We'd also have SEVERAL BILLIONS if the fukkin Tories actually brought in a Robin Hood Tax to make the banks pay for what they did to screw up the economy... We'd also have SEVERAL BILLIONS more if we closed the tax loopholes which let the likes of Tesco funnel off millions to off-shore tax havens to avoid paying their full share Corporation and Cap Gains Tax.....

 

You and your b'astard Tories want to make the poor (and it's by no means only the welfare cheats and the "scroungers" who are gonna be made to suffer as a result of Tory policies on welfare when you actually look at the facts) pay for the crimes of the rich, and, sorry mate, but there is something VERY wrong with that as far as I'm concerned..... <_<

 

How many of the "poor" do Tescos employ ? hundreds of thousands of them, the amount of tax that Tesco's generate for the economy way way outstrips several times over any tax breaks that they are given

 

The country should be grateful to the likes of Tesco's, also the CEO of Tesco is a working class lad from a Liverpool council estate who started as a shelf stacker, he is not some ivory tower ex public school boy who got the job through a funny handshake or jobs for the boys Eton networking, he knows what it is like to be poor and to have nothing, he should be admired not sneered at

 

I do believe that the poor should be inconvenienced by the cuts, the country simply can't afford to just go handing out welfare money willy nilly it is not affordable, not practical, not sustainable, welfare has to go back to basics and be a safety net for the elderly, the disabled and the handicapped with a temporary safety net for the unemployed.

 

 

 

 

I don't consider £30,000 to be poor, it is borderline middle class and certainly above average earnings, £30k does not get you far in London but move up north it buys a damn comfortable lifestyle, I seriously question whether someone on over 30k a year really NEEDS child benefit

 

The gravy train has hit the buffers, the state (taxpayer and government) can't afford to just throw free money away to all and sundry with national debt so high, money needs to be accounted for and targeted at those in DESPERATE need, I don't consider £30k+ as being desperate need.

 

 

If it was a case of one person in the household earning 30K and another one earning 30K you might have a point (but it would be a Lower Middle Class household at best...), but you are seriously out of touch if you consider an entire yearly household income of 30K as being "middle class" in this day and age.... People earning 30K aren't gonna be getting offered in mortgages if they live in London or the South East/West, or even in Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff are they...? So, frankly dude, you're talking a load of cobblers.... If you target these people in this manner it de-incentivises them, or are you just too dim to see that...? It wasn't the average earners and low-paid who created the problems or who caused the economy to "hit the buffers", so why should they be targeted in this manner? You refuse to answer this simple question....

 

I really do think there needs to be a revolution in this country, working classes and lower middle-classes need to join forces and destroy this fukked-up mess of a system and replace it with something which represents the REAL majority, Socialist Democracy and Social Justice is what this country needs, not five years of Tory bullsh"t....

If it was a case of one person in the household earning 30K and another one earning 30K you might have a point (but it would be a Lower Middle Class household at best...), but you are seriously out of touch if you consider an entire yearly household income of 30K as being "middle class" in this day and age.... People earning 30K aren't gonna be getting offered in mortgages if they live in London or the South East/West, or even in Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff are they...? So, frankly dude, you're talking a load of cobblers.... If you target these people in this manner it de-incentivises them, or are you just too dim to see that...? It wasn't the average earners and low-paid who created the problems or who caused the economy to "hit the buffers", so why should they be targeted in this manner? You refuse to answer this simple question....

 

I really do think there needs to be a revolution in this country, working classes and lower middle-classes need to join forces and destroy this fukked-up mess of a system and replace it with something which represents the REAL majority, Socialist Democracy and Social Justice is what this country needs, not five years of Tory bullsh"t....

 

I stated my opinion earlier on in the thread

 

I am totally in favour of windfall taxes on banks who pay out bonuses instead of lending to businesses

 

I am totally in favour of ending tax loopholes that are exploited by the wealthy to avoid tax

 

We are all in this mess together, rich, poor, in between, I have nowhere stated that it is purely the poor that should suffer, I am happy to clarify again that I am in favour of bank windfall tax and closing tax loopholes

The country should be grateful to the likes of Tesco's, also the CEO of Tesco is a working class lad from a Liverpool council estate who started as a shelf stacker, he is not some ivory tower ex public school boy who got the job through a funny handshake or jobs for the boys Eton networking, he knows what it is like to be poor and to have nothing, he should be admired not sneered at

 

The title CEO is largely symbolic in many cases, it's ACCOUNTANTS (and the Chief Accountant in particular) who drive businesses in reality... So, I wouldn't necessarily blame the CEO of Tesco for the Chief Accountant and his team of bean counters squirrelling away money in off-shore tax havens and doing "creative accounting", chances are the CEO and the Board would have no fukkin' idea of half the stuff the accountants are actually getting up to with the profits, the CEOs only come up with business or management strategies, etc....

 

Tesco might employ lots of people but that still does not entitle them to screw the Treasury and, by extension, the people of this country....

 

 

 

We are all in this mess together, rich, poor, in between, I have nowhere stated that it is purely the poor that should suffer, I am happy to clarify again that I am in favour of bank windfall tax and closing tax loopholes

 

Yeah, yeah, you might believe Cameron's baloney, but I dont, and Tory actions to target the poor prove that their words are a lie...... <_<

 

Yeah, yeah, you might believe Cameron's baloney, but I dont, and Tory actions to target the poor prove that their words are a lie...... <_<

 

I am in favour of a number of things that help the very poorest and most vulnerable

 

I am in favour of free gas and electricity for the elderly in winter

 

I am in favour of state subsidised private sector care homes to prevent pensioners having to sell their homes

 

I am in favour of increased pensions and increased payments to the disabled and mentally handicapped

 

but those things can't be afforded without cuts in other areas of welfare, those 3 groups are the ones that deserve the money the most so banning immigrants from welfare, means testing child benefit, time limiting unemployment benefits, a severe crackdown on fraud, limiting housing benefit etc would save billions upon billions which would be able to be used to target extra money for the REAL vulnerable in society

Edited August 10, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

but those things can't be afforded without cuts in other areas of welfare, those 3 groups are the ones that deserve the money the most so banning immigrants from welfare, means testing child benefit, time limiting unemployment benefits, a severe crackdown on fraud, limiting housing benefit etc would save billions upon billions which would be able to be used to target extra money for the REAL vulnerable in society

 

And you honestly think the Tories would do any of that....? Bollocks, they'd just use the money to give their chums in the City and the South tax breaks, just like they did in the 80s....

I do believe that the poor should be inconvenienced by the cuts, the country simply can't afford to just go handing out welfare money willy nilly it is not affordable, not practical, not sustainable, welfare has to go back to basics and be a safety net for the elderly, the disabled and the handicapped with a temporary safety net for the unemployed.

Again, you haven't explained why at all it is morally sound that the poor pay for crimes and a crisis they weren't responsible for, and have already been damaged by.

Again, you haven't explained why at all it is morally sound that the poor pay for crimes and a crisis they weren't responsible for, and have already been damaged by.

 

The welfare bill and its continual increasing was responsible for much of the debt, the explosion in the welfare budget under labour played a huge part in the government debt crisis it is in now

 

It is right to get that under control and bring it drastically down to size money wise. Inevitably in doing so some maybe even many will suffer but it is the right thing to do

 

 

Again, you haven't explained why at all it is morally sound that the poor pay for crimes and a crisis they weren't responsible for, and have already been damaged by.

 

Means testing child benefit would save billions while at the same time ensuring help goes to only those in the greatest need, many the slightly wrong side of the threshold would feel hard done by but no matter what threshold is set that would be the case

 

Stopping immigrants from getting welfare payments of any kind until they have paid tax for 5 years is a common sense measure too, again it would save a lot of money and no immigrant is forced to be here

 

Time caps on claiming JSA makes sense too, capping it at 12 months gives ample time for the claimant to find a job, it is for their good too as it means a life of welfare is not a career option plus it saves the treasury billions

 

Curbs on housing benefit means that housing benefit claimants can start being a bit more realistic about the places they live and again saves money

 

Tough checks and medicals on those that are claiming disability and incapacity payments would help weed out the fraudsters and chancers, there are 4m in this country who claim those benefits, the idea that there are 4m people that are physically or mentally not capable of work is pure fiction

 

My measures would save billions from the welfare budget

I see everything you propose is basically cost-cutting as you assume that long-term the money will trickle down back to the 'little people'... with the Tories in power that would never happen, it's kept high up as they expect a booming economy (which I don't think we'll get out of this anyway) to drag everyone with it. It won't, you need to start at the bottom.

I see everything you propose is basically cost-cutting as you assume that long-term the money will trickle down back to the 'little people'... with the Tories in power that would never happen, it's kept high up as they expect a booming economy (which I don't think we'll get out of this anyway) to drag everyone with it. It won't, you need to start at the bottom.

 

My measures would by and large not affect the general poor, I am not advocating cuts in payment rates

 

My measures are designed to stop money going to those that don't really need it, those that are trying it on, those that are not searching hard enough for work and those who have never paid into the system.

 

 

Your situation is unfortunate but policy can not be changed nor can opinion based on the unfortunate circumstances of one individual

 

No matter what threshold is set it is inevitable that some borderline cases will lose out

 

I can't make decisions based on the individual circumstances of BJ members, no room for sentiment

 

It would be like saying I should not replace my car or take a holiday because a BJ member can't afford one

£30k isn't enough money to even consider it a border case. What about the poor saps who live down south where houses, insurance, petrol etc is more expensive? That £30k is stretched thinner and thinner and thinner. Sure i live in Scotland, where the houses are cheaper and the insurance is well cheap because i live in a rural area, but i live spitting distance from St Andrews and am still in the Edinburgh commuter belt which forces prices up so it's daft to think that just because i'm up north everything is automatically cheaper, as with in England it just depends where you live.

 

This proves what an idiot you are... Do you honestly think that Phil is the only one in this position of being stuck in the Poverty Trap, there's TENS OF THOUSANDS of Phils out there, and frankly this is the Tories returning us to the policies of the 80s.... If these "reforms" cannot target the cheats and the wasters ONLY, then, sorry, it's not worth having when it adversely affects potentially tens of thousands of others who aren't the intended targets.... The Tories need to go back and think again and come up with a policy which affects only those who are the legitimate targets.....

 

You can't reform welfare to weed out the scum without inadvertently affecting thousands of innocent hard working people. The VAT increase is going to affect the less well off the most :puke:

I don't consider £30,000 to be poor, it is borderline middle class and certainly above average earnings, £30k does not get you far in London but move up north it buys a damn comfortable lifestyle, I seriously question whether someone on over 30k a year really NEEDS child benefit

 

The gravy train has hit the buffers, the state (taxpayer and government) can't afford to just throw free money away to all and sundry with national debt so high, money needs to be accounted for and targeted at those in DESPERATE need, I don't consider £30k+ as being desperate need.

You could go as far as saying i had a 'comfortable' lifestyle when i was wee. I never wanted for anything, granted i never really wanted for expensive things anyway. £30 isn't middle class, far from it. A combined income of £30k is in the low income bracket according to the government, when have you ever heard of a middle class family being called 'low income'

 

If it was a case of one person in the household earning 30K and another one earning 30K you might have a point (but it would be a Lower Middle Class household at best...), but you are seriously out of touch if you consider an entire yearly household income of 30K as being "middle class" in this day and age.... People earning 30K aren't gonna be getting offered in mortgages if they live in London or the South East/West, or even in Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff are they...? So, frankly dude, you're talking a load of cobblers.... If you target these people in this manner it de-incentivises them, or are you just too dim to see that...? It wasn't the average earners and low-paid who created the problems or who caused the economy to "hit the buffers", so why should they be targeted in this manner? You refuse to answer this simple question....

 

I really do think there needs to be a revolution in this country, working classes and lower middle-classes need to join forces and destroy this fukked-up mess of a system and replace it with something which represents the REAL majority, Socialist Democracy and Social Justice is what this country needs, not five years of Tory bullsh"t....

 

Edinburgh is one of the most expensive places in the country to live. All year round toursits inflate prices, and house prices are massive anyway.

My measures would by and large not affect the general poor, I am not advocating cuts in payment rates

 

My measures are designed to stop money going to those that don't really need it, those that are trying it on, those that are not searching hard enough for work and those who have never paid into the system.

Thats just the thing though craig, your measures would harm the poor. You can't fight the scum without stabbing a few poor in the back

How many of the "poor" do Tescos employ ? hundreds of thousands of them, the amount of tax that Tesco's generate for the economy way way outstrips several times over any tax breaks that they are given

And how much to Tesco and their like cost the government because they're too stingy to pay their employees a decent minimum wage so the taxpayer foots the bill in the form of income support. The government should calculate how much that costs and send Tesco a bill for 90% of it.

And how much to Tesco and their like cost the government because they're too stingy to pay their employees a decent minimum wage so the taxpayer foots the bill in the form of income support. The government should calculate how much that costs and send Tesco a bill for 90% of it.

 

Hear, hear.....

Stopping immigrants from getting welfare payments of any kind until they have paid tax for 5 years is a common sense measure too, again it would save a lot of money and no immigrant is forced to be here

 

I love how people like you seem to think that immigrants are all lazy scroungers, yet at the same time mysteriously taking all the jobs. The reality is that most immigrants are in employment because they are willing to work below the minimum wage (a failure on the part of the employer). Very few claim benefits, so even if we enforced your draconian suggestion, it would save a minimal amount.

 

 

My measures would save billions from the welfare budget

 

But if we introducted a financial transactions tax, close tax loopholes (such as massive flat-taxes on non-doms), a mansion tax, applied the 50% tax rate to all incomes above £100,000, bring in a wealth tax on assets (such as second homes), increase the bank levy in line with other European countries, increase windfall taxes and higher corporation taxes on big businesses and end private schools' charitable status, that would raise up to £100bn - so don't pretend that your only suggesting welfare cuts because "there is no alternative".

 

An 80:20 split on reducing the budget deficit sounds good to me - only, I'd do it in reverse of what the Coalition is doing, i.e. 80% from tax increases and 20% from spending cuts. I think GENUINE waste in the public sector should be cut - for instance, my mum who works in the civil service (for Freedom of Information) told me the other week how her department had all got new computer monitors, even though the old ones were perfectly fine (indeed, my mum is now using that old monitor for her home computer with no problems at all). That type of waste should be stopped. Plus any schemes in health and education that really aren't worthwhile should go (I'd actually include free milk for 4-year-olds in that, even though it would obviously be a PR disaster), and I don't see a problem with freezing the salaries of the very top public servants. But any "waste" that involves cutting jobs or hitting the most vulnerable shouldn't be cut.

The welfare bill and its continual increasing was responsible for much of the debt, the explosion in the welfare budget under labour played a huge part in the government debt crisis it is in now

 

It is right to get that under control and bring it drastically down to size money wise. Inevitably in doing so some maybe even many will suffer but it is the right thing to do

It had nothing to do with it. We had a structural deficit of £33bn before the global financial crisis, one of the best situations in the entire Western world. The bailouts were responsible for the debt crisis (although they were the right thing to do, it would be nice if the banks actually PAID US BACK), and the current deficit is mainly due to the automatic stabilisers that stopped the recession getting even worse - i.e. payments going up as more people became unemployed, which in turn meant tax intake went down. £33bn isn't a huge part of a government debt crisis of a deficit of c. £176bn per year and a £300bn investment in bailouts.

Means testing child benefit would save billions while at the same time ensuring help goes to only those in the greatest need, many the slightly wrong side of the threshold would feel hard done by but no matter what threshold is set that would be the case

 

Stopping immigrants from getting welfare payments of any kind until they have paid tax for 5 years is a common sense measure too, again it would save a lot of money and no immigrant is forced to be here

 

Time caps on claiming JSA makes sense too, capping it at 12 months gives ample time for the claimant to find a job, it is for their good too as it means a life of welfare is not a career option plus it saves the treasury billions

 

Curbs on housing benefit means that housing benefit claimants can start being a bit more realistic about the places they live and again saves money

 

Tough checks and medicals on those that are claiming disability and incapacity payments would help weed out the fraudsters and chancers, there are 4m in this country who claim those benefits, the idea that there are 4m people that are physically or mentally not capable of work is pure fiction

 

My measures would save billions from the welfare budget

Means testing child benefit wouldn't save billions - you even said yourself in a ridiculously over-generous suggestion that it would save £100m just a page ago!

 

JSA is already time-capped at six months.

 

Most housing benefits recipients ARE realistic about places they live for where they have to live. The problem is that the cost of living is massive in places like London, and there are loads of cases where housing benefit isn't enough - I forget what the campaign's called, but the Evening Standard are currently running something which highlights just how many people are struggling to meet the breadline even with housing benefit as it is, let alone before the coalition's cuts.

 

There aren't 4m people claiming incapacity benefit Craig.

It had nothing to do with it. We had a structural deficit of £33bn before the global financial crisis, one of the best situations in the entire Western world. The bailouts were responsible for the debt crisis (although they were the right thing to do, it would be nice if the banks actually PAID US BACK), and the current deficit is mainly due to the automatic stabilisers that stopped the recession getting even worse - i.e. payments going up as more people became unemployed, which in turn meant tax intake went down. £33bn isn't a huge part of a government debt crisis of a deficit of c. £176bn per year and a £300bn investment in bailouts.

 

And this, in a nutshell, PROVES the argument that Welfare played any significant role in the financial crisis is utterly bogus.....

 

Craig - we're not "bashing the banks" because it's a fashionable thing to do so, we're "bashing" them because they WERE responsible for this country's problems... And I am sick of revisionist articles in the "respectable" press (ie, the Daily Torygraph and Financial Times) trying to deflect responsibility away from the City and the banks... We are NOT STUPID, we KNOW what caused the recession, and it sure as hell wasn't incapacity or other benefits........

I love how people like you seem to think that immigrants are all lazy scroungers, yet at the same time mysteriously taking all the jobs. The reality is that most immigrants are in employment because they are willing to work below the minimum wage (a failure on the part of the employer). Very few claim benefits, so even if we enforced your draconian suggestion, it would save a minimal amount.

 

It's actually more like a failure on the part of Govts (Labour and Tory) to properly enforce the law tbh.....