Many of the cases cited in the press are either grossly distorted or represent such a tiny fraction of the population that it isn't worth getting hot and bothered about the cost.

 

You still haven't explained why it is so bad for people to have children and think "someone else will pay" but it is perfectly acceptable for companies to pay pathetically low wages and think "someone else can top it up" when the latter costs many times more than the former.

 

Every government has tried to make sure that people are better off in work than out of it. However, apart from the minimum wage, they have always concentrated on the level of benefits rather than low pay. Surely anybody in full-time work should be entitled to expect a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their family (within reasonable size limits) without having to rely on benefits?

 

Legislation based on a few exceptional cases is almost invariably bad legislation. That's what this lot are doing on the subject of benefits.

 

How do you know? Because you want to believe it? You keep asking for evidence and produce none of your own. At least I have given examples from previous and present personal experience. You just seem to say anything you don't believe is exaggerated. Maybe take it up with BBC News and other news organisation who tell us these things and give us the information.

 

If I have to explain to you why it's bad to expect other people to pay for children you can't be bothered to look after, well I'm speechless quite frankly and maybe it explains why the country is in such a state. What has their irresponsibility got to do with wages topping up? They are separate issues. It will hardly be an issue for these types will it And anyway people that are working deserve that help. They are showing their children which they are bringing up a good example, which the people you see fit to defend are not. As long as the Tax credits are in your income it matters little where the money comes from.

 

 

 

 

Yes and I wonder how much longer Germany will be footing for the bill for the poorer EU countries but that's a different argument. As for the relative annual GDP growth performances of the UK and France since Hollande took over last May (which is the period I was referring to) france and Britain UK tells its own story.

 

That UK chart is extremely inaccurate. Per BBC News, these are GDP changes since the start of 2012:

 

2012 Q1: -0.1%

2012 Q2: -0.4%

2012 Q3: +0.9%

2012 Q4: -0.3%

2013 Q1: +0.3%

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201

 

 

I'm not by any means saying France's economy is in great shape and that it's the ideal for everyone to look at, but nonetheless they're managing to outperform the UK EVEN when in a currency in crisis, and when we've had the once-in-a-lifetime Olympics boost, so I'm not sure there's any room for a British person to point to France and talk about their policies being disastrous.

Edited May 14, 201312 yr by Danny

The reason for the disparity between the two sets of figures is that (I believe) the first doesn't account for inflation - which has fallen to 1% in France recently, explaining the stagnancy.

How do you know? Because you want to believe it? You keep asking for evidence and produce none of your own. At least I have given examples from previous and present personal experience. You just seem to say anything you don't believe is exaggerated. Maybe take it up with BBC News and other news organisation who tell us these things and give us the information.

 

If I have to explain to you why it's bad to expect other people to pay for children you can't be bothered to look after, well I'm speechless quite frankly and maybe it explains why the country is in such a state. What has their irresponsibility got to do with wages topping up? They are separate issues. It will hardly be an issue for these types will it And anyway people that are working deserve that help. They are showing their children which they are bringing up a good example, which the people you see fit to defend are not. As long as the Tax credits are in your income it matters little where the money comes from.

The basic equation is this.

 

Work should pay better than benefits. There are two ways of doing this: raising wages and cutting benefits. The first leads to inflation, the second leads to people dying.

How do you know? Because you want to believe it? You keep asking for evidence and produce none of your own. At least I have given examples from previous and present personal experience. You just seem to say anything you don't believe is exaggerated. Maybe take it up with BBC News and other news organisation who tell us these things and give us the information.

 

If I have to explain to you why it's bad to expect other people to pay for children you can't be bothered to look after, well I'm speechless quite frankly and maybe it explains why the country is in such a state. What has their irresponsibility got to do with wages topping up? They are separate issues. It will hardly be an issue for these types will it And anyway people that are working deserve that help. They are showing their children which they are bringing up a good example, which the people you see fit to defend are not. As long as the Tax credits are in your income it matters little where the money comes from.

Why not tackle the issue that costs the most money first? Major supermarkets and other large, profitable employers are being subsidised by the government at a cost of many billions of pounds. Do you not agree that people in full-time paid employment should only need to claim benefits in exceptional cases?

 

The only reason the exceptional cases involving benefit claimants make the news is precisely that. They are the exception. And, as I have said, legislation based on a small number of exceptions is invariably bad legislation. Benefit claimants are being made scapegoats for the financial crisis that they did not cause.

Why not tackle the issue that costs the most money first? Major supermarkets and other large, profitable employers are being subsidised by the government at a cost of many billions of pounds. Do you not agree that people in full-time paid employment should only need to claim benefits in exceptional cases?

 

The only reason the exceptional cases involving benefit claimants make the news is precisely that. They are the exception. And, as I have said, legislation based on a small number of exceptions is invariably bad legislation. Benefit claimants are being made scapegoats for the financial crisis that they did not cause.

 

You keep saying that these cases are an exception. I don't now where you live but they are clearly not. You make it sound like 1 or 2 people. 40,000 plus people is not an exception and that figure wasn't counting the people with less children that do the same. Cutting the Welfare budget is just one way of saving money. Anyway my posts have mainly come from a moral point of view. Yes a lot of money is wasted when people who could work claim or have multiple children they can't afford but for me the main issue is the way people who try to do the right thing are treated compared to those who are irresponsible.

 

You haven't answered any of the points about this kind of behaviour, so going to leave it there as we are going around in circles.

"I'm coming from a moral point of view" - basically meaning "I don't need to apply logic to my posts to make an argument"

 

Is there a way to like posts? :D

The reason for the disparity between the two sets of figures is that (I believe) the first doesn't account for inflation - which has fallen to 1% in France recently, explaining the stagnancy.

Both would take into account for inflation. The second set of figures are quarter-on-quarter growth whereas the first sets are annual growth: aggregation of quarter-on-quarter growth.

"I'm coming from a moral point of view" - basically meaning "I don't need to apply logic to my posts to make an argument"

 

Yet you don't reply to any of my points.

 

If you think just because there are people that are undeservedly rich in the country if gives others people the licence to behave however they want then good for you :)

 

Nice pic you posted btw :rolleyes:

Edited May 15, 201312 yr by torresgirl

Yet you don't reply to any of my points.

 

If you think just because there are people that are undeservedly rich in the country if gives others people the licence to behave however they want then good for you :)

 

Nice pic you posted btw :rolleyes:

Did I ever say that? It gives them no right to do anything of the sort, I'm just opening my mind to the idea that the two might be linked. Meanwhile the only thing in the way of evidence that you're putting forward is a couple of dodgy and unexplained stats.

 

Any legislation aiming to cut the benefit bill will inevitably hit people it doesn't intend to. If you think that's a price worth paying then good for you, but I don't.

Nothing I can add that has not already been discussed but for me she is the greatest PM along with Churchill this country has ever had.

 

Inherited an absolute mess and through sheer drive and determination turned a strike ridden country on its knees into a dynamic powerhouse respected across the world.

 

Current politics is full of wet behind the ears career politicians with no principles and no real world experience, all about climbing the greasy pole and being self serving, Maggie had a vision and a determination to push it through.

 

Amazing woman and sad loss <3.

Nothing I can add that has not already been discussed but for me she is the greatest PM along with Churchill this country has ever had.

 

Inherited an absolute mess and through sheer drive and determination turned a strike ridden country on its knees into a dynamic powerhouse respected across the world.

 

Current politics is full of wet behind the ears career politicians with no principles and no real world experience, all about climbing the greasy pole and being self serving, Maggie had a vision and a determination to push it through.

 

Amazing woman and sad loss <3.

 

She also caused mass unemployment, sold our assets off to private or foreign interests and widened the divide between the rich and the poor.

She also caused mass unemployment, sold our assets off to private or foreign interests and widened the divide between the rich and the poor.

 

The unemployment part can't be laid entirely at her door

 

1) There was a recession, unemployment was rising fast under Labour, remember the "Labour isn't working" posters of Lord Saatchi?

 

2) The world was changing, computers were taking over many every day tasks that would previously needed to be done by people, whole industries like car manufacturing and printing were not needing men as computers could do the tasks hence companies were laying off people and introducing computers.

 

Mass unemployment would have taken place whoever was in charge as the world was changing.

 

When she cam to power the worst period of unemployment under Labour was over and the figures were falling. That was reversed immediately and it remained above the level she inherited for the whole of her - and Major's - time in office.

When she cam to power the worst period of unemployment under Labour was over and the figures were falling. That was reversed immediately and it remained above the level she inherited for the whole of her - and Major's - time in office.

 

Computers and evolving technology would be a large reason for that increase under Maggie and Major

 

Eddy Shah's Today newspaper changed the print industry forever for example, printed using almost entirely computer technology, huge layoffs occured in the print industry and other manufacturing industries as computers took over the jobs of men, computers and the increasing reliance on them changed the employment landscape beyond recognition

 

Not something I believe can be laid firmly at Maggie's door, it just happened to happen under her watch. You can't halt the march of technology and progress.

 

Despite Norman Lamont's comments that unemployment is a price worth paying I don't believe that there is or ever was a Tory agenda of mass unemployment, the benefits bill is a huge burden on the nations finances.

In 1979 computers were extremely expensive. Most companies still couldn't afford them. The job losses happened as a result of manufacturing industry disappearing rather than changes in work practises. And what did the government do to try to help people find alternative work? Sod all.

In 1979 computers were extremely expensive. Most companies still couldn't afford them. The job losses happened as a result of manufacturing industry disappearing rather than changes in work practises. And what did the government do to try to help people find alternative work? Sod all.

 

I don't just mean 1979 I mean over the course of her premiership, of course that wasn't the only reason for job losses but we have gone from being a manufacturing economy to a service based economy, this has partly been proved to be the right course as this country just cant compete with China and India who produce goods for next to nothing largely due to slave wages companies pay.

 

 

Just because certain jobs disappear it doesn't mean others aren't created. She made absolutely no effort to provide alternative employment to the areas ravaged by the (albeit somewhat inevitable, eventually) losses of traditional industry. That's simply unforgivable.