The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Assuming this is true for a moment, I'm curious as to why, with this heavy tax base, the less fortunate in the UK are suffering perhaps at a level not seen for some considerable time. What is the problem with public service infrastructure, if it is getting enough or more than it needs in terms of tax income?

ideologically, the Tories believe in a world, where it pays more to be in work than it does to be on benefits.  we've all seen the "benefits scroungers" headlines.   Whilst I don't disagree, that there are a proportion of the population who make a lifestyle out of being on benefits, unfortunately, this also ends up affecting those who are disabled, or have a terminal illness, or maybe have a young family, even the elderly who rely on purely a state pension.

 

because this squeeze of ideology has been consistently applied over the last 12 years, we are now at a point where there is no additional flexibility / fat in people's lifestyles.  Certainly not those on an average wage and I suspect, even people who fall in @Tommy G tax bracket are finding life more of a struggle then there were a few years ago. 

 

We've managed to push the country to a breaking point.  Most people live on the basis that nothing too much is going to change, and certainly not change really quickly.  So the sudden rise in the cost of living, massive inflation and large scale interest rate rises, have a disproportionate effect on households who can't move to make lifestyle changes quickly enough to adapt. 

Edited 6 October 2022 by Greg2607

[Otis]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's certainly a complex issue.

 

However, I might submit that it is better to lean on the side of making sure the most in need are taken care of even if there are some that take advantage of the system as a result (as it will be imperfect).

Like I said, the most vulnerable should be taken care of. Paying benefits to the workshy is irresponsible and of course reduces the pot to the most needy. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Otis said:

Like I said, the most vulnerable should be taken care of. Paying benefits to the workshy is irresponsible and of course reduces the pot to the most needy. 

And given a perfect system, that's what would happen. Sadly, it's anything but.

 

So, with that in mind, which side of the scale does one go to? Allow some people to take advantage while protecting everyone who needs it...or make sure all of the "workshy" pay while some needy people pay with them?

[Otis]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And given a perfect system, that's what would happen. Sadly, it's anything but.

 

So, with that in mind, which side of the scale does one go to? Allow some people to take advantage while protecting everyone who needs it...or make sure all of the "workshy" pay while some needy people pay with them?

Neither. Make it perfect. 

[rachhere]

10 minutes ago, Otis said:

Like I said, the most vulnerable should be taken care of. Paying benefits to the workshy is irresponsible and of course reduces the pot to the most needy. 

It's so complex. For example, how do you define work shy? I do a lot of work with disabled people who are perfectly able to work, would love to work, but no one will take a chance on them. This can be exacerbated by them not having had the support they needed whilst in education, which means they don't have qualifications reflective of their ability. Similarly, would work shy include people who are struggling with their mental health, but can't access the support they need to get the point where they feel work ready, because of the shocking lack of provision at the moment?  

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Otis said:

Neither. Make it perfect. 

Not possible without massive technological and cognitive advances.

[Otis]

6 minutes ago, rachhere said:

It's so complex. For example, how do you define work shy? I do a lot of work with disabled people who are perfectly able to work, would love to work, but no one will take a chance on them. This can be exacerbated by them not having had the support they needed whilst in education, which means they don't have qualifications reflective of their ability. Similarly, would work shy include people who are struggling with their mental health, but can't access the support they need to get the point where they feel work ready, because of the shocking lack of provision at the moment?  

There will always be exceptions like the examples you give. But let's not pretend this is the majority. Look at the current system where if your work more than 16 hrs your benefits are reduced, so it's not economically viable to work extra hours, and I totally understand why they don't. This is an example of where the whole system needs overhauling. 

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, rachhere said:

It's so complex. For example, how do you define work shy? I do a lot of work with disabled people who are perfectly able to work, would love to work, but no one will take a chance on them. This can be exacerbated by them not having had the support they needed whilst in education, which means they don't have qualifications reflective of their ability. Similarly, would work shy include people who are struggling with their mental health, but can't access the support they need to get the point where they feel work ready, because of the shocking lack of provision at the moment?  

Not to mention that the only way you can properly asses this is by increasing beurocracy, monitoring, increasing waiting times and the hoops you need to jump to to get benefits. Not to mention increasing the stigma of claiming benefits by making them even more scrutinised.

 

Therefore even further impacting those who are most in need of it.

[Foxdiamond]

I reckon a few Tories would like to go back to the days of the workhouse. We know some people abuse the system but anybody can fall on hard times. We are always told to concentrate on the bottom end but what about the fiddles and tax avoidance that goes on at the top. Don't hear too much of that from Truss and Co. They want us to be like the US where there is tremendous wealth but far too many in dire need. 

[rachhere]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not to mention that the only way you can properly asses this is by increasing beurocracy, monitoring, increasing waiting times and the hoops you need to jump to to get benefits. Not to mention increasing the stigma of claiming benefits by making them even more scrutinised.

 

Therefore even further impacting those who are most in need of it.

A big factor is the fear of coming off benefits to start a new job, it not working out, and then being in real financial danger because there is no money coming in. It's not even an irrational fear either. Two examples. One young lady I worked with was hired for her first job after leaving college - she was so excited, having spent months and months applying for jobs and getting no where, but finally someone said yes. She came into work the first day and then a more senior manager looked at her and the nature of her disability and told her that she would never cope in the job and to pack her bags. Second one, a friend of mine secured an office based job as she was having challenges in her more physically demanding job. Passed the interview, had an occupational health assessment, all approved and she was ready to start the job. Again, senior manager looks at her reasonable adjustments request and retracts the job offer, this being after she had already handed her notice in for the other job. Both went to tribunal, both times found in the workers favour, but it was a tiny slap on the wrist for the employers. It's estimated that 22% of the population are disabled: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/#:~:text=How many people have a,22% of the total population. - it's no wonder we have so many economically inactive people. 

[Voll Blau]

So buttons if the odd nobhead plays the benefits system. Would anyone seriously want to swap lives with those that do?

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[fox_up_north]

16 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

So buttons if the odd nobhead plays the benefits system. Would anyone seriously want to swap lives with those that do?

This is it - I used to think "oh yeah people on benefits get everything for free".

 

Then I got jobseekers and worked with people on benefits. No chance I'd rely on that. If that's your ambition in life or, worse, your only viable means of existing then that's not a fun way to live. 

[rachhere]

2 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

This is it - I used to think "oh yeah people on benefits get everything for free".

 

Then I got jobseekers and worked with people on benefits. No chance I'd rely on that. If that's your ambition in life or, worse, your only viable means of existing then that's not a fun way to live. 

And this is huge. It's so easy to underestimate what a profound impact it can have on a person as to whether they grew up surrounded by people with high aspirations for them, or if they grew up feeling like they never had a chance in life. I remember watching a documentary of young gangs in Manchester where kids were openly talking about choosing a life of crime as they didn't have any other options in life, and if they ended up in prison, at least they would have a roof over their heads. There are huge deep rooted social issues which can so easily be ignored. 

[st albans fox]

A bit more from the b of e

 

so far, they’ve ‘only’ had to spend 3.7bn of the possible 65 supporting the bond markets and they hope that’s it 

 

the issues in this country with bond markets is specific to the U.K. and the graphs all spike following the mini budget - the narrative being pushed by downing st is clearly spin and lies

 

And these bond markets do feed into long term borrowing costs for the public - the interest rate argument (it’s a global issue)  made by truss etc is nonsense 

 

and as reverenced earlier, the lack of movement on thresholds means that it’s more likely the OBR finds that the govt plans are affordable over the longer term …. Of course this makes the govt argument about the plans being about growth seem laughable ….

 

 

[weller54]

I've got a cunning plan to immediately increase growth, growth, growth!...

Why doesn't the UK join the biggest single market in the world that offers tariff free access to ten of millions of customers each day?...one that would (according to many analysts increase GDP by 4 or 5%)! ..

Now what a cracking idea, don't you think?

[StanSP]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculates that the Tory "tax cuts for growth" mini-budget actually INCREASES tax: https://www.ft.com/content/b2dcf5ab-3039-4a6b-9683-51e047b6bcd6

 

The IFS reckons that, because inflation is high, even nominal increases in pay and benefits will push a lot more people above the 19% and 40% tax thresholds, as these are frozen. Meanwhile, others will end up qualifying for less in benefits.

These losses in income via tax/benefits will significantly outweigh the sums people gain from the cuts in the headline tax and N.I. rates. This will apply at all income levels but more so for the poorest.

 

So, even ignoring all the other damage done via interest rates etc.....

Govt tax policies will act AGAINST the proclaimed policy of "cutting tax to stimulate growth". Instead, the mini-budget will increase tax and reduce almost everyone's incomes in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.... 

As seen with Covid, the government don't like to listen to experts... 

[st albans fox]

Again the PM states that US interest rates are 4%

 

and again, she is not corrected by the interviewer (they are 3.25%) 

 

its disgraceful that we have such ignorance amongst what should be the highest levels of  journalism 

[Fazzer 7]

3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

I reckon a few Tories would like to go back to the days of the workhouse. We know some people abuse the system but anybody can fall on hard times. We are always told to concentrate on the bottom end but what about the fiddles and tax avoidance that goes on at the top. Don't hear too much of that from Truss and Co. They want us to be like the US where there is tremendous wealth but far too many in dire need. 

Don’t know about workhouses. But what I’d like to see are those given community service sentences. Made to go out in working parties litter picking along any roads. The state of parts of this Country is a bloody disgrace. 

[Legend_in_blue]

 

 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

7 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Don’t know about workhouses. But what I’d like to see are those given community service sentences. Made to go out in working parties litter picking along any roads. The state of parts of this Country is a bloody disgrace. 

There is certainly a disgraceful amount of litter and fly tipping in our country 

[Spiritwalker]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Again the PM states that US interest rates are 4%

 

and again, she is not corrected by the interviewer (they are 3.25%) 

 

its disgraceful that we have such ignorance amongst what should be the highest levels of  journalism 

She’s probably learned this from Boris who regularly made up stats and figures, and was rarely corrected.

[Legend_in_blue]

Zahawi got hammered on QT.  

[RobHawk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-63165088

 

Didn't watch Qt but just saw this clip. 

 

Wtf? Pressed to say sorry and he talks about putin. 

 

It's almost like they are a bunch of complete of cvnts. 

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Again the PM states that US interest rates are 4%

 

and again, she is not corrected by the interviewer (they are 3.25%) 

 

its disgraceful that we have such ignorance amongst what should be the highest levels of  journalism 

 

6 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

She’s probably learned this from Boris who regularly made up stats and figures, and was rarely corrected.

And funnily enough the whole present idea of "alternative facts" that are made up and not questioned or corrected originated in the US in the first place.