ever happened to me because it gave me the drive and determination to break out from those surroundings, others don't want to do that that is not my problem

The first three paragraphs for the JSA cut: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10499354

 

The poor are not forced to be poor but basic statistical analysis of developed nations shows consistently that the more the poor are supported and nurtured, the more likely they are to make a success of themselves. Cutting them off at a time when jobs are hard enough to find as it is isn't going to help them. If I, as somebody with damned good qualifications and a very good place at university in the bag, can't find a job and have to take on something as unstable as commission-based sandwich selling as a living for now, then what hope do most have who were left behind in their education?

 

£400 a month is for four-bedroomed houses. It's £280 a week for one-bedroomed houses - and both of those figures are fairly precarious for those who live in major cities.

 

Drive and determination only gets you so far. The big shame is that those for whom it does get far tend to forget that it doesn't happen that way for everyone.

The first three paragraphs for the JSA cut: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10499354

 

The poor are not forced to be poor but basic statistical analysis of developed nations shows consistently that the more the poor are supported and nurtured, the more likely they are to make a success of themselves. Cutting them off at a time when jobs are hard enough to find as it is isn't going to help them. If I, as somebody with damned good qualifications and a very good place at university in the bag, can't find a job and have to take on something as unstable as commission-based sandwich selling as a living for now, then what hope do most have who were left behind in their education?

 

£400 a month is for four-bedroomed houses. It's £280 a week for one-bedroomed houses - and both of those figures are fairly precarious for those who live in major cities.

 

Drive and determination only gets you so far. The big shame is that those for whom it does get far tend to forget that it doesn't happen that way for everyone.

 

Aah didn't know about the 10% thing cheers for the article, that is for those that are out of work for more than a year though and it doesn't happen for another 3 years and in this day and age there is no real excuse for an able bodied person to be out of work for 12 months, there are jobs out there, lots of them, they may not all be well paid but if I was out of work I would take ANYTHING, keeps one busy, gives one self respect and someone who is out of work has no real reason to be out of work for a year tbh.

 

I was down in Devon this last week, lovely area, went out for dinner every night, 5 different places, in only 1 of those places was I served by someone English, I was served by Australians, Romanians, Poles and a Frenchman, they all came into this country and got work, not glamourous work, not well paid work but work all the same, if they can then our unemployed have no real excuse not to get a job inside 12 months.

 

This 10% cut will only affect those that are not trying hard enough.

You only get Jobseekers' Allowance for six months, then you change over to something else...and to receive JSA, you need proof of application to at least three jobs a week. It's pretty difficult to not be trying hard enough, especially in places like London where jobs go pretty much as soon as they open - and where people are being hit the hardest with the benefits cuts and cost of living.

2) Automatic prison sentences for benefit cheats and fraudsters

 

Do you also think that tax evaders should receive tougher punishments, considering they cheat the State out of FAR more money than the minority of benefits recepients who are claiming fraudulently?

Do you also think that tax evaders should receive tougher punishments, considering they cheat the State out of FAR more money than the minority of benefits recepients who are claiming fraudulently?

 

I am in favour of automatic prison sentences for tax fraud too yes, fraud is fraud be it a benefit cheat who claims benefit and works on the side or pretends to be disabled or a rich guy filling in false claims, I don't condone fraud

 

if you mean businessmen that exploit loopholes then that is legal, am I in favour of loopholes being closed ? yes, should they be punished for exploiting them ? no

 

 

 

 

I'd recommend to Justin Bieber's #1 fan and anyone else who thinks similarly to read 'The Spirit Level'. It proves conclusively that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are almost always healthier (both physically and mentally), have better education systems, have lower rates of drug abuse, lower crime rates, lower obesity rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and higher happiness ratings, PLUS they generally weathered the financial crisis better than any other country (aside from the booming Chinese/Indian/Mexican economies). Unsurprisingly, the UK and the US scored poorly in all said categories.

 

It helps us ALL if we have a more equal society, because it would mean we'd have to pay less out in incapacity/unemployment benefits, we'd have more jobs on offer meaning the tax burden would be more widely spread out (thus decreasing the burden on each individual), we wouldn't be at risk of crime all the time and then have to pay for those criminals' stays in jail, we wouldn't have to pay for the offspring of feckless teenagers, and we wouldn't have to pay through the nose for people wrecking their health.

I'd recommend to Justin Bieber's #1 fan and anyone else who thinks similarly to read 'The Spirit Level'. It proves conclusively that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are almost always healthier (both physically and mentally), have better education systems, have lower rates of drug abuse, lower crime rates, lower obesity rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and higher happiness ratings, PLUS they generally weathered the financial crisis better than any other country (aside from the booming Chinese/Indian/Mexican economies). Unsurprisingly, the UK and the US scored poorly in all said categories.

 

It helps us ALL if we have a more equal society, because it would mean we'd have to pay less out in incapacity/unemployment benefits, we'd have more jobs on offer meaning the tax burden would be more widely spread out (thus decreasing the burden on each individual), we wouldn't be at risk of crime all the time and then have to pay for those criminals' stays in jail, we wouldn't have to pay for the offspring of feckless teenagers, and we wouldn't have to pay through the nose for people wrecking their health.

Ahahaha, I knew we were reading from the same hymn sheet! That book is my Bible :heart:

 

I'm assuming you've read my OTHER Bible, Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?

I'd recommend to Justin Bieber's #1 fan and anyone else who thinks similarly to read 'The Spirit Level'. It proves conclusively that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are almost always healthier (both physically and mentally), have better education systems, have lower rates of drug abuse, lower crime rates, lower obesity rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and higher happiness ratings, PLUS they generally weathered the financial crisis better than any other country (aside from the booming Chinese/Indian/Mexican economies). Unsurprisingly, the UK and the US scored poorly in all said categories.

 

It helps us ALL if we have a more equal society, because it would mean we'd have to pay less out in incapacity/unemployment benefits, we'd have more jobs on offer meaning the tax burden would be more widely spread out (thus decreasing the burden on each individual), we wouldn't be at risk of crime all the time and then have to pay for those criminals' stays in jail, we wouldn't have to pay for the offspring of feckless teenagers, and we wouldn't have to pay through the nose for people wrecking their health.

 

That is all the well and good but why should an unskilled person for example earn similar to or on the scale of a surgeon who studied for 7 years at medical school or an entrepreneur who took out a 2nd mortgage to start a business etc ? I believe in input=output, you get out of life what you put into it, if I studied for years and years to get qualified in a profession or started a business with all the risks involved I would feel very browned off if someone who didn't study hard or didn't take risks was earning similar to me.

 

 

That is all the well and good but why should an unskilled person for example earn similar to or on the scale of a surgeon who studied for 7 years at medical school or an entrepreneur who took out a 2nd mortgage to start a business etc ? I believe in input=output, you get out of life what you put into it, if I studied for years and years to get qualified in a profession or started a business with all the risks involved I would feel very browned off if someone who didn't study hard or didn't take risks was earning similar to me.

How is having a society where the top 10% earn on average 6 times more than the bottom 10% rather than twenty times making it so that they 'earn similar to or on scale to'. We're on about reducing massive inequality, not making everyone equal.

 

The surgeon example is tiresome. In 1980, the average CEO in America and the UK took 42 times the average worker’s wage. By 2000, it was 531 times. Did CEOs become 12 times more effective? In 2008, the CEO of the world’s largest and most successful bank earned £150,000. His name is Jiang Jianqing, and he runs the Industrial and Commerce Bank of China. By contrast, the head of the most unsuccessful investment bank earned £22m. His name was Richard Fuld, and he ran Lehman Brothers. We don't live in a pure meritocracy Craig.

How is having a society where the top 10% earn on average 6 times more than the bottom 10% rather than twenty times making it so that they 'earn similar to or on scale to'. We're on about reducing massive inequality, not making everyone equal.

 

With my example of the surgeon, the surgeon who did my knee earns in the region of £350,000 a year through NHS and private work, if you make him earn 6 times more than say a guy working in McDonalds getting £200 a week then you are effectively telling that surgeon that he has to earn £60k a year instead of £350k which is unfair on the surgeon

How is having a society where the top 10% earn on average 6 times more than the bottom 10% rather than twenty times making it so that they 'earn similar to or on scale to'. We're on about reducing massive inequality, not making everyone equal.

 

The surgeon example is tiresome. In 1980, the average CEO in America and the UK took 42 times the average worker’s wage. By 2000, it was 531 times. Did CEOs become 12 times more effective? In 2008, the CEO of the world’s largest and most successful bank earned £150,000. His name is Jiang Jianqing, and he runs the Industrial and Commerce Bank of China. By contrast, the head of the most unsuccessful investment bank earned £22m. His name was Richard Fuld, and he ran Lehman Brothers. We don't live in a pure meritocracy Craig.

 

But things are cheaper and the cost of living so much cheaper in China than in America/UK

 

 

With my example of the surgeon, the surgeon who did my knee earns in the region of £350,000 a year through NHS and private work, if you make him earn 6 times more than say a guy working in McDonalds getting £200 a week then you are effectively telling that surgeon that he has to earn £60k a year instead of £350k which is unfair on the surgeon

I said the top ten percent. It's more about increasing the amount the guy at the bottom earns and decreasing the amount the guy at the top earns.

 

On your latter post, you didn't answer me. Did CEO's become 12 times more effective? Article:

 

We are emerging now from a long dream- boom, built on a mess of financial trickery rather than on producing anything worthwhile. In the Nineties and the noughties we didn’t become more efficient or more productive – we simply became better at being conned. All the “triumphs of deregulation” bragged about by market fundamentalists from Ronald Reagan to Tony Blair were built on a nitroglycerine- base of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. The profits went almost entirely to the richest one per cent, while the bill after the burst goes to all of us.

 

It will take years to drive out all the delusions that cropped up in the mirage years. Even now, the bank lobbyists are fighting against re-regulating their sector – with the money we gave them in the bail- out. A few addled market fundamentalists are still singing their old tunes, warning that regulation will lead to “disaster”, as if the disaster hasn’t already happened in the system they midwifed into the world.

 

But under the cover of this row, more bad ideas are trying to crawl out of the rubble unnoticed. One of the most dramatic changes in the fake years was the transformation in pay for people at the top. In 1980, the average CEO in America and the UK took 42 times the average worker’s wage. By 2000, it was 531 times. Did CEOs become 12 times more effective? Or was this another trick of the boom-light?

 

The answer – and the solution – lies in an excellent book by the business writer David Bolchover called Pay Check: Are Top Earners Really Worth It? (Coptic, £11.99) It contains a stark contrast. In 2008, the CEO of the world’s largest and most successful bank earned £150,000. His name is Jiang Jianqing, and he runs the Industrial and Commerce Bank of China. By contrast, the head of the most unsuccessful investment bank earned £22m. His name was Richard Fuld, and he ran Lehman Brothers.

 

How does the CEO class in Britain and America justify the gap? It has constructed what Bolchover calls the “talent ideology”. Just as Rio Ferdinand is one of a handful of men who can kick a ball with great skill, just as Angelina Jolie is one of a handful of women who can pack out the multiplexes, so there is a handful of people who can be CEOs of large companies. They determine whether corporations rise and fall. They carry billions on their backs. For great talent, you must pay great cash.

 

But is it true? If you look at the biggest surges in CEO pay, they bore almost no relation to their "talent" at all. You can prove it on a graph. To pick just one example: CEO pay at the top of the global investment banks soared when the overall global economy was booming. Then, when the global economy sank, their pay dipped a little (although never even close to the level it had been before the boom). In truth, as Bolchover explains, "Whether he had talent or not was irrelevant. He just happened to be the head of a company that was performing, more or less, as it would have done with a different leader... He was not a hero [or]a dunce. He was just there." It's like paying the captain of a ship a massive bonus when the tide comes in, and then dipping it a tiny amount when the tide goes out, while he brags about his "genius" at every turn.

 

The same principle runs across many industries. The CEOs of oil companies can rake in half a billion dollars a year when the oil price is high – but how is that their achievement? Conversely, after the crash, CEOs who could not have shown less talent – who oversaw the destruction of their companies – walked away with fortunes. No: “talent” was always a cover for seizing the most they could get. In practice, these men were setting their own wages, with little supervision from shareholders. Imagine you could go into work tomorrow and do the same. Wouldn’t you be earning more than you are today – or than you deserve? I hereby demand that GQ pay me £40,000 for this column, now, with a £20,000 bonus for meeting my deadline and an extra £10,000 for not torching their offices.

 

Yes, there is a real talent in being a CEO – but it is not especially rare. Bolshover argues that there are a dozen people in the hierarchy of any large company who would be as plausible a CEO as anybody who gets the job, and dozens of contenders who could be poached from a competitor, and hundreds in other fields.

 

Of course, the very same people who told us the market would deal efficiently with subprime mortgages and credit default swaps are throwing up their hands and saying that the market will deal efficiently with CEO pay. But it doesn’t, and it won’t.

 

There is a better way. Bolchover suggests when a company has narrowed its CEO selection down to six good candidates, it should ask everyone on the shortlist to name the lowest wage and bonus package they are prepared to work for. The one who comes in with the lowest bid should get the job. (There would be a reasonable floor to make sure independently rich people didn’t fill them all by offering to work for £1.)

 

Plenty of extremely able people would be happy to run a major corporation for a fraction of the current pay: the prime minister earns £130,000 a year, and there’s no shortage of candidates. Government regulation should make this standard practice. Suddenly, instead of the endless puffing up of CEO pay, it would start to fall to reasonable levels. It would be hugely popular: a poll for the Financial Times found 80 per cent of us think business leaders are overpaid.

It would be a sign – at last – of a return to sobriety after the crazed, confected amphetamine rush of the boom-dream.

 

It's not really anything to do with the cost of living in these nations Craig, it's more to do with greed. Even if your point had ANYTHING to it, are you seriously suggesting that the cost of living is approximately 150 times less in China? Because that's how much less he earned.

I said the top ten percent. It's more about increasing the amount the guy at the bottom earns and decreasing the amount the guy at the top earns.

 

On your latter post, you didn't answer me. Did CEO's become 12 times more effective? Article:

It's not really anything to do with the cost of living in these nations Craig, it's more to do with greed. Even if your point had ANYTHING to it, are you seriously suggesting that the cost of living is approximately 150 times less in China? Because that's how much less he earned.

 

China is only now starting to develop as an economic powerhouse, give it 5 years the greed is good culture will spread through China like wildfire and the top bankers will be on salaries that would make American's envious, China is a developing economic powerhouse, capitalism will be rampant through China before too long.

 

In terms of your other point maybe not but I doubt basic salary has risen by 12 times in that time, share options, performance related pay, profit sharing etc have all boosted what CEO's are taking home.

My manifesto for welfare reform

 

1) Child benefit only payable for the first child and only available to households earning less than £30,000 a year

 

2) Automatic prison sentences for benefit cheats and fraudsters

 

3) Housing benefit capped at 400 p/w for London/SE and 250 p/w nationally

 

4) No benefits for any immigrant until they have paid taxes for 5 years

 

5) Unemployment related benefits only paid on a 1 years tax = 1 months benefit basis, claimants get a months benefit for every year they have paid tax

 

6) Life ban from welfare for anyone caught faking a disability or mental illness

 

7) Charities take over providing assistance to unemployed once their qualifying period for benefits (see 5) is over

 

Do you know what Welfare means? :blink:

 

this doesnt look like a welfare reform to me, but more a '7 steps to f*** up welfare'.

Do you know what Welfare means? :blink:

 

this doesnt look like a welfare reform to me, but more a '7 steps to f*** up welfare'.

 

The welfare state is a monster that is totally out of control, a rampant beast that is eating away at the financials of this country and eating away at the morals of this country, the monster needs taking down

 

It has become a way of life, a career option for many and that is utterly wrong and unacceptable to me.

 

The welfare state should be there to help the elderly and the disabled and offer a temporary safety net to those who have fallen upon hard times because of losing their job, a safety net to stop the person starving until he has found a job

 

Instead it is a haven for fraudsters, career spongers who see welfare as a career, feckless chavs and housing benefit fraudsters, the whole system needs overhauling.

 

I think pensioners should get MORE money, I think that the genuinely physically and mentally handicapped should get MORE but that means ripping out the welfare state from top to bottom and weeding out the career scroungers, feckless chavs, fraudsters etc.

 

Welfare should not be a way of life or a career for able bodied people of working age it should be a temporary safety net.

The welfare state is a monster that is totally out of control, a rampant beast that is eating away at the financials of this country and eating away at the morals of this country, the monster needs taking down

 

It has become a way of life, a career option for many and that is utterly wrong and unacceptable to me.

 

The welfare state should be there to help the elderly and the disabled and offer a temporary safety net to those who have fallen upon hard times because of losing their job, a safety net to stop the person starving until he has found a job

 

Instead it is a haven for fraudsters, career spongers who see welfare as a career, feckless chavs and housing benefit fraudsters, the whole system needs overhauling.

 

I think pensioners should get MORE money, I think that the genuinely physically and mentally handicapped should get MORE but that means ripping out the welfare state from top to bottom and weeding out the career scroungers, feckless chavs, fraudsters etc.

 

Welfare should not be a way of life or a career for able bodied people of working age it should be a temporary safety net.

 

so what you are saying is... The Government having more money > the welfare of poor people. very humane.