PDA

View Full Version : Broken UK Benefits System


AOJM
19th Feb 2013, 21:53
From outside experience it's true and disgusting. It's fine line between helping those in general need and forcing others to get off their lazy sides. There simply isn't enough jobs to go around in some places though.

The summer is coming and many retail home and garden stores recruit extra staff as temp with the prospect of going full time!

Best of luck until the whole system is sorted!

Sorry, not until...but if!

Rail Engineer
19th Feb 2013, 21:54
I despair with the whole UK benefits system, which seems to reward the feckless and lazy whilst penalising anyone who is genuinely in need.

RE Junior left school and was unable to find a job.

Any Apprenticeships seem to be only within the domain of colleges and he is now apparently too old to go to one (he will be 20 in a few months) in any case.

Life dealing with the Job Centre and the Hitlers who unilaterally decide whether or not you get paid your job seekers allowance is full of discrimination and anomalies. Here are a couple of examples.

Despite regularly going to the job centre and looking forwork actively, a Hitler decided that RE Junior was “not trying hard enough” without giving any indication as to why that decision was reached nor giving any guidance as to what should be done to move out of that position. It was very much a case of “I have made my decision – tough”.

The net result is that RE Junior finds that most of the time his job seekers allowance is withdrawn.

When the job centre do “find a job” it is always well outside even the geographical boundaries of the region where we live, and is inevitably completely inappropriate.

The last one was in Doncaster – a two hour drive. When RE Junior pointed out that (a) he had no money to attend the interview because his JSA had been withdrawn, (and (b) that the job would neither support his living costs nor his travel - he does not have any form of transport other than public transport, the response from the Hitler on the counter ? “Not trying hard enough” and JSA withdrawn for a month.

Getting tired of this RE pulls in a favour from a friend in the Industry and a training course in signalling engineering is offered at 50%of cost.

When RE Junior told the job centre and asked if there was anyway he could get some money to allow him to travel there, he was not only told that they would not give him anything, but was then informed that his JSA for the duration of the training course would be withdrawn, and he would be further penalised a further two weeks because he was deliberately “not available” during the training course.

A similar situation occurred when his Grandmother died and he went to her funeral - to find himself penalised for two weeks as a result of "not being available"

OK says RE Junior in that case I will not go on the training course. Comment from the Hitler ? “Too bad decision has been made – tough”

So in synopsis there is no incentive to try to get any formof training to enable you to qualify for a job!

An interesting contrast is that with some of his“friends”. One beats around in a spanking new BMW, which he takes to the job centre (gives Re Junior a lift home from time to time) No one asks where the money to run this comes from but there are only a couple of possible answers. Apparently he acts aggressively and is not worried about playing the race card angle if it is suggested that his JSA would be cut.

Another claims “Religious beliefs” and seems to survive without sanction.

Currently RE is paying a small fortune in training costs and each time RE Junior goes on a course he is penalised for trying to gain sufficient qualification to get a job.

I despair of this whole poxy, corrupt basket case of a Country and the sooner I depart to live abroad, the better.

PS : neither I nor Mrs RE have ever claimed benefits of any sort, and neither have either extended family. I suspect that may well be the problem.

500N
19th Feb 2013, 22:03
Rail

Sorry to hear that. Hard work pays off in the end.

It sounds like the UK is just like Aus.

You are better off being a minority / Aboriginal IMHO.

reynoldsno1
20th Feb 2013, 01:12
Daughter left school at 17 with minimum qualifications - never been out of work, and is a ferocious networker. She's 21 now, working two jobs in Oz (medical receptionist and bartending in WA) and getting about A$80,000 a year - doesn't qualify for benefits (Kiwi is one of her nationalities), so has to work. Seems to thrive on it, and has proved her parents' doomladen predictions wrong... she's planning on climbing Mt. Kiliminjaro next year:uhoh:
It is possible, it would seem.

Garfs
20th Feb 2013, 03:52
I moved to the UK, comoleted my degree, served in HM Forces both part and full time then became afull time police officer. Never claimed a penny and always worked and paid taxes.

Had trouble staying visa wise even tho I was happy to sign something saying Id never claim and all I wanted to do was carry on working as a police officer. Still no. 98% of the peopke I dealt with as a Police officer had the best benefits and never worked, a large percentage of tbose from outside the UK.

I left to pursue a career in Aviation, am now living elsewhere making a good living frm.flying. i have never looked back

sitigeltfel
20th Feb 2013, 06:03
Anjem Choudary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary)

Ridiculing the daily lives of UK workers, Choudary said: “You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o’clock. They go to work at 9 o’clock.

“They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o’clock, watch EastEnders, sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery.”

Choudary, a father-of-four, claims more than £25,000 a year in benefits, £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan

There you have it :ugh:

Metro man
20th Feb 2013, 06:46
I despair of this whole poxy, corrupt basket case of a Country and the sooner I depart to live abroad, the better.

Did that in 1980 and never looked back. I've enjoyed a higher standard of living, pay low taxes and am able to provide very well for my retirement.:ok:

Unfortunately the UK won't change, there are too many people either living off the system or better off as things are at the moment. There aren't enough decent hardworking people to out vote them in an election.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 07:07
I despair of this whole poxy, corrupt basket case of a Country and the sooner I depart to live abroad, the better.



hear hear, after 10 years of living predominantly overseas, and now back in the UK, it is like living in a prison.

Unfortunately the UK won't change, there are too many people either living off the system or better off as things are at the moment. There aren't enough decent hardworking people to out vote them in an election.

yep and the social engineering of labour has done the damage, and now to fund the ever growing public debt, the talk form Liebour and Lib Dumbs is the forfriture of personal property the state under the auspices of 'wealth tax'..

the path to a communist hell hole is well and truly underfoot.

and as internationally our competetiveness is ever diminished by increasing taxes on trade and industry it has no optionbut to remain in a situation of stasis or even overhead reduction to survive..

all the meanwhile, there are hundreds of applicants for each job and yet still the dumb arses in politics kick the doors open for yet more people to compete for the ever reducing job market and ever growing social welfare bill.

you are watching a country devolve into a third world state.

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 07:20
There aren't enough decent hardworking people to out vote them in an election.That sums up the problem almost entirely. There are a couple of others. Anyone who voices an opinion in favour of, or votes for, a party that would radically change anything, for example stopping unqualified unlimited immigration, is labelled 'racist'. So the drain on resources, the abuse, and the overcrowding and the crime are going to get worse.

There are no realistic alternatives, the two (or three?) mainstream parties are almost indistinguishable in their ideas and rhetoric.

The UK has abrogated its rights to determine who enters and remains there, and the lefties have endowed the asylum seekers, criminals, Yardies, drug dealers, and other destructive elements with a sense of entitlement and a knowledge that they are above the law.

The police have had their powers emasculated. They cannot raid areas known to be harbouring illegals, nor stop and search, and they are in any case frightened, understandably, to go into such areas knowing that the criminals are better armed than they are and have no fear of using fire power.

My parents would be turning in their graves. They were amongst those who said Enoch Powell was right. And I'm proud to say that. Even my mother, who was a great lover of European culture and food and spoke several European languages, felt that the UK should not enter any sort of union.

When I go back to the UK I am appalled at what I see, at attitudes, at the way youngsters speak to those in authority, at the readiness to play the 'race' card. Just the other day I was on a train and when the ticket collector came in to the first class compartment to check tickets, he asked two black youths who were swinging from the hand rails for their tickets they immediately launched into a tirade of racist abuse against him and told him to check my ticket first!

And the UK sucks it up. And it's going to get worse because nobody, individuals or politicians, is doing anything about it. The decent people leave, or have left, and the country will be left to the dregs.

What a bleak picture. Time for a cuppa!

Andy_S
20th Feb 2013, 07:45
I can’t get overly excited about JSA; it’s hardly enough to live off so there’s no great incentive to stay on it forever.

It’s the stack of other benefits that can be claimed that bugs me.

When Chardonnay-Leigh has 5 kids by 5 different blokes and gets benefits for each and every one, plus free accommodation, why should she even try to make a living??

That’s the problem with our benefits system – it removes any incentive for people to behave responsibly.

Tankertrashnav
20th Feb 2013, 08:38
Tableview - thread drift - you can afford to travel First Class on a British train?

Have you considered a cheaper option, such as chartering a private executive jet? !

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 08:53
Tableview - thread drift - you can afford to travel First Class on a British train?

Thread drift, as you say, but I'll answer you. When second class (oh I know the luvvies say we're not supposed to call it that any more) is full of festering rank humanity, and cyclists with their bits poking out of their lurid plastic clothes, then I don't see any choice, and on short routes the difference is usually only a couple of pounds.

When I travel on longer routes, I usually have the luxury of being able to book well in advance and travel off-peak. This minimises the difference, for example last week I was able to travel Gatwick - London - Chester for £46 in F whereas the fare in Pleb would have been £32, so a no brainer really.

The 'walkup' fares are ludicrously high and quite unaffordable. The people who pay those fares subsidise my comfort! Thank you.

yotty
20th Feb 2013, 09:00
Benefit Culture is wrong but don't blame the people, it's the system that's at fault! :ugh:

Choxolate
20th Feb 2013, 09:11
It's really simple
1. Government in power (labour) extends "welfare" to as many as possible to make them dependent on handouts
2. Come next election the recipients are told they will lose their handouts if they don't re-elect Governement in power.
3. Result govenrment in power gets re-elected 2 or 3 times
4. Ultimate result, massive debts because of overspending on welfare, decline in "real jobs", lowering tax reveneues and a large pool of unemployable recipients

Government in power loses next election leaving the country in the sh!t, and then moan on as soon as the next governement (Conservative) tries to do something about it.

This cycle has been repeated about every 10 years since I were a lad ... and that is a long time ago

SpringHeeledJack
20th Feb 2013, 09:12
The 'walkup' fares are ludicrously high and quite unaffordable. The people who pay those fares subsidise my comfort! Thank you.

I remember reading an article by Pete Waterman, ex-music guru and lifelong rail enthusiast bemoaning the fact that walkup 1st class train fares from Manchester to London were often just shy of £1000....:uhoh: Madness if true.

There does seem to be a disconnect between those collecting benefits for everything going and those who want to do the right thing and just get help to cover a period of hardship/change/learning etc. The devil is in the details, but there's undoubtedly a dysfunctional element within the DHSS to allow so many miscreants to flourish. You have to wonder sometimes if there isn't an unwritten social engineering policy in play. :rolleyes:



SHJ

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 09:13
And the UK sucks it up. And it's going to get worse because nobody, individuals or politicians, is doing anything about it. The decent people leave, or have left, and the country will be left to the dregs.




Of course it does and it will because the mentality of the UK has become infested with socialism.

Look at some of the threads on this forum, the left leaning come up with unmitigated malebovinefeces and *WONT* face up to the facts the socialists wrecked the country and that mentality still prevents economic progress to be made.

Lets be frank about 'wealth re-distribution' as the left and yellows like to laud; that is the state forfeiture of personal property to be redistributed as the state sees fit, the state being those in political power that wish to further cement their control of the population by buying votes.

Arbitrarily taking the personal property of one to give to another. they call this fairness.

All it does is push the wealth out of the country, like the French are seeing and remove aspiration and personal betterment of those that are trapped within.

Socialists by dint of their own politics don't want aspiration or the ability for people to better themselves by investing in their own futures and abilities. they want to be told what to think, what they can have, what they can earn, when they can have it. the politics of cowardice.

And because they don't want to think for themselves they don't want anyone else to.

The politics of envy, if I cant have it, neither should you.

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 09:31
The point about 'wealth re-distribution', apart from the fact that it is inherently unfair and contrary to human nature, is that it destroys any incentive for people to do better, those being the people who provide employment opportunites directly or indirectly for others, and who end up paying more into the fiscus than the others.

Ultimately, if you 're-distribute' wealth it ceases to be wealth and you have destroyed the economic incentives and drivers that make a capitalist society work. This of course is what socialists would like to achieve, and it would be fair enough if they had considered the consequences, but amongst the many defects that socialists suffer from are tunnel vision and myopia.

Socialism doesn't work, and some people grow out of it. My brother-in-law was a socialist when I first met him, in his early twenties. Now that he's a grown-up, a father (and a very good one) with children and responsibilities, we share the same views.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 09:42
Ahh TV, you used the C word, the one that gets socialists into a vertibale frothing rage.. And due to our recent socialist history 'capiatalism' is dirty word.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.


Capitalism (http://capitalism.org/capitalism/what-is-capitalism/) is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.


“The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.” — AYN RAND (http://www.aynrand.org/)


so capitalism, that dirty word to set the left off into a frothing rage, is the basis of human progress and development, providing rights to the individual with the objective of personal furtherment.

lets watch the frothing left launch into their perpetual rage over the very mention of the word and 'blame thatcher'.

OFSO
20th Feb 2013, 10:12
you can afford to travel First Class on a British train?

Well I b---- can't.

Incidently five hours or 915 kilometres on the French TGV from Perpignan to Paris currently costs €42 if you book well in advance. At today's exchange rate that's 36 pounds. Oh and that's First Class, of course.

Not that first on the TGV is anything special.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 10:21
Incidently five hours or 915 kilometres on the French TGV from Perpignan to Paris currently costs €42 if you book well in advance. At today's exchange rate that's 36 pounds. Oh and that's First Class, of course.




looked at taking the train from surrey to chester (200 miles) a couple of weeks ago; prices ranged from 86.00 (off peak - which kind defeats the ability to go there and back in day) to 222.00 (flexible fare) all in prole class. time quoted about 4hrs and change each way.

driving time would have been 3 hours and change each way, fuel would have been probably about 30 quid each way.


but then the socialists dont like private transport, unless we all have the same standard issue trabant in the requisite grey and we should all use public transport to save the planet or some such garbage.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 10:27
To tie together a couple of themes.

I have found it cheaper in the UK to take a one way car hire than book a short notice rail ticket.
(The bunch named after a starship are particularly good as they pick you up).

and..

I did this when emigrating!

The SSK
20th Feb 2013, 10:35
I’m neither ‘Socialist’ nor ‘Capitalist’ but invocation of the railways as a paragon of either is a bit odd. Railways cost so much to operate that they cannot possibly charge economic fares because nobody could afford them (£220 return from Surrey to Chester and the lines still need massive public subsidy). What are subsidised rail fares if not a ‘redistribution of wealth’?

Andy_S
20th Feb 2013, 10:54
The point about 'wealth re-distribution', apart from the fact that it is inherently unfair and contrary to human nature, is that it destroys any incentive for people to do better, those being the people who provide employment opportunites directly or indirectly for others, and who end up paying more into the fiscus than the others.

There is, of course, an even more fundamental underlying notion – that of “fairness”.

A socialist will see one person who is well off, and another who is not. That is inherently “unfair”. And so the government has an obligation to intervene to make things “fairer”. The fact that the wealthier person may have worked hard to achieve their good fortune, or that their success may have created employment for others is neither here nor there. Socialists simply refuse to acknowledge this, which is why their economic policies inevitably end in failure.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 11:01
It could be argued that socialism came about because those who did work hard were unable to make a decent living. It is true that modern socialism redistributes money with no consideration of how hard someone is prepared to work.
The banking crash of 2008 seems to show that the poor are supposed to bale out the rich.
I would argue that all political parties currently exploit the system. Choose your poison.
My preference is simply for less Government.

radeng
20th Feb 2013, 11:10
Then we have the ridiculous situation that in a struggling economy, we trun off power stations, get a probable shortage of electricity and pay more for that we do have. So we have to be green? But can we afford it? Nobody goes bankrupt in the long term.......

Then we have embraced gender equality legislation, which, with solvency 2, forced me into taking my pensions before I was going to - or lose 20%. Once I'm doing that, it isn't worth working to pay 40% tax, so my tax avoidance scheme is to stop working. Anything up to £20,000 a year lost to BA, and a total of over £60,000 from abroad. The government just don't seem to want cash imports! Deferring taking the State pension until the next tax year will help avoid tax, and it goes up over 10% for each year you don't draw it.

Madness, I tell you!

TBirdFrank
20th Feb 2013, 11:13
The British Railway system - the arch example of wealth distribution - fares plus taxes paid by you and I, the general public, fall straight through the system and into the PRIVATE pockets of such as Branson, Souter and Lockhead at four times the price of running the system when it was a unified industry in public hands.

Do tell me again about socialism! - and this is down to "line your pockets and fill your boots" tories, such as Major and Shagger Norris - you remember - who who became a director at Jarvis and when their failure to do as contracted resulted in the Potters Bar derailment shouted "sabotage"

As for apprenticeships etc, a friend's son went right through the training process at Network Rail, passed out, and was then told there were no jobs! Cost - reputed to be circa £60k Then after they had kicked him out they remembered he had been issued with some kit and asked him to send it back to Derby - ho told them they could come and collect it any time - at their cost!

The benefits system - it stinks - but the alternative sector is no sinecure and far from sainthood itself!

A plague on all their houses!! especially the civil and local government sector.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 11:35
I ask a simple question. What's getting better?

It would seem only the timing of societal collapse is in doubt.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 11:45
I ask a simple question. What's getting better?




Nothing..

No hang on, maybe....


Nope!

or..

No!


Yup! Absolutely nothing.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 11:52
A wealth tax would be ethically wrong and economically destructive - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9880714/A-wealth-tax-would-be-ethically-wrong-and-economically-destructive.html)


It was John Maynard Keynes who put it best. “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” he wrote.

Remarkably, as the clamour for wealth taxes demonstrates, the thinker who has re-emerged, yet again, as the guru of the moment is one Karl Marx, buried in London’s Highgate Cemetery 130 years ago and supposedly long since consigned to the dustbins of history.

Marx, of course, was not the first to argue that there is such a thing as ill-begotten “unearned” income, the fruits of capital in the form of rent, interest, dividends or capital gains, not to be confused with earned income from selling one’s labour. But somewhere deep in Britain’s collective consciousness, even among passionate opponents of socialism, some Marxist ideas remain influential, albeit in an implicit, cultural sort of way. A “heavy progressive or graduated income tax” and a war on inherited wealth were key demands in the 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party; they were scandalously extreme by the standards of the day but are mainstream today. No wonder, therefore, that Marx’s influence can be detected in the present debate, even if many supporters of wealth taxes will express horror at the thought.

Yet regardless of its intellectual origins, a tax on people’s assets is ethically wrong, economically destructive and would damage growth and job creation, with the poor and middle classes suffering intense collateral damage.

I refer specifically to a wealth tax, not just a mansion tax, as the genie has been let out of the bottle. It is now acceptable to call for taxing wealth, not just income, consumption or transactions; and the gaping holes in Vince Cable and Ed Miliband’s plans for a mansion tax – someone who owns a hundred £1m homes would pay nothing; someone in negative equity with a mortgage of £2.5m and a home worth £2.2m would be hammered – mean that any tax will end up being much broader, as some Liberal Democrats have already argued. It will either have to hit more homes or include other assets, such as paintings, bank accounts and pensions.

Taxing already acquired property drastically alters the relationship between citizen and state: we become leaseholders, rather than freeholders, with accumulated taxes over long periods of time eventually “returning” our wealth to the state. It breaches a key principle that has made this country great: the gradual expansion of property ownership and the democratisation of wealth. We need more of this, not less. A wealth tax – like the old window taxes, levied because it was too hard to assess people’s income – is a sign of failure: we can’t raise enough by taxing current economic activity, so we tax again the already taxed fruits of past activity. It is a pre-modern, obsolete concept. Wealth taxes also violate a state’s original mission, to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens.

The idea that those who happen to own a home in parts of the country where the price has gone up above a certain arbitrary threshold “don’t deserve” their “windfall” sets a dangerous precedent. It implies officials can determine whether or not a gain is “fair” or not; and if this applies to property, it should logically apply to everything else. Are all investment gains potentially undeserved? If winners in Kensington and Chelsea should be taxed on gains, then should we subsidise losers in Wales and Northern Ireland, where house prices have collapsed?

What about the argument that the outcomes of rigged markets are illegitimate, and thus ripe for taxation? Tragically, all contemporary markets are rigged to a greater or lesser extent, not just central London homes, with myriad firms and individuals benefiting from protections, regulations, quantitative easing, public spending, subsidies or other privileges. The answer is to liberalise markets; but conceding that any transaction that doesn’t derive from a properly free market is ripe for taxation is tantamount to casting doubt on all private property.

But enough philosophy. The debate in Britain is shockingly parochial: proponents never bother to explain why wealth taxes would work here given that they have failed abroad. After years of seeing its most prominent entrepreneurs leave the country, together with their billions, often relocating to Britain, Sweden abolished its wealth tax in January 2007, one reason behind its recent economic renaissance.

Most other European countries have ditched their wealth taxes, starting with Austria in 1994 and followed by Finland, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Countries such as the US, Australia, Russia, New Zealand, Japan or Canada never had one in the first place.
Unfortunately, some countries have reintroduced wealth taxes since the crisis, though these have been sold as temporary, emergency measures.
Italian prime minister Mario Monti’s version has generated massive anger, turning into a crippling attack on the middle classes, with around three quarters of primary residences hit and £2.9bn raised in 2012. Monti is pledging to cut it; Silvio Berlusconi, his main rival, has promised to abolish it. Spain’s temporary wealth tax has been extended for a third year until 2014; it targets pricier homes.

The French have always been behind the times, retaining their window tax until 1926, 75 years after it was repealed in Britain; they are now doubling their wealth tax. Yet it has dragged down the French economy since the 1980s and was the original reason London became France’s sixth largest city. Hundreds of billions of euros have left the country; even with the lower rate, at least 700 to 800 of the wealthiest taxpayers have been relocating annually specifically to avoid it. Economist Eric Pichet found that the tax has cut GDP growth by 0.2pc a year, triggered capital outflows of £172bn in the 10 years to 2008 and reduced overall tax receipts by twice the amount raised by the tax. As he put it, the “wealth tax impoverishes France, shifting the tax burden from wealthy taxpayers leaving the country on to other taxpayers”.

America fortunately doesn’t have a proper wealth tax. It relies on property taxes at a local, county level to finance spending but rates are disciplined because homeowners can easily move. Rates are rarely punitive; their aim is not to cripple the rich. Britain’s property taxes – including council tax and stamp duty, but excluding relevant VAT – are the highest as a share of GDP of any OECD nation and are far more significant than America’s.

The pro-wealth tax crowd’s refusal to acknowledge other countries’ experience is its Achilles’ heel. The policy has been a disaster wherever it has been tried. It is, of course, vitally important to do more for the poor and the aspiring classes, but the solution is to kick-start the economy through radical supply-side reforms, creating jobs and opportunities. We urgently need to create new wealth in Britain and spread it wide and far, not devise ever more elaborate ways of expropriating and squandering already existing wealth.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2013, 11:57
The British Railway system - the arch example of wealth distribution
Yes, from the poor (included in taxpayers in general) to the rich (passengers, the point being that the poor don't ride trains - they can't afford to, they ride buses).

fireflybob
20th Feb 2013, 12:21
driving time would have been 3 hours and change each way, fuel would have been probably about 30 quid each way.

stuckgear, but what about all the other costs of motoring? It always amuses me that when people compare travel by car against train they only quote the cost of fuel. It's a while since I have checked but taking all costs into account for an "average" annual mileage you're looking at circa 45 pence per mile. So in your quoted case a round trip of 400 miles equates to £180 which, I would suggest, makes the rail travel option quite often cheaper! More here:-

Car running costs (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/index.html)

I will agree that when maybe 2 or more are travelling then car travel becomes cheaper.

Coming back to First Class I quite often travel to London and back from Nottingham. So long as I book ahead the extra charge for first class travel on the round trip is circa £10 (making the total return fare typically around £30) - as well as not having to slum it with the herd, I get free cups of tea/coffee and FREE wifi - for the latter in cattle class I have to pay £5 each way! All in all I think rail travel is a good deal - not saying this is the case on all journeys but I would rather enjoy rail travel reading a book or surfing the net whilst watching the countryside go by than be tailgated all the way up the motorway and wondering whether I am going to be written off by an HGV.

Coming back to benefits the problem is we now have an "entitlement" culture which it will take at least a generation to eliminate (if we ever will) unless a party like UKIP gets elected (I live in hope).

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 12:57
now here's a thing FFB,

if i go by train, the car is still in driveway, depreciating, the road tax still has to be paid for, as does the insurance, and it will still need maintenance every year, oil change, service etc etc.

i dont get that discounted or paid back if i use public transport.. so the 222.00 cost of going from surrey to chester and back is a hard cost out of my pocket along with the other associated costs of owning and running a vehicle.

to go by road, the cost of fuel mybe 30 quid each way, is the hard cost out of my pocket as at the start of year i had to pay for road tax and insurance up front, and despite the fact that if the car was not used for that journey, i'd still need to have the 12 month service done anyway.

if you want to take the cost of tyre rubber.. lets say the tyres at 250.00 RRP each.. ( I pay 500 for a full set of the same - 'grey imports', same tyre just purchased from elsewhere in the EU) so that's 1,000 of tyre rubber, which last about 30,000 miles.. so thats about 0.03p per mile makes it 6.66 per 200 miles of use. so 13.00 in tyre rubber at RRP or 6.00 as the hard cost..

so, the cost equivalent is 222.00 by rail and a total of 4 hours and change travel time..

or by car..

60.00 in fuel
6.00 in tyre rubber.

amortisation, road tax and insurance unchanged. a total of 3 hours and change.

driving is still cheaper and quicker

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 13:03
Five bloody good arguments against socialism :

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Flap 5
20th Feb 2013, 13:09
now here's a thing FFB,

if i go by train, the car is still in driveway, depreciating, the road tax still has to be paid for, as does the insurance, and it will still need maintenance every year, oil change, service etc etc.

etc.

Exactly right. And so often conveniently missed out by those who want us to pay extortionate fares on the trains. Green? I certainly look it after having to pay those fares!

Flap 5
20th Feb 2013, 13:12
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.



Or as Maggie put it: It's not government money. It's tax payers money.

tony draper
20th Feb 2013, 13:25
I agree socialism is terrible however I still think it is a good idea to take the filthy rich outside and hang them all every now and again.:rolleyes:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 13:28
Without wishing to sound like a raving socialist (because I'm not)

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.No, but you can give opportunity to the meritous poor by providing them with housing, healthcare and education, which requires money, which must come from those with money.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.This applies to absentee landlords as much as dole scroungers.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.In itself, this is a statement of fact. It is not necessarily an indictment of socialism. The rich also benefit from the NHS. One look at US medical fees will tell you that.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!You can if the people who are given it are better at wealth generation than those who have it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. Undeniably true.

Socialism can work when it rewards the meritorious. The idle rich are just as corrosive as the idle poor.

I benefitted from state housing, healthcare and education (paid to attend a direct grant school, not some crummy comp.like my brother). I have given back 12 years of Service and 11 years as a teacher (Independent sector). This has benefitted rich and poor alike. I would argue the rich got their money's worth from me.

I have seen the benefits of a meritocracy. Nobody gets to be a fighter pilot on anything other than merit. It's too dangerous to permit anything else.

What we need is a better methodology for distributing wealth on merit. Merit includes both excellence and work ethic.

charliegolf
20th Feb 2013, 13:38
OP wrote:

It's fine line between helping those in general need and forcing others to get off their lazy sides.

But this is Pprune. No-one on Pprune thinks they are feckless or lazy. We are all therefore, de facto genuine cases. We denigrate any benefit claimant outside of our group, whilst supporting (without evidence) the wholly justifiable moans of Ppruners.

Funny innit?

Erwin Schroedinger
20th Feb 2013, 13:48
Broken UK Benefits System

Broken UK.

Performance record, backed up by my own attempted dialogue over many years with the last two MP's, confirm a failed Government system. The only possible path is downwards.

Jump ship, if you can.

FANS
20th Feb 2013, 14:15
Socialism is great for spending other peoples' money.

I regularly read the Guardian for a laugh. This is today's piece:

A mother of 11 housed in a 'mansion'? Spare us this modern morality tale | Ally Fogg | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/mother-11-mansion-media-families-benefits)

These people have no concept of how hard it is to earn a living in the UK, especially when one always has to provide for the "disadvantaged."

I despise every penny I pay in UK tax.

Andy_S
20th Feb 2013, 14:29
Fair points F3WMB. I think, as Tableview said, they are good arguments. But not perfect arguments.

Just to pick up on one of your points.

you can give opportunity to the meritous poor by providing them with housing, healthcare and education, which requires money, which must come from those with money.

I think only the most selfish and hard hearted amongst us would argue we shouldn’t give ANY support to those less well off than ourselves. In a modern, comparatively wealthy country, it would be wrong in principle for anyone, through no fault of their own, to be homeless, cold, hungry, unclothed etc. I accept the need for some of my income to be taken and used to build a stronger, more cohesive society for all, and I believe my own life will be better as a result.

What I object to is the way that benefits have grown from being a safety net to a lifestyle option, the sense of entitlement that goes with that, and the way it enables those who take advantage of the system to abandon any sense of responsibility for their lifestyle choices.

I’m sure many have read, in the last few days, of the lady in Gloucestershire who is having a 6 bedroom house built by the council to accommodate her and her 11 children (and two grandchildren). She has never worked, one of her daughters has a pet horse, and absolutely no mention is made of the father (or almost certainly fathers) of the children.

I’m happy to pay for people to have food, clothes and a roof over their head. Not for their kids to have expensive pets that many working families couldn’t afford.

fireflybob
20th Feb 2013, 14:30
if i go by train, the car is still in driveway, depreciating, the road tax still has to be paid for, as does the insurance, and it will still need maintenance every year, oil change, service etc etc.

stuckgear, yes that is one way of looking at it - I suppose the other thing to factor in would be the number of journeys one is making in a year say? If you were making the journey on a weekly basis the maths might look different.

I have to declare an interest and say that I don't like driving long car journeys these days. To drive to London and back in a day would be far more tiring than going by train. I just think rail travel gets an (unjustifiably) bad press these days - yes I agree it depends on the nature of the journey and the quality of the rolling stock and price is a factor but sometimes I would prefer to pay an extra few quid for less personal wear and tear. I also agree that on certain occasions it is easier and more convenient to take the car but perhaps people need to be a bit more open minded and look at it from a more holistic point of view.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 14:37
This applies to absentee landlords as much as dole scroungers.



ahh the old evil landlord schtick.

you know the landlord has taken on risk himself in terms of debt, which if he cannot service, will loose the property as well as any other collateral.

ny mother came from a council estate in stockwell, and ended up with a small protfolio of rental property, not by standing on the faces of the meek and exploiting anyone, but by simply taking on risk and servicing the debt. growing up large parts of my 'yoof' were spent shifting furniture, painting and decorating.. it was business the family pulled together to build up.

certainly noone handed anything to anyone on a plate, it was hard work, driving miles to sort out a leaky washing machine at 11pm (because the tennants used the door as a step and then flooded out the people below, or because some shit tried to re rig the electrics to get free electricity short out the whole effing building.. or dealing with a fire that gutted the building and shut down half a london street beacuse some dumb sh1t decided to leave a chip pan on and go have a bath.

so the old evil landlord routine. sorry i dont buy it.. its more lefty socialist marketing and frankly rubbish.

Octopussy2
20th Feb 2013, 14:46
I rent out the flat I own in London, because I now live in Switzerland, and in turn I rent a house here. Does that make me an "absentee landlord" and somehow culpable? Does that make my landlord a baddie? I don't quite get it.

Rental property has a place in society, surely? I wouldn't have wanted to have to buy a place the minute I got here - happy to spend the time to look around and weigh up my options, and my 3-year lease allows me to do that.

[Edited to say: Fox I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post].

FANS
20th Feb 2013, 14:50
Absentee landlord? Clearly you've no idea what it's like to rent out property. Especially to those on welfare.

We should get back to the principle of you pay in, then you can get something out.

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Feb 2013, 15:05
Jump ship, if you can.
Ah but then you turn into an immigrant.

Moaning right wing nutters on online boards (including this one) who moan that "the UK is so horrible that I'm going elsewhere" are exactly the same people who moan about, and oppose, immigrants.

Good innit. They oppose themselves - but as they oppose pretty well everything I guess that's no great surprise.

(Of course most of them are in fact all mouth and don't actually move out of the UK. More's the pity - the place would certainly be better off with fewer moaning right wing nutters!)

FANS
20th Feb 2013, 15:11
Ah, the joys of daring to complain about the benefits system and freeloaders results in one being called a right wing nutter ( or racist if daring to question our unlimited EU immigration policy).

How I love the left's uncompromising ability to spend other peoples' money.

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 15:19
I too am am sick of the 'absentee landlord' crap. First of all, unless you live on the property and rent out part of it, then you are an 'absentee' landlord. Does that make you better or worse than a 'non-absentee' one?

Is there a problem with owning property and using it as an investment? Do people imagine that you just acquire the property, and tenants appear as if by magic and the rental starts rolling in? And of course the tenants never default, or damage the property, or use it for immoral or illegal purposes so that you get notice served on you by the local council. And you don't need an honest reliable estate agent (they're about as easy to find as a 40 year old virgin in a brothel) who creams off any profit you might make...........

I have some rental properties and they are a constant source of aggravation and expense. The only benefit they give me is that because they consistently make a loss, I get a tax offset against other investment income. Oh sorry, I forgot, that's a dirty concept too, investment income. The lefties hate that, they'd rather everyone was dependent on state handouts.

MG23
20th Feb 2013, 15:25
Moaning right wing nutters on online boards (including this one) who moan that "the UK is so horrible that I'm going elsewhere" are exactly the same people who moan about, and oppose, immigrants.

Most countries only allow you move there if you have useful skills and money and preferably a job to go to and aren't a criminal and will fit in with the natives. Otherwise, at best, you'll be on a temporary work permit and can be deported at any time.

Most of the 'moaning right wing nutters' in the UK would be quite happy if similar rules applied there.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 15:28
By absentee landlord I meant landowners, agricultural. The same might apply to some slum landlords whom by evading standards, bribing councillors and by pricing policy also keep workers in poverty. Shouldn't apply to most buy-to-let types.

I object so much to uses of UK taxation that, for this and other reasons, I have emigrated. The Gloucester mother of 11 would be a good example of a reason why. When I left, I was not the only member of a department of 7 emigrating. I suspect the emigration numbers are larger than the airports survey the Government uses would indicate. For one, I left by yacht!

As for now being an immigrant, I'm in a country where everyone is aware of their immigrant heritage, including those born here. Furthermore, I am providing a service which the locals need, improves the lives of the locals, and they can't provide sufficient of themselves. I also wholeheartedly embrace their culture and values. Thus I am accepted. I believe the above facts mean I am not a hypocrite about immigration. Indeed, I think the majority would accept that immigration to the UK for the above reasons is welcome.

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 15:29
Why is that the lefties can never resist a cheap crack at people who hold right wing views?

We are always 'moaning right-wing nutters' or 'rabid right-wingers', 'fascists', 'nazis', 'racists' and so on.

Most of the 'moaning right wing nutters' in the UK would be quite happy if similar rules applied there.
Spot on.

The SSK
20th Feb 2013, 15:30
I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.
Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.
Dwight D. Eisenhower wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes in Jet Blast

G&T ice n slice
20th Feb 2013, 15:58
We of the National Social & Democratic Action Party address the issue under points (9) and (10) of our 25-point programme, viz:

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

Our intention is that :

To receive "benefits" from the state, the recipient must show that he/she qualifies under (9) as meeting obligations and (10) performing work.

To The N.S. & D.A.P. will set in place labour exchanges that will direct persons applying for benefits to suitable work-programmes of a simple non-skilled nature that will return to the community some equivalent notional improvement, such as street cleansing, litter-picking, or other similar activity not normally considered to be in the remit of private companies, in effect giving the benefit applicant the means to meet the requirements of (9) and (10) above.

By attending daily the "benefit applicant" will accrue a credit towards the benefit for which they are applying. The programmes will not be in effect on Sundays and public holidays. Applicants will be expected to attend on all other days.

Further information has already been published in our newspaper "The People's Observer"

FANS
20th Feb 2013, 16:04
Given that the whole raison d'etre of this forum is for professional pilots, i.e. those that work, views will be against the benefits-as-a-career-culture.

The more worrying thing is those on the likes of the Guardian website for whom the disadvantaged can do no wrong and they simply need more (of our) money.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 16:04
Seig Heil, mein cocktail

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 16:18
Why is that the lefties can never resist a cheap crack at people who hold right wing views?

We are always 'moaning right-wing nutters' or 'rabid right-wingers', 'fascists', 'nazis', 'racists' and so on.




And in the other direction, the caricatures are just as applicable:

"leftie tree hugger pinkoe sponger idle benefit taker spender of other people's money" and so on

Neither stance is particularly enlightening, and does nothing to enhance credibilty nor dignity of either point of view.

On both sides.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 16:28
By absentee landlord I meant landowners, agricultural.


Fox, funnily enough we've been toying with the idea of ag land. yes it can be bought cheaper, beacuse it's ag land and the chances of getting development permission is rarer than rocking horse s**t but the aside to that is you can rent it out to an adjoining farmer to utlisies for crop / livestock. of course farmers have been screwed the wall for decades so they invariably have little money themselves, farming doesn't generate wealth, so they get land to use, and you get a small income from renting them land..

to add on to waht else you mentioned, yes indeed canada and the Northern americas are largely immigrant populations and they celebreate their immigrant heritage, however the converse to that is that it's celebrated because those that settled did so carve a life for themselves, not sit with their hands out as an alternative lifestyle. to emigrate to the US of Canada, one has to have a skill or expertise that is sought and citizenship is not handed out like cheap confectionary. it takes time to gain citizenship and if you flout the law before that process is completed you'll find yourself with a one way ticket back to the old country.

conversely, here in the UK we have criminals of other nationalities that rape and murder and steal at will not just from the tax payer but also from whomever they so choose directly and have their 'human rights' to remain in the country. heck some have even wandered in with a string of criminal convictions in their native countries.

i think you've done well to emigrate to canada, a clean, intelligent country that does what it does, with it seems a population of a majority pretty nice people.

as for GtW's ramblings this is from teh councillor who presents that it's the job of the elected to enforce the will of the minority.

there is no shame in seeking work overseas, invariably being the aviation industry a huge number of us have or will at some point in our work history.

the difference is there 'work history' not benefit surfing from state to state. all countries welcome those that arrive on their shores to better themselves and the country and embrace the local culture, the UK seems to welcome to its shores that just want to leech, import their own culture separarte themselves from the native and take whatever they can purloin.

one is union of mutual benefit, a marriage for mutual betterment, one is union of parasite to host.

Krystal n chips
20th Feb 2013, 16:33
" We are always 'moaning right-wing nutters' or 'rabid right-wingers', 'fascists', 'nazis', 'racists' and so on."

That's one of the most ironic, factual and succinct encapsulations I have ever seen.....well done !

" the UK seems to welcome to its shores that just want to leech, import their own culture separarte themselves from the native and take whatever they can purloin."

On the surface, and notably within the perceptions of those who qualify, and in some cases are overqualified, for the terms above, this would appear to be the case.

However, when it comes to leeching, please rememeber that it suits many employers in various sectors to employ comparatively cheap labour and transitory labour, in contrast to having to employ UK citizens. Nasty things like tax and social benefits tend to get in the way of profits.

And in my experience, many of those who do come to our shores, tend to be better educated ( at all levels ) and willing to work than a fair number of our born and bred citizens....again, across the whole social demographic. The best example I have ever encountered being a lady from Poland who was working in a B&B I stayed at in Lincoln for a few months ( the UK company I was working for felt this was the cheapest option, despite it producing consistently high profits ) and who was, in essence, being exploited by a classic "Del boy" owner.

She had an MSc in Life Sciences, was training to be a teacher, and had come to the UK to help her understand the culture and to enhance her English language knowledge. A lovely lady to talk to ( and she was also delighted to read my copy of the Guardian every day ....just thought I would mention that in passing...) but could not understand the animosity she encountered in Lincoln.

I politely explained the reason why......as italicised in my opening line.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 16:56
By 'landowners, ag.' I meant Lordships being handed land at the expense of immigrants, etc., not those buying land from earnings.

There is a fundamental problem in the UK though, in that there were a large number of people willing to work who were unable to (70's, 80's). It is not unreasonable for them to be grasping every handout going, since it was their taxes in the first place. Naturally over time this has led to a generation who, having never known work, see no need to even bother looking for it. This is especially true when large numbers of the wealthy regard the tax system as an obstacle course to amuse their accountants. UK laws also enforce safety and other standards which price UK businesses out of the market, whilst allowing imports from countries which do not have to meet these standards. This is desperately iniquitous. Furthermore, there is a clear disparity in the enforcement of these regulations. An example from my last UK abode would be the taxi companies being completely racist in their hiring policies (pakistanis only), with the last survey showing a full one third not possessing even a driving licence, yet the council taking no action.
To my mind, it's about leadership. Until the politicians are held to at least the same standards as the rest of us, it won't get better.

Ancient Observer
20th Feb 2013, 17:03
As a previous leftie, I can still quotes parts of Das kapital, and I read much of Miliband senior's work. Then I realised that he lived in what his son now calls a millionaire's mansion, as do his two sons.

Fortunately, both of them, and their mum, will have to pay the millionaire's mansion tax when they bring it in.

I realised that the only problem with Socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money to spend.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 17:07
However, when it comes to leeching, please rememeber that it suits many employers in various sectors to employ comparatively cheap labour and transitory labour, in contrast to having to employ UK citizens. Nasty things like tax and social benefits tend to get in the way of profits.



a nice little attempt at blaming business for the ills of the country Komrade..

unfortunately in the era of 'Globalisation' that word thrown about by the left's great messiah Tony Blair, manufacturing and services are competetive on an international basis..

so in turn with an ever growing tax demand on business to pay for the great fiscal piss away much enjoyed by labour, business has no choice but to reduce overheads in any way it can as the costs of business the tax burdern encompasses the entire output the profitability of the company and its output (products or services) and that means employing cheap staff.

do you understand yet Komrade why taxing the ass out of everything kills business ?

back to the Politburo...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 17:09
True to an extent, but exploiting labour is also being done by the global companies who aren't paying any taxes!

cavortingcheetah
20th Feb 2013, 17:14
Cockle warming stuff, all this charitable sentiment and support for the starving masses. It all might get a little tested and strained from January 1, 2014 when the populations of two failed European socialist countries decide to sample the munificence of the British benefit system.

Nick Clegg refuses to reveal immigration estimates on LBC radio show - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-refuses-to-reveal-immigration-estimates-on-lbc-radio-show-8502919.html)
Violent protests force out government in Bulgaria, the EU's poorest nation - Europe - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/violent-protests-force-out-government-in--bulgaria-the-eus-poorest-nation-8502756.html)

Krystal n chips
20th Feb 2013, 17:21
" a nice little attempt at blaming business for the ills of the country Komrade.."

I didn't actually blame business.....but I am grateful for your quantification and reasoning below. I assume you selected the left foot to shoot into?


" so in turn with an ever growing tax demand on business to pay for the great fiscal piss away much enjoyed by labour, business has no choice but to reduce overheads in any way it can as the costs of business the tax burdern encompasses the entire output the profitability of the company and its output (products or services) and that means employing cheap staff".

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 17:29
I realised that the only problem with Socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money to spend.


To whom belongs the money spent by right wing governments? The ministers? The MPs? The Prime Minister? Local councellors?

No, perhaps the same people who supply the money for all the spectra of political inclinations to spend.

Please go away with this "other peoples money" fallacy raised as an attack upon a certain vision of the way an economy works.

No government of whatever persuasion has ever done anything different than to spend other peoples money.

Cornish Jack
20th Feb 2013, 17:29
Thank Heaven for Gertrude and Krystal!
I was beginning to think that Pprune readers were about to be offered black shirts and boots and lessons in Basil Fawlty funny walks.:rolleyes:
What are we being presented with? The bleating bile of those who, either have deserted the country about which they have so much supposed concern, or those who find that paying for the services provided by Government via taxes offends their well honed greed:yuk:
These so-called 'patriots' who have been fortunate (yes, that IS the word) to enjoy employment in areas of their own choice, have been well paid for it (in one case, at least, from taxes paid by those less well off) and object to making any contribution to the welfare of those less lucky ... and probably fume over their Daily Wail as they sip their 'skinny latte' or whatever, at the highly profitable but minimum tax-paying S**tbucks:mad:
The only benefit they give me is that because they consistently make a loss, I get a tax offset against other investment income.
Yes, right ... that just about sums it up nicely - the tears of sympathy are making typing impossible:{

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 17:48
I didn't actually blame business.....but I am grateful for your quantification and reasoning below. I assume you selected the left foot to shoot into?



I'm sorry Komrade but one fails to see where one is shooting into the foot ?

Of course companies want cheap staff, the cheaper the better, as pointed out; due the heavy tax burdens placed on them and their products in the supply chain. They need to be competetive by reducing overheads in any and everyway possible. In fact have no choice to other than shutting up shop.

Or does the socialist mind not kompute such realities, only subsidies which *ahem* come from tax kontributions?

back to the politburo for re-edukation Komrade.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 17:49
Thank Heaven for Gertrude and Krystal!
I was beginning to think that PPRuNe readers were about to be offered black shirts and boots and lessons in Basil Fawlty funny walks

ahh the good old b/s rhetoric from the left.

Yes, right ... that just about sums it up nicely - the tears of sympathy are making typing impossiblehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

so revelling in your politiks of envy you would like to see taxes paid on losses too ?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 17:51
Yes, right ... that just about sums it up nicely - the tears of sympathy are making typing impossibleOr the green haze of envy perhaps?

It never fails to amaze me how those who have worked hard to make a success of their lives and be financially independent are always seen as evil takers by the other lot.

so in your politiks of envy you would like to see taxes paid on losses too ?
ssshhh, don't give them ideas .......... they haven't thought of that one yet!

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 17:55
It never fails to amaze me how those who have worked hard to make a success of their lives and be financially independent are always seen as evil takers by the other lot.



Really TV. does it really amaze you.. as posted before:


Socialists by dint of their own politics don't want aspiration or the ability for people to better themselves by investing in their own futures and abilities. they want to be told what to think, what they can have, what they can earn, when they can have it. the politics of cowardice.

And because they don't want to think for themselves they don't want anyone else to.

The politics of envy, if I cant have it, neither should you.

cavortingcheetah
20th Feb 2013, 17:59
Wouldn't it be a marvellous thing now if only tax payers had the right to vote and only those who contributed to society received charitable benefit in the form of income hand outs.

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 18:06
Wouldn't it be a marvellous thing now if only tax payers had the right to vote

Your declared location gives a clue; if you are in a perambulator, you are too young to understand the injustice against which the suffragettes battled.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 18:33
To avoid injustice, the right to vote must be extended to all those to whom the full penalty of the law applies, who are capable of sound judgement. This is why incarcerated criminals, the insane and members of the House of Lords are excluded. Apart from the fact that Doncaster Rovers supporters are not automatically classed as insane, I'm in general agreement with this.

cavortingcheetah
20th Feb 2013, 18:37
It would have been too politically dangerous to have confined the voting rights to male tax payers. 1882 and the Married Women's Property Act did for that, long before the lack of convenience on the race track.
Norwich is a fine city not yet suffering as are many towns in Germany from the eastern effluvient.

FANS
20th Feb 2013, 18:37
There s f all fortunate about working 7 days a week to build up a business, despite the red tape and hurdles imposed on me by government.

If you want to pay for people to have as many kids as they want, sitting around watching sky tv then please feel free to donate your money accordingly. Do not go spending my money and declaring myself to be fortunate as I didnt have the luxury of spending day and night with my kids because I was contributing massively to this crazy and unaffordable system.

Tableview
20th Feb 2013, 18:46
Someone once said that the harder you work, the more 'fortunate' you are. Unless you are born into money, and even then you have to work to keep it, wealth is accumulated by dint of a combination of hard work and making the right decisions.

The key is education - the Indians in particular got that right, they will make enormous sacrifices to ensure that their children have a good education and can have succesful careers.

How many Indian kids do you see out on the streets doing muggings, or hanging round sink estates sniffing glue, compared to other ethnic groups?

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 18:46
There s f all fortunate about working 7 days a week to build up a business, despite the red tape and hurdles imposed on me by government.

If you want to pay for people to have as many kids as they want, sitting around watching sky tv then please feel free to donate your money accordingly. Do not go spending my money and declaring myself to be fortunate as I didnt have the luxury of spending day and night with my kids because I was contributing massively to this crazy and unaffordable system.

ahh but FANS in the socialist mind you are the evil capitalist taking advantage of the poor and the needy, despite the fact that *you* are the one taking on risk of starting a business.

well done and all the best of luck to you sir, despite what the socialists desire to take off you and paint you as the devil incarnate.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 18:49
How many Indian kids do you see out on the streets doing muggings, or hanging round sink estates sniffing glue, compared to other ethnic groups?

not many.. most are working the family business no different if it may be a general store, plumbing merchant, gas installer or dentist surgery, lest they get a clip round the ear from dad for not pulling their finger out.

Cornish Jack
20th Feb 2013, 18:58
It never fails to amaze me how those who have worked hard to make a success of their lives and be financially independent are always seen as evil takers by the other lot.
It never fails to amaze me how those who have been fortunate enough to find employment which made them financially independent are always totally opposed to making any contribution to the system which provided their opportunities.
I was in full time employment for over 50 years and EVERY penny of my income was taxed - no company car, no children's allowance, no rebates for any incurred outgoings etc., no tax advisor to minimise liabilities.
This oft quoted b/s of 'politics of envy' is just that ... b/s! Those of us who do pay ALL our taxes, do so without the whingeing, moaning, self-obsessed, greed-inspired blather which typifies the tax haters. As a child I lived in a world where privation was pretty normal and the community, in the main, took care of it's weaklings - whatever form that weakness took. The exceptions were those who saw the answer in further depriving the deprived."Send them to the workhouse or the asylum. Can't afford doctors or medicine? Let them die, it'll make the survivors stronger".
The latter are still with us masquerading as 'social improvers' when their motives are the eternal 'politics of envy', greed! "All this is mine - mustn't share it, mustn't make a contribution to anyone less fortunate - unless they beg on bended knee. Perhaps the country DID contribute to my success with free education, free health care etc.,but now that it belongs to me I intend to keep it all."
To return to the opening quote, there would seem to be this notion prevalent among the tax-haters that THEY are the only people who worked hard. That. they most certainly are not!! I would go so far as to say that there are few among them who would understand what true HARD work is. The real hard work, of industry, of the mines, the farms and all the menial, unpleasant, poorly paid jobs which left the workers in ill health and totally lacking financial independence would not have featured in their CVs.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 19:06
It never fails to amaze me how those who have been fortunate enough to find employment which made them financially independent are always totally opposed to making any contribution to the system which provided their opportunities.

More lefty Rhetoric..

no one has said they object to tax contributions.. what many object to is punitive tax contributions, tax contributions that are designed to appropriate personal wealth that has been earned, by government to piss away on their pet projects..

and you lefties like to quote fairness ?

if you want fairness, a flat tax that everyone pays the same percentage no matter what they earn is fair.

as posted before, punitive taxation has damaged every economy it has been tried in.

34% of the tax take is provided by the top 1% of earners, but that is not enough for the lefties.. they want more.. what they want is to punish personal ambition, drive and acheivement.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 19:13
I would go so far as to say that there are few among them who would understand what true HARD work is. The real hard work, of industry, of the mines, the farms and all the menial, unpleasant, poorly paid jobs which left the workers in ill health and totally lacking financial independence would not have featured in their CVs.

so blue collar work is true work and hard work and nothing else is ?

try telling that to a junior doctor, reg or consultant that has done years of 70 hour weeks, sleeping in staff rooms at hospitals and still expected to perform 100% the same at 69 hours as they were at hour 1. doing 18 hour days, treble shifts and making decisions on peoples lives and health which if they eff up will get them in court or struck off.

or business men that are in the office at 5 am and still there at 11 at night, shouldering the debt risk personally for their businesses which if they eff could loose them everything and the cost jobs of their staff..

or indeed pilots that go from lates to earlies punting out weeks at a time with little rest periods and expected to perform 100% at the end of multiple sector flight day down to minimums in bad weather and if they eff up a couple of hundred lives lost at worst or their licences and livelihood tugged away at will.

oh no that's not real work is it.

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 19:17
The key is education - the Indians in particular got that right, they will make enormous sacrifices to ensure that their children have a good education and can have succesful careers.




I am prepared, nay glad, to see a lot of the tax I pay going towards the education of all the children in the country, not just my children. I will gladly pay more tax towards that end.

Therein endeth where we agree.

I am far less happy to recompense blatant failures of the capitalist system (such as bonuses for bankers who wrecked their banks, taking down with those failures the savings of decent hard working tax paying people).

"Fred the shred" may spring to mind.

You make the fundamental mistake of believing that anybody with a sense of citizenry solidarity is a raving leftie, and worthy of loathing.

If you have been successful, I am happy for you. If it all goes tits up for you, you might just be grateful for a degree of welfare.

500N
20th Feb 2013, 19:21
"It never fails to amaze me how those who have been fortunate enough to find employment which made them financially independent are always totally opposed to making any contribution to the system which provided their opportunities."

As stuckgear said plus

CornishJack

I don't think people object to "making any contribution to the system which provided their opportunities"

Just those who worked hard via tax and often high tax been making
a contribution. And then on top of that, because pollies couldn't manage
anything, they want to bring in a wealth tax to have another go at what
you have worked hard to get - double dipping considering tax has already
been paid.

In addition, no one objects to helping people like the children of
the OP but strongly object to helping people who can't get off their
backsides to do anything for themselves - or even at all.

Generally the people who have been successful have often got up
and done it themselves with little help from the system.

charliegolf
20th Feb 2013, 19:30
50% of the tax take is provided by the top 1% of earners,

Where's the evidence for that Stuck?

CG

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 19:34
Generally the people who have been successful have often got up
and done it themselves with little help from the system.


Notwithstanding that your remark is a piece of self serving meaningless dogma, what of those paralysed by illness who could not get up without the "system"

500N
20th Feb 2013, 19:42
WF

Not a problem, I think they are in a different category.


And why is it self serving dogma ?

You see people pay to get a degree (here you have to pay, not sure about the UK), get a job, work hard to get up the ladder etc, do extra outside to get more.

I don't see the Gov't giving them a leg up.


Going by what the OP said, all he seems to get is brick walls put in the way.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 19:43
Where's the evidence for that Stuck?


i think it was Oriel Securities in the UK.. i'll have to look it up.. NB: Correction i think it was the top 1% of earners in the UK contribute 34% of the income tax take.

data duly corrected above.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 19:47
I think the welfare state in the UK is too generous. Here in Canada taxation is lower, and people give more in charity. This charity is mostly localised and often direct, with benefits being rapidly organised. Recent examples include a man whose house burnt down, the innocent victim of a road accident and a cancer sufferer. The amounts raised were in the tens of thousands in all cases, and over $50,000 for the woman partly paralysed by the road accident, all just from local people. Lazy scumbags (not many, but there are one or two) tend not to get as much.

wings folded
20th Feb 2013, 19:52
And why is it self serving dogma ?


Because he says "Generally..." without any kind of supporting evidence.

He is just expressing a view.

There are those who might disagree, absent proof.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 19:53
You see people pay to get a degree (here you have to pay, not sure about the UK),

in the UK a degree is funded by loan from the government which you dont have to pay back until you earn above a certain amount.

my degree was paid for out of my own pocket from my own hard earned income and after i had generated the funds to pay for it outright.

in terms of what the government has provided me is shy of toss all, a crap state education which served no benefit and provided further education from my own pocket, all the way, right through to a B.Sc. my next advancement in educational furtherment will also be out of my own pocket.

but of course that makes me a right wing nutter capitalist in the eyes of the lefties.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 19:55
Notwithstanding that your remark is a piece of self serving meaningless dogma, what of those paralysed by illness who could not get up without the "system"

more baseless rhetoric and polemic.

the discussion is based on the punitive taxation of those who seek to acheive and gain furtherment and has nothing to do with anyone paralysed by illness.

500N
20th Feb 2013, 20:05
Stuckgear

Same, self funded, had to work two jobs which is nothing special,
most others have to do it. Then the gov't here also went to the "loan"
system which you have to pay back. But not for everyone. Some
minorities get it for free.

In my life, my parents have provided more for me than the Gov't.
The rest of the time the gov't has just had it's hand out. After wasting
what my parents provided up to leaving school plus a good kick up
the backside for wasting it, everything else has been self funded.


I have no problem providing support for those not capable
due to illness or injury. I have worked in what was then called
a "Spastic centre" and they do need full time care. No problem.


But look at the examples in the OP's statement, you see it all the time.
No intention to work. In the DM yesterday (I think), a story about a guy
on benefits who gets about Pounds 25,000 - Pounds 8000 more than a Squaddie fighting in Afghanistan :ugh:

You tell me that is the right way round ?

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 20:21
ahh but if you look at 2nd to OP RE's son does want to work, it's just that the system is designed for those who don't fit the socialist mantra of those in need..

now if he had a drug problem, a string of violent offence convictions was of whatever 'ethnic group' is the 'cause du jour' or whatever the state would be there to lavish full support.

male, middle class, no drug/drink problem not of an ethnic group to championed today, tough tits you're on your own.

again the socialist system is designed to damage the middle class for one thing; political correctness.. as our dear lefty councillor GtW expounds, the job of elected office is serve the minority.

and that there says it all.

and to further emphasise the point:

your cite:

a story about a guy
on benefits who gets about Pounds 25,000 - Pounds 8000 more than a Squaddie fighting in Afghanistan :ugh:


was of Anjem Choudray, not just a bloke, but an islamist hate preacher who openly preaches terrorism against the country.

this is what the lefties laud as great and good.



Anjem Choudary, who in the past has planned to disrupt the minute's silence on Remembrance Sunday, also openly mocked hard-working Britons, calling them 'slaves'.

The Sun newspaper secretly filmed him saying Islam will overrun Europe, David Cameron and Barack Obama should be killed and calling the Queen 'ugly'.


He told a crowd of around 30 fanatics: 'People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working'. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar (non-Muslim).

'So we take Jihadseeker's Allowance. You need to get support.'
In another video a grinning Choudary is recorded telling his disciples that it is justifiable to take money from non-believers.

He said: 'The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar (God is great).

He also called Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt the 'shaitan', or devil, and said he wanted them to be killed.

Choudary spoke glowingly of the 9/11 attacks and urged his followers to have 'hate' in their hearts for core British concepts like democracy, freedom and freedom of religion.

500N
20th Feb 2013, 20:24
Which is why I said that today you are better off being
Aboriginal or in another minority - like the examples
you gave - druggie, crim :O

:ugh:

cavortingcheetah
20th Feb 2013, 20:35
Without the charity of working tax payers, those on benefit would constitute what has down history's pathway been known as the rabble or the mob.
These creatures, specifically in European cities, including those in Russia were never really much of an inconvenience. Allowed to fend for themselves and starve where appropriate or timely, any group protest which might lead to civil unrest was put down with the utmost ferocity by the authorities both military and quasi military. The problem faced in Britain and so many other countries has arisen precisely because of the reduction in the wealth of the hard working citizen by its redistribution into the voracious and all consuming maw of the idle poor who are indeed and for the most part, given the advantages of society today, only poor because they are idle.
The solution therefore is to simultaneously remove all benefits and to greatly increase recruitment into both the police force and the army while at the same time very significantly increasing salaries. Attention should also be paid to the expansion of the Marine Forces which have always shown themselves more readily prone to adopt a stiff position against a rambunctious rabble.
Soup kitchens could be financed by the government as a short term easement for women and children while extrication from the EU would provide almost unlimited employment for the male work force. This policy would of course need to be initiated entirely without racial prejudice in order to conform with the working conditions imposed upon such states as the USSR by Stalin, North Korea by its ruling dynasty and thus uphold the finest traditions of socialist excellence.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 20:44
The US Department of Homeland Security has just bought 1.8 billion rounds of ammo. Its yearly consumption is, by its own admission, 15 million rounds.

..or to put it another way, that's enough ammo to run the combat phase of the Invasion of Iraq for 7 years.

500N
20th Feb 2013, 20:51
They better not be in a hurry for it as the US is nearly
out of ammo as it is :O

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 20:52
well as an aside to that CC,

Labour managed to take an economic surplus and turn into the largest peacetime debt the country has known, and along the way raided pensions, sold off the country's gold, sold off public assets at less then knock down prices (Mapely Steps scandal) saddled the NHS with structural debt problems etc etc ad nauseum...

and what do we have to show for it?

a well funded and efficient health service.. nope.

well then we must have a well funded and equipped military capable of undertaking the international commitments placed on it.. nope not that either..

an education system erasing illiteracy and poor educational standards.. nope not that either..

hmm so what about an efficient and low cost public transport system.. not not there either..

maybe its the road system.. nope...

maybe its the emergency services.. nope not that either..

basically they pissed every penny the could and borrow away on pet schemes and projects of bread and circuses.

and they think they have all the answers to solve their monumental devastation of a country by taxing and appropriating personal assets.

of course the left and their rabid followers cant admit the failing or even wont admit their failings as well it highlights their whole belief system is corrupt and worthless..

and what will the rabid left do with thier new found ill gotten gains. piss that away as well.

Rail Engineer
20th Feb 2013, 21:06
I am far less happy to recompense blatant failures of the capitalist system (such as bonuses for bankers who wrecked their banks, taking down with those failures the savings of decent hard working tax paying people).
"Fred the shred" may spring to mind. With respect that is a statement that is not sufficiently qualified.

In theory the bonus that a banker will get will be based upon how much money he has made for the bank, in effect this is money that is generated towards the UK - obviously, otherwise he would not have a bonus.

Despite what the less astute will post from an emotional perspective, even the Trade Unions recognise the need for investment.

You may not have realised or perhaps do not know (or maybe dont even care for the purposes of making a Political point) but the whole of the UK pension business only works as a result of money paid in, being used to generate growth (i.e.profit). Now I appreciate that words such as investment and profit are probably an anathema to you, but at the end of the day, the value of your pension will depend upon the money that it can generate through investments. If you are that opposed to it then may I suggest you put your pension money under the mattress because the whole of the world's economy, even those great Socialist bastions of Russia and China understand that financial growth and wealth can only be generated through the investment of money.

Even that great Socialist Temple of the Guardian benefits from investing money indeed whilst publicly lambasting any form of investment or the use of tax avoidance schemes, it turns out that its whole basis of operations rests on the judicious use of investment trusts, offshore funds, offshore tax havens and some very clever tax avoidance schemes. Naturally such Socialist hypocricy can only come from a newspaper which employs only public school educated "journalists", most of whom have pretty substantial private funds. At least one of the most outspoken and Left-wing of their "journalists" owns several mansions and Villas, one in Italy indeed, has benefitted from a private education, and sent their children to private school whilst hypocritically slagging of others who did similar. That such an individual descended from a Marxist who made absolutely certain that he had water-tight financial arrangments to minimise the amount of death duties goes without saying.

Does it not strike you as somewhat paradoxical that all of these various banking scandals all emanated from the period during which Labour was in power ? Maybe the phrase "Light touch of Regulation" comes to mind ? It was only after Bliar and Brown removed the tight Regulation controls and emasculated the power of the financial Regulators that the various Financial Institutions were free to play monopoly with our money - being cheer-led from the sidelines by the Labour Government which was desperate to MAKE people feel richer than we were and in consequence released the boom in unsecured borrowing that has underpinned the current state of the UK economy.

I have to say to you that the most voracious tax dodgers and avoiders come from the Left hand side of the Political spectrum,and you might just want to mull over that point at some time.

stuckgear
20th Feb 2013, 21:14
'In budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers.'
- Gordon Brown speech to bankers of the City of London, Mansion House, 2004.


well Labour certainly did that.

and to add on to RE's comments the very regualtions that Labour removed in their light touch and soft touch regulation policies were put in place to prevent the very situation happening, harking back to the banking crash of the 30's.

Clinton did the same thing in the USA.

RedhillPhil
20th Feb 2013, 22:18
Thread drift, as you say, but I'll answer you. When second class (oh I know the luvvies say we're not supposed to call it that any more) is full of festering rank humanity, and cyclists with their bits poking out of their lurid plastic clothes, then I don't see any choice, and on short routes the difference is usually only a couple of pounds.

When I travel on longer routes, I usually have the luxury of being able to book well in advance and travel off-peak. This minimises the difference, for example last week I was able to travel Gatwick - London - Chester for £46 in F whereas the fare in Pleb would have been £32, so a no brainer really.

The 'walkup' fares are ludicrously high and quite unaffordable. The people who pay those fares subsidise my comfort! Thank you.

After privatisation the railway companies were quick off the mark to follow the airline pricing system. Book ahead and early = cheap fare (Son goes to Penzance from Redhill for £35 return). Walk up and ask for the next available train = kerching! Who travels from LHR to JFK by just turning up at the gate and asking for a return on the next available flight? I'm not defending the companies, just telling how it is.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Feb 2013, 23:26
..and after all, who takes a train without planning? In my case, when my father was dying. What a nice business model they've got there.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 07:48
and for the socialists that tell us, or try to tell us, what utopia we lived in under Labour...


Office for National Statistics figures show that three in four jobs have gone to workers born outside Britain since 1997, even hitting more than 90 per cent at times.


It represents a dramatic reversal on Labour’s 13 years in power when there was a haemorrhaging of jobs to foreign workers.

Of the 3.1million increase in employment since 1997, some 2.3million jobs went to foreign-born workers and just 794,000 went to those born in the UK.


In contrast, the majority of jobs created in Britain over the past year have been filled by workers who were born in this country, official figures revealed yesterday.

Metro man
21st Feb 2013, 08:14
Basically you have the option of buying off the disaffected with generous welfare benefits, Scandinavia style. Or not paying, and locking them up instead USA style.

Which is cheaper ?

Tableview
21st Feb 2013, 08:43
No, stuckgear, all that proves is that the current government are racist! You can never win against the lefties.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 09:07
I would argue that point MM, by saying that the USA locks up those that have been convicted in a court of law of a crime that warrants a custodial sentence (the sanctity of criminal convictions is a subject for another thread)

The better way forward is for people to have the motivation and ambition to achieve but for that happen there needs to be the incentive to work and not have everyhing earned taken away by government appropriation in the way of tax. but of course that doesn't fit with socialist ideology.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 09:10
No, stuckgear, all that proves is that the current government are racist! You can never win against the lefties.


thank for that TV, i've just snorted tea over my keyboard !

unfortunately the lefties revel in rhetoric so you can never have an informed discussion with those who deny fact and cannot form a cogent point.

As a wise poster stated recently; 'it's like trying to have a discussion with a drunk'

;)

Metro man
21st Feb 2013, 10:52
In some countries you are better off on welfare than working, therefore the underclass can afford a reasonable standard of living and don't have the same incentive to commit crime. The government provides enough for the flat screen TV with cable and a bit left over for drink and drugs. They don't have to resort to mugging to support their habit to the same extent as they would in the US.

They are bought off i.e. stay home and watch 100 channels on your plasma and the state will pay for it, rather than go out robbing and drug dealing to pay for the big screen and cable connection.

In the states welfare is less generous so crime and drug dealing is needed to pay for the SUV and 60" TV. Get caught and you are locked up and imprisoned at tax payer expense.

Which is cheaper ? Give the money directly to the underclass, or wait for them to offend and use it to lock them up.

Expecting them to work isn't a practical option.

MG23
21st Feb 2013, 11:05
Which is cheaper ? Give the money directly to the underclass, or wait for them to offend and use it to lock them up.

Expecting them to work isn't a practical option.

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
   No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
   And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Paying off the underclass merely ensures that it grows larger, until there are no longer enough non-underclass taxpayers to keep paying the Danegeld. At that point, society collapses anyway.

Andy_S
21st Feb 2013, 11:33
In some countries you are better off on welfare than working, therefore the underclass can afford a reasonable standard of living and don't have the same incentive to commit crime. The government provides enough for the flat screen TV with cable and a bit left over for drink and drugs. They don't have to resort to mugging to support their habit to the same extent as they would in the US.

That would be fine if it were a limited number of scroungers and there was a political consensus that there should be limits to the extent that these peoples lifestyles are underwritten.

The trouble is, when word gets around that you can have a decent standard of living without having to go out and work for it, more and more people will want to climb on the gravy train. And then political party ‘A’ will promise to increase the level of benefits and widen the number of people eligible for them in order to increase their share of the vote, and party ‘B’ won’t protest too much for fear they will lose votes.

It all spirals out of control…….

Whirlygig
21st Feb 2013, 11:43
In theory the bonus that a banker will get will be based upon how much money he has made for the bank, in effect this is money that is generated towards the UK - obviously, otherwise he would not have a bonus
In theory yes ... but bankers were still getting their bonuses even though the banks had lost money. THAT was the scandal and travesty.

Cheers

Whirls

Tableview
21st Feb 2013, 11:44
Metro man your argument is perfectly sound and reasonable up to your last sentence.

Why should fecklessness be rewarded? Getting them out to work should be a practical option. If they are uneducated, either educate them in some skill or trade, or give them physical work for which they don't need education, even if it's only sweeping the streets or stacking boxes in a warehouse. Arrange transport for them if lack of transport is the excuse.

I am sick of hearing of the abuses of the social system in the UK, and indeed elsewhere, and in the UK it's not just immigrants, some of the home grown scum are just as bad. I don't entirely blame them, I blame a system which encourages and incentivises a life of idleness.

MG23
21st Feb 2013, 11:54
In theory yes ... but bankers were still getting their bonuses even though the banks had lost money. THAT was the scandal and travesty.

It's called 'moral hazard'.

The bankers knew Labour would bail them out because they were 'too big to fail', so they could pay themselves billions and dump the problem on the taxpayer when the banks collapsed. Had they known the government would let them go bust, they'd actually have had to consider whether what they were doing was a good idea.

Andy_S
21st Feb 2013, 12:10
Jeez. The lady from Gloucester is able to afford flying lessons....

Jobless mother-of-11 with council 'mansion' and horse now said to have bought flying lessons - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9884775/Jobless-mother-of-11-with-council-mansion-and-horse-now-said-to-have-bought-flying-lessons.html)

Metro man
21st Feb 2013, 12:14
Unfortunately the system in the UK is beyond repair, the tipping point has been passed long ago. A society is doomed when there are more people living off the treasury than paying into it. The majority won't allow the necessary changes because it will adversely affect them. The tax burden keeps going up on the minority of productive people, more and more of which will decide that it's not worth working and join the dole, or emigrate to a place where hard work is rewarded instead of penalised.

You can't even deport serious, violent criminals who are in the country illegally, incase it breaches their human rights.

Some people are unemployable, there are households where three generations have never done a single days work in their lives. I doubt even the army could do anything useful with much of the welfare class. What possible useful function could a Chav or Dale Farm inhabitant perform ?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st Feb 2013, 12:32
Exactly !

Note location

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 12:37
In theory yes ... but bankers were still getting their bonuses even though the banks had lost money. THAT was the scandal and travesty.

Cheers

Whirls

but the realtist situation to that is that banks are private businesses, and salaraies and bonuses are between the shareholders and the management.

do we then legislate what salaries should be by government diktat ? then are back on to socialism...

the problem comes when banks are bailed out with public money to prevent those who have money being financially wiped out..

so then we come back to legislation being put in place to prevent banks running amok with other peoples money, which were in place and were drawn up from the banking crash in the 30's.. Labour removed those regulation with their light touch and soft soft regulation [sic] and openly wanted to encourage risk takes (taking risks with OPM) investment arms and retail arms should be spearated by at least a firewall, but then again, that wasn't in labour's interest.

and so we are back to where we started... socialists don't live in the real world.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 12:38
The trouble is, when word gets around that you can have a decent standard of living without having to go out and work for it, more and more people will want to climb on the gravy train

even more so, when one week's benefit payment in the UK is more than a month's wages in a home country..

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st Feb 2013, 12:43
The problem was not so much the 'light touch', but that even that wasn't actually being applied.
A self-employed friend of mine applied for a mortgage. He was told his income was insufficient. He was then told to resubmit the application with the 'correct' amount, and assured it would not be checked. It wasn't and he got the mortgage. This was with a major lender. My brother knew someone who had got a new car, on credit, to get the cashback to pay his other loans for another 3 months. No checks there obviously either.
This was 2006. That's when I applied to emigrate. The crash was clearly inevitable.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 13:00
Unfortunately the system in the UK is beyond repair, the tipping point has been passed long ago. A society is doomed when there are more people living off the treasury than paying into it. The majority won't allow the necessary changes because it will adversely affect them. The tax burden keeps going up on the minority of productive people, more and more of which will decide that it's not worth working and join the dole, or emigrate to a place where hard work is rewarded instead of penalised.

You can't even deport serious, violent criminals who are in the country illegally, incase it breaches their human rights.



Metro Man,

i think you are right, at least it wont be recoverable in my life time.

it takes close to three times the revenue generated to recover from debt, as any business owner knows.

so consequently 13 years of generated structural debt will probably close to 39 years to recover from and thats not even accounting for inflation.

bizarrely many people seem to that that a change a government would make the debt *magically* disappear and we hear lefties with their cry of the coalition hasnt sorted the problem in two years.. run them out !!

the structural debt problem created by Labour, so beloved of the lefties and socialists has been catastrophic for the country. it's way past oversight, even negligence. if a company was run in such a fashion, the management would be up on fraud charges, but alas labourite run off into the sunset to cream more money out of the taxpayer and line their own pockets and then we have to listen to them pontificate how their policies are right any everyone else is wrong. and STILL people buy into the garbage hook line and sinker.. you only have to see the posts from the rabid lefties on this forum.

yes.. the country is well and screwed.

stuckgear
21st Feb 2013, 13:04
The problem was not so much the 'light touch', but that even that wasn't actually being applied.


yes indeed light/soft touch regulation was a euphamism for do what ever you want, we'll remove the regulations so you can. dont worry we'll bail you out from the taxpayer.



criminal.. absolutely criminal.

Erwin Schroedinger
21st Feb 2013, 17:26
13 years of generated structural debt will probably close to 39 years to recover from and thats not even accounting for inflation.

Inflation is a hidden agenda of the current policy of quantative easing (money printing). Unless you realise what they're up to, of course, in which case its not hidden.

It's called 'inflating a debt away'.

...or 'intentional destruction the savings and pensions of the ignorant masses'.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st Feb 2013, 17:36
..and you may have noticed that the BoE inflation target is two years away, and has been two years away every year.

Funny that.


..not a problem if your pensions are index-linked and your savings are non-existent, as are mine.

Rail Engineer
21st Feb 2013, 17:39
What is worse is that Brown KNEW that the economy was not growing as did the Treasury because as month followed month the growth figures continually fell short. Every other Country could see this and slowly but inexorably the UK was seen as a less safe economy, why even the EU finally pointed this out.

Brown holds the 100% record of being wrong in EVERY single estimate he ever made concerning growth and the economy. After a while it became apparent, even to him that the Country was heading for the rocks, especially after the warnings started to become louder from "friends and allies".

So what did Brown do to recover the situation ?

He simply changed accounting practices so as to remove from the "books" the various PFI schemes. An example of sharp accounting is Network Rail which was set up as an allegedly private Company but it was underwritten by Government but until recently its liabilities did not appear in ANY economic figures. How was this achieved ? By once again changing the rules and creating new ways of hiding debt.

These wholly disingenuous accounting measures were so astute that even the corrupt EU had not thought of them, and realising the implications they then made such practices illegal. Thus we have now had to take these liabilities into open accounting and guess what ? Everything that the IMF, the EMF, the US Treasury said would happen is happening once the sheer scale of our debt was recognised.

The scariest thing ofall is that since 2010 our debt and our borrowing has grown at a far faster and a greater rate than it did under Labour between 1997 and 2010 as more and more of these shamefull PFI deals now crawl out from under the latest unturned stone.

A wholly cyncial and disingenuous programme by Labour, its media supporters, especially the BBC, the Trade Unions and various fat cats who became so under, and through, Labour is currently underway to try to deceive the gullible, the ignorant and those who blindly support Labour that invidious "cuts" are under way.

Those "cuts" are firstly not cuts but are simply small reductions in the growth rate of spending. The "cuts" implemented by the current Government are mere percentage points different to what Labour WOULD HAVE DONE had they gained power, as even the BBC had to concede when they could no longer ignore the world press discussing leaked Labour plans for REAL cuts. Why even Alistair Darling said that Labour would cut harder and deeper than Mrs Thatcher ever did, and remember that under her the spending on schools, the NHS, the welfare, and education continued to rise but at a slower rate. There never were any of the draconian "cuts" she has been so demonised by the Left for.

There were many changes to bring about efficiencies which even Labour now accept were then necessary and indeed such efficiencies were not only continued by Labour but were actually given greater importance and imposed in a harsher manner as well. But of course as this was done by a Left Wing Government then it is all OK isn't it.

The UK is really in deep, deep debt and I for one do not foresee anything other than severe times ahead. This Government is clearly unable to implement the actions needed to bring our economy around, and especially so whilst they have LibDem morons such as Cable in positions where they are actually capable of forcing into place policies and practices which are seriously damaging and undermining the ability of the UK to recover. This is especially the case with small businesses, whom Cable (in the laughable role of Business Secretary) actually despises and does everything he can to destroy.

You really couldn't make it up,a Business Secretary who hates business !

Sadly Cameron is now so obviously incapable of leading and controlling these morons that the sooner we simply throw in the towel and have another GE the better.

The totally scary thing above all is that Labour who created this complete mess and have absolutely no idea how to recover it are likely to win ! Their plans would simply replicate what Obama has done and we can all see the basket case that the US economy is becoming from that.

Tableview
21st Feb 2013, 18:32
Whilst this is a fairly simplistic measure, it does paint a bleak picture of the UK economy and the way it is seen. This is the exchange rate GBP:EUR.

The Euro is not exactly a powerhouse either, but the GBP is in far worse condition. (KAG, you can start gloating now!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/chart?chart_primary_ticker=FX%5EGBP:EUR&chart_time_period=3_month&canvas_colour=000000&primary_chart_colour=CC0000&use_transparency=0&plot_colour=ffffff&cp_line_colour=1F4F82&margin_left=35&margin_bottom=20&margin_right=20&time_24hr=1&tiny_chart=1&tiny_month_view=1&logo_strength=light&y_axis_left=1&x_axis_plain=1&cp_line=1&cp_line_style=dotline&charting_freq=1_minute&co_dimension%5Ewidth=629&co_dimension%5Eheight=190

MG23
21st Feb 2013, 18:37
It's called 'inflating a debt away'.

Except you don't inflate away the debt by increasing the price of everything, you inflate it away by increasing wages.

Britain is heading in the opposite direction, devaluing the currency while wages are pretty much static and taxes are rising, so the indebted have less and less money left to pay their debts.

Tableview
21st Feb 2013, 18:43
http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/obama-bucket.jpg

It's been tried before.