Benefit changes yay or nay?

[TheAnimus]

No-one has mentioned anything suggestive of a 'growing and better' lifestyle being the goal

But isn't that the case of the macroeconomic situation at present? It is a morally hazardous concept, but relates back to my previous post about the legal definition.

On what do you base that opinion?

The fact that he lacks any sympathy for people who are not him. The idea that birthright matters when comparing net drains.

The end result of which may well be having benefits withdrawn, as discussed.

Not all benefits, only certain ones which are related to disabilities.

Again, what is the basis for this assessment of the disabled benefit claimant's lifestyle? Where are you deriving this picture from?

First hand, direct experience. I only know of one disability claimant who doesn't have sky (they don't have a TV). This ranks up against over 20 who do. I'm not saying its all, but reviewing the needs and allocation of resources here is a good thing.

Nor have you afaik, just a repetition of 'care costs cannot continue as things stand'. This we know.
..
Leaving aside for now the distasteful metaphor of host and parasite, can we hear your suggestion for an approach to change? Time to get down to brass tacks I think.

Except for the links to data, spending amounts, hell even graphics for people who aren't men of numbers to back up the assertion that care costs cannot continue to grow. The solution I have put forward is a reduction in the care bill by giving less benefits and trying to direct the limited money to people whose need is truly greatest. I've also stated that the system should be less punitive to those who are able to work part time, rather than being an all or nothing. A certain large US travel firm for instance uses stay at home mums for short shifts to provide phone support, because it provides a very cost efficient way for them to have talented people answering the phones, at a very low price. I would have thought that with appropriate rules in place to prevent state subsidies, that there would be many companies able to see a business plan in the not to unique situations a lot of sick people face.

However, realistically, I think we just need a sharp reduction in the care bill. That basically translates as "****ing over the sick". But the issue is, if we don't it would be a worse situation in the future. Borrowing money to provide help for economically inactive is not just wrong, its incredibly cruel to the future generations who pay it off.

The metaphor of host and parasite is incredibly apt from an economic point of view, I suggest if you find it distasteful to remind yourself exactly what they are contributing. Afterall we are talking about having to borrow money at great expense to keep the lifestyles of people who contribute nothing economically. It is not in the long-term parasitical interests to allow the host to weaken.

It might appear cruel to not dress it up with terms like "those most unfortunate" or "those in severe ill health", but that is less functionally descriptive of the problem.

Let's say you address a hypothetical benefit claimant directly. 'Good morning Mr (or Mrs) Poorly. I'm afraid we cannot meet the current burden of society's care costs, therefore I suggest you..' what? Take a % cut in benefit? Come up with a cunning plan despite being the dependent & least able person in the equation (well it's your disability, you solve the problem of our not being able to support you?) Oblige society by bucking up and becoming x % less poorly? Stop coming the old soldier? Or at the very least be a lot more grateful (not sure how this saves any money).

The exact same thing we tell a pensioner who has worked hard their life, lucky enough to retire at 65, to find that due to inflation they really struggle to get by on their income.

Ultimately you tell them the truth. People voted and we had an explosion of building schools, hospital expansions, lots of public workers and the cost for it was hidden away. Meanwhile state workers demanded pensions which have truly unknown costs (look at the annuity market over the last 30 years for defined benefit, rather than contribution).

We then decided to rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish half a years care bill on a stadium and some other stuff too.

Or you can lie to them, say nah, its all fine, you see, we borrow money, rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish it away on things which are not in anyway going to provide a return on investment and bingo, everything will be fine.

You have said previously that if benefits are withdrawn no-one will starve or become homeless. What will they be subsisting on, exactly?

JSA, social housing, etc. We are not talking about a dickensian scenario here, we are just talking about going back to what it was like for people dependant on state care ~20 years ago.

[csgohan4]

No matter how much money you throw at something, it will never be enough, regardless of any government. I am a strong believer of vouchers/ benefit card instead of cash for benefits. It's sad but probably the minority will or tarnish the majority with the questionable use of benefits, but if people use the money for what they are supposed to be for, then where's the harm in that?

People have had many chances to make the right choices but they don't so the government has to, probably will fail the infamous human rights laws, but I as a tax payer also have a right the money I am paying doesn't go towards paying for the 13th Child and a shopping trip to New York.

[kalniel]

but I as a tax payer also have a right [to ensure] the money I am paying doesn't go towards paying for the 13th Child and a shopping trip to New York.

Actually you don't have such a right. Last time I checked my tax statements there weren't any obvious restrictions on what the government can spend tax on. Of course, you have the right to vote for a different representative of your voice in government if you don't agree with their decisions.

[kalniel]

Is part of the problem that more women are in the in the workforce today? Whose looking after the elderly? Whose looking after the children.

Not any part of the problem. There's no reason a man can't look after the elderly or children just as well. If anything we are still holding back some economic potential because our care/support system is so rubbish that key workers find themselves tied up in care or paying over the odds for it.

[pp05]

Kal I think for a lot working couples at the lower end it isn't the right setup given childcare costs.

Am wondering if the extended family system like they have in India ought to be encouraged particularly in regards to care and wellbeing for retired and young.

The other side is benefits help the economy, help the government. Lower taxes help the economy, help the government. They have one thing in common, people have disposable income.

[csgohan4]

Actually you don't have such a right. Last time I checked my tax statements there weren't any obvious restrictions on what the government can spend tax on. Of course, you have the right to vote for a different representative of your voice in government if you don't agree with their decisions.

Then tell me what benefits are for? What are their intended purposes and as such why should they be used for anything other than the essentials??? Sicne they are paid for by the tax payer

Are you advocating or agreeing they should be used for inappropriate items/ luxuries

[TheAnimus]

The other side is benefits help the economy, help the government. Lower taxes help the economy, help the government. They have one thing in common, people have disposable income.

No, no no.

Its the government that create jobs, that's why areas which have had huge government interference and subsidies are doing so well, without it, we wouldn't have such a brilliant shipbuilding industry or coal mining, or have one in twenty people employed by the NHS!

We have to tax everyone heavily you see, because without taxing them we can't create jobs. We should also tax people more and more the more they earn, not just on a percentage, because we can be progressive, and tax people over half their income if they earn enough. This works really well, because everyone knows multi-millionaires are completely powerless to skip country or fly their private jet away for a few loops over Scandinavia to keep their non-dom status, that could never happen.

So then we take that money from all the rich people and give it to all the poor people, because thats fair, the rich should help the needy. And obviously it will only be the really rich being hurt by this taxation, small companies don't mind having the tax rules in a book ten times thicker than before brown came in, small companies have lots of free time for such things after all! We should also tax them more, because when you tax a company no one gets hurt, its brilliant, its like free money. Companies that put their prices up by the tax demand will still do just as well obviously, because the one percent still buy their things. Also super-large companies would never structure their organisation to take advantage of nations which have low tax, if need be moving their entire staff to Geneva to avoid 50p tax, that would never happen. So yeah, we'll tax them more.

We should spend a lot of that money on housing too. Not actually building it, people don't like it if you build houses, it spoils their view and upsets their impressions of the environment. So instead we'll just bung it in to the giant ponzi scheme because that has always worked well. This means the government will be getting you a home if you've got kids, regardless of how irresponsible you are! 16 and tired of your parents, have some sprogs and you too can get a free home, no one would ever abuse that, so thats fine.

Obviously this re-distrabution of wealth will make certain key goods which are supply limited jump in price, making the effect of the wealth re-distrabution less useful for those at the bottom, as they still can't afford them anyway, but we pretend that inflation doesn't matter, because luckily those worst effected by it are normally uneducated anyway, and won't realise why they can't afford less, we just remind them how much more money they have in their pocket, not what it buys!

Sadly a lot of people really do think that way.

[csgohan4]

What really annoys me are the those bashing the rich and wealthy.

I'm sorry how did most of them get there in the first place???

Going to University, countless hours of study, getting a job after graduation and grinding out Promotion opportunities and lots of hard work getting a decent CV to be your Boss.

Not everyone has a silver spoon since birth. Some of us worked from the bottom upwards. People say tax tax those at the top without realising it's the people in the middle that are hit hardest, those on the tax thresholds and punishing those that are successful through hard work and not lazying around.

[TheAnimus]

Not everyone has a silver spoon since birth. Some of us worked from the bottom upwards. People say tax tax those at the top without realising it's the people in the middle that are hit hardest, those on the tax thresholds and punishing those that are successful through hard work and not lazying around.

Ah, but here comes the rub.

What about those who are?

How do you tax them? Inheritance tax is cruel because so many people are paper millionaires and want to pass the property they have on to their children. As it stands such inheritance tax is mostly a tax on the unprepared death of family members. As its easy to structure an estate so it attracts little tax.

I know a lot of people from uni who were in the nice-but-dim category, despite their parents spend on their education ended up at Reading. Ultimately thou these people don't really have much of an earned income, and are probably being taxed simply by the inflation away, as some asset manager is probably coining it in from their ignorance.

So ultimately where can you get your money from for funding such things as our social and care budget (which really a significant amount of our tax bill, anyone who doesn't think so, read up for the data).

People like stealth taxes, thankfully we've got a government that isn't dumb enough to raise corporation tax (as that is just paid for by all consumers, not more selectively like VAT).

They can't really tax ordinary people directly more, else they will have no one to vote for them.

So they can perturb cost growth in many areas (such as benefits) whilst using the most unfair tax of all, inflation.

This appears to be their plan, inflation is the nastiest one because it affects things in a rather unpredictable manner. Economists talk of Giffen goods and the like which have inelastic supply, but the simple version is some things people always buy. In the case of Sky, it doesn't increase the cost the more who subscribe, in some ways, it lowers it. But for some commodities, such as food, the price has to rise. We've seen the cost of certain meats more than double in the last decade, we've seen the supermarkets attempts to push prices down result in out-of-chain meats such as horsie and apparently our fish isn't what we think it is either.

Inflation is most unfair because it has a habit of increasing the gap between the haves and the have nots, looking at extreme cases like Argentina or Zimbabwe for when it gets terribly out of hand you see the middle get squashed down to the bottom, but the top maintain their lifestyles. Japan on the other hand showed a much more interesting separation. When looking at the distribution of wealth it starts off quite normal, with a fat tail towards the lower income end. Theirs maintained this shape pretty much throughout their lost decade, however the spending power did not.

That means that people who were poor before, can become comparatively more poor than those at the top.

This is why I hate inflation as a government sponsored tool, which I fear is what we will see more of over the next few years, when looking at inflation bonds, this appears to be not just my own fear, but a sizable chunk of market sentiment.

The problem is many people don't want to face up to that, they don't want to suggest living with the consequences of our previous overspending and the adjustment we face. Some people want to attack those who are doing 'well', insisting that they pay their share. The problem is defining what is their share, and when looking at it morally, understanding that often the people who do well for the economy (and the country as a result) are often ones who do not benefit from any of the big spending the government has done before.

[kalniel]

Kal I think for a lot working couples at the lower end it isn't the right setup given childcare costs.

Am wondering if the extended family system like they have in India ought to be encouraged particularly in regards to care and wellbeing for retired and young.

That tradition has long passed in the UK though - the nature of modern jobs is that a lot of people have to move from their birthplace to live/work, and that fractures families and removes the nice situation of having grandparents as available for childcare etc. Mind you, our family system is fracturing just as much, so there isn't the guarantee of a structured unit available either. So nice as it might be, it's just not really possible in the UK these days.

Then tell me what benefits are for? What are their intended purposes and as such why should they be used for anything other than the essentials??? Sicne they are paid for by the tax payer

Are you advocating or agreeing they should be used for inappropriate items/ luxuries

I thought you were talking about your rights as a tax payer, which are basically limited to voting for your next representative in parliament, nothing else. You don't have a direct say in where your tax goes so if you want to say 'only use my tax on benefits for x or not' then you can't. Which is IMHO a good thing, given the role of tax in wealth redistribution and on things that individuals might not realise were for their individual, and certainly collective, benefit.

But to answer your question what are benefits for? I'd argue they are a recognition of our civilised values that every human has a right to live a certain standard of life and a recognition that they can still contribute to society by doing so. Now you can argue that being forced to only have essentials is enough for a civilised standard of life, or you can argue that actually having the freedom of choice - including the freedom to make bad decisions - is part of living a certain standard of life, and taking away someone's financial freedom, no matter how limited it was in the first place, is treating them as a lesser citizen through no fault of their own necessarily. Surely better to educate them to help them make better informed choices?

[csgohan4]

Surely better to educate them to help them make better informed choices?

This is the problem isn't it, benefits have been around for years and people still abuse the system and they taint those who genuinely use them as they were intended, i.e not for luxuries. Education will not solve it if people don't listen or engrained in generations of benefit abusers. Ergo hard choices must be made and choices taken away due to this because they continually abuse it

[kalniel]

This is the problem isn't it, benefits have been around for years and people still abuse the system and they taint those who genuinely use them as they were intended, i.e not for luxuries. Education will not solve it if people don't listen or engrained in generators of benefit abusers. Ergo hard choices must be made and choices taken away due to this because they continually abuse it

But would you take away those freedoms for the majority, when it's only a small minority that are the problem?

[csgohan4]

But would you take away those freedoms for the majority, when it's only a small minority that are the problem?

If done correctly to make sure they use it for the right purpose, then those using them correctly would not be affected? Obviously vouchers are extreme as they wouldn't be able to use it pay direct debits and bills e.t.c by I'm sure they can sort something out to cater for the modern world.

Just like extra security checks at airports Post 9/11. Yes they are annoying and you have to come to airport earlier, but if you have nothing to hide then why are people so resistant to them, it's for safety.

Similar to benefits, it saves the government money and makes sure benefits are really used for essentials like food, utilities, clothes e.t.c Meaning more money for other bureaucratic red tape projects

[kalniel]

If done correctly to make sure they use it for the right purpose, then those using them correctly would not be affected? Obviously vouchers are extreme as they wouldn't be able to use it pay direct debits and bills e.t.c by I'm sure they can sort something out to cater for the modern world.

Just like extra security checks at airports Post 9/11. Yes they are annoying and you have to come to airport earlier, but if you have nothing to hide then why are people so resistant to them, it's for safety.

Similar to benefits, it saves the government money and makes sure benefits are really used for essentials like food, utilities, clothes e.t.c Meaning more money for other bureaucratic red tape projects

I can't see any relevance to your example at all. Airport security affects us all equally. But you're suggesting that those on benefits should have their freedom of choice taken away from them, while those not on benefits wouldn't have to suffer the same indignancy.

[csgohan4]

I can't see any relevance to your example at all. Airport security affects us all equally. But you're suggesting that those on benefits should have their freedom of choice taken away from them, while those not on benefits wouldn't have to suffer the same indignancy.

What do you define by benefit freedom? Having benefits to be able to spend on essentials is the minimum it should be used for, why should this be bad and it affects everyone as everyone should be using them for what they were intended for. It is skewed if they have 10 children claiming boat loads of benefits for the wrong reasons.

Genuine benefit takers should not be discouraged nor looked down upon on using their benefits for the right reasons and nor would they be punished for doing so. However those that abuse the system would have something to lose, their non essentials, while those genuine have nothing to lose.

[Willzzz]

I don't see why it is taking choice away? It is giving money with strings.

If someone gives me a book token I wouldn't get all up in arms about them denying me choice. I'd prefer money, but I wouldn't start acting all ungrateful.