Bedroom tax
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 21 Feb 13 11.15pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
Pro USA & Israel |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 21 Feb 13 11.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 10.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 10.12pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.49pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 9.05pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.02pm
We can debate the merits of this policy which obviously isn't going to be popular and maybe the logistics and costs may not weigh up, however, I feel there is a bigger picture in that the government is trying to smash the ideology of a welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I'm all for people in genuine need being supported and they should be isolated but as i've said before our welfare bill is way to big and as a taxpayer I want to see it brought down.
No idea but I refuse to believe such a large proportion of people need state support, either that or benefits are too high. Of all the tax collected by the state about 1/3rd is swallowed up by welfare, more than schools, hospitals, everything else. It's the biggest single cost to the taxpayer. The only way to get it down is to break the cycle of culture
Where did you get your figure of 1/3 of uk taxes going to benefits. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 10.23pm)
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 21 Feb 13 11.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.18pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 10.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 10.12pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.49pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 9.05pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 21 Feb 2013 9.02pm
We can debate the merits of this policy which obviously isn't going to be popular and maybe the logistics and costs may not weigh up, however, I feel there is a bigger picture in that the government is trying to smash the ideology of a welfare state as a lifestyle choice. I'm all for people in genuine need being supported and they should be isolated but as i've said before our welfare bill is way to big and as a taxpayer I want to see it brought down.
No idea but I refuse to believe such a large proportion of people need state support, either that or benefits are too high. Of all the tax collected by the state about 1/3rd is swallowed up by welfare, more than schools, hospitals, everything else. It's the biggest single cost to the taxpayer. The only way to get it down is to break the cycle of culture
Where did you get your figure of 1/3 of uk taxes going to benefits. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 10.23pm)
I'd hardly call an unsubstantiated pie chart a master move. When he reveals the source behind the figures I may change my mind.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Feb 13 11.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 21 Feb 13 11.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 11.28pm
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 21 Feb 13 11.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.35pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 11.28pm
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
Sorry forgot....
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Feb 13 11.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.40pm
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.35pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 11.28pm
Quote Jimenez at 21 Feb 2013 11.15pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.06pm
Quote Stuk at 21 Feb 2013 4.05pm
It is absolute bollocks that 25-30% of the children anywhere in the UK are in actual poverty, not the lack of PC/Broadband/Sky definition, the actual unclean, unclothed and unfed definition. Why do you swallow such nonsense, nick? I got my info from here [Link] Child poverty has no hard and fast definition... from [Link] The European Union's working definition of poverty is: 'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'. The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time: Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices; Relative low income: this measures whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole. This indicator measures the number of children living in households below 60 % of contemporary median equivalised household income. It compares the incomes of the less well off in a society to that of the 'typical household' so threshold changes as wealth of society changes ('moving poverty line'). Material deprivation and low income combined: this indicator provides a wider measure of people's living standards. This indicator measures the number of children living in households that are both materially deprived and have an income below 70% of contemporary median equivalised household income. Material deprivation looks at living standards such as: A holiday away from home at least one week a year with family
So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered. [Link] While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not. Of these people, 4 million are are the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the country. 49% of people without access are in the lowest socio-economic groups (DE) It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation. Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)
Sorry forgot.... 35 hour week. sounds like a good idea. We should work to live, not live to work.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Johnny Eagles  berlin 22 Feb 13 6.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 5.26pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 21 Feb 2013 5.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Feb 2013 3.55pm
Labour (much as I deplore them) did a lot t get thousands of children out of poverty. This is being reversed by the current lot. The bedroom 'tax' is going to affect children and the disabled, yet according to you, this cannot be mentioned in a debate about the effects because it is sentimental and devalues the argument. How can one argue against something with you Johnny if they are not allowed to mention the people it directly affects? I didn't say don't mention them. Just try and do so without all the heartstrings crap. Any cut to benefits causes people to lose money. Welcome to the real world. But picking on one individual case and using it to criticise a policy on the basis of emotion rather than reason and logic is sentimentalism, plain and simple. And how the f*ck did we get onto child poverty? I'll tell you how - because you randomly decided to whack it into the mix because you think it supports your point, when actually it’s irrelevant. Because your argument isn’t based on facts and logic, it’s based on painting the Coalition as milk-snatching, grandads-in-cupboards-locking villains. Oh and you can choose to believe as many statistics thrown at you by political parties as you like (“Labour reduced child poverty! Iron Production has reached all-time high!”) but I’m going to take them with a mountain of salt, thank you.
Ok, Nick, I will concede that I can be too quick with the heartstrings 'trump card' as you call it. Sometimes an emotive individual case is relevant, like that person who died of thirst in an NHS hospital, for example. But they really ought to be used sparingly. Dying of thirst in a British hospital is truly shocking. Having 35 qud knocked off your annual benefits increase isn't, frankly. But to listen to Miliband or Liam Byrne or whoever, you'd think they'd been marching 'hardworking families' off to Treblinka. It's propaganda and it really gets on my wick. By the way, I don't support this policy. Not because it's cruel, but because it's a total waste of time. It's tinkering around the edges of a much, much bigger problem. It's all very well saying 'up with benefit cuts we will not put!' and wheeling out people who will lose out (of which there are always plenty where benefit cuts are concerned.) But that means your default position is that the welfare bill will always rise. In my view, you must be an idiot if you can't see that our welfare system is not only more generous than we can afford, but is going to bankrupt us completely unless we make drastic changes. Deal with that last point, if you can, without going off on a tangent about child poverty and tax avoidance.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 22 Feb 13 8.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Bin Liner at 21 Feb 2013 9.07pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 31 Oct 2012 2.25pm
Put me in charge of welfare, then you'd really have something to moan about. agree, they'd be screaming for the Nasty Party to come back.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 9.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 22 Feb 2013 6.48am
In my view, you must be an idiot if you can't see that our welfare system is not only more generous than we can afford, but is going to bankrupt us completely unless we make drastic changes. Deal with that last point, if you can, without going off on a tangent about child poverty and tax avoidance. Is the welfare system too generous if it makes sure that people have the basic necessities for living-food, heat, electricity, clothing etc? Despite the arguments that sky and internet are not a basic necessity, which I agree with, a vast majority on benefits do not have such luxuries (see my earlier post)and are living on the breadline as it is. The biggest problem, in my humble, is the fact that for many in work, their wages are so low that they have to rely on 'top up' benefits just to meet the cost of living. I believe that this makes up a large proportion of the welfare bill. Of course increasing wages brings about other problems- competition against foreign low wage economies for instance. High unemployment also leads to a higher benefits bill. This is a major issue, particularly when there is not much investment in job creation. For instance, how many could be trained and employed to make and fit solar panels to the uk housing stock? If we were to invest heavily in this it would help towards alleviating the oncoming energy crisis and lower unemployment. I'm sure there are other areas in which we could invest - building more housing stock etc etc. One of the main issues I have with the privatisation of many of our services is that the profit generated by them doesn't go back into the nations coffers. What if we were to encourage more job sharing, with a maximum of a 35 hour week? A company that employs 50 people to do a 60 hour week could employ more people if they all worked less hours. Of course this wouldn't apply to self starters and entrepreneurs who will probably want to put more hours in to build up their business. Our biggest problem is that we have developed an every man for himself culture rather than fostering a PROPER we are all in this together attitude whereby it is ingrained that whatever we do should be for the common good.(Human nature probably dictates that this is an impossibility- however, humans are socially conditioned creatures and over time, perhaps the me, me, me attitude could change - Jamiemartin would be able to shed more light on this I'm sure) The fact is though, I'm not sure any of us has a 'magic bullet' solution to sort out the spiralling welfare bill. What is apparent is that the current lot in power are very quick to come up with ideas that are ill thought through. It seems that any ideas they have hit the worst off hardest, we need to come up with ideas where we ALL share the load of resolving the crisis.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Feb 13 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Being discussed on 5 live now. Called the under occupancy penalty.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 22 Feb 13 10.58am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 22 Feb 2013 9.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 22 Feb 2013 6.48am
Is the welfare system too generous if it makes sure that people have the basic necessities for living-food, heat, electricity, clothing etc? Despite the arguments that sky and internet are not a basic necessity, which I agree with, a vast majority on benefits do not have such luxuries (see my earlier post)and are living on the breadline as it is. The biggest problem, in my humble, is the fact that for many in work, their wages are so low that they have to rely on 'top up' benefits just to meet the cost of living. I believe that this makes up a large proportion of the welfare bill. Of course increasing wages brings about other problems- competition against foreign low wage economies for instance. High unemployment also leads to a higher benefits bill. This is a major issue, particularly when there is not much investment in job creation. For instance, how many could be trained and employed to make and fit solar panels to the uk housing stock? If we were to invest heavily in this it would help towards alleviating the oncoming energy crisis and lower unemployment. I'm sure there are other areas in which we could invest - building more housing stock etc etc. One of the main issues I have with the privatisation of many of our services is that the profit generated by them doesn't go back into the nations coffers. What if we were to encourage more job sharing, with a maximum of a 35 hour week? A company that employs 50 people to do a 60 hour week could employ more people if they all worked less hours. Of course this wouldn't apply to self starters and entrepreneurs who will probably want to put more hours in to build up their business. Our biggest problem is that we have developed an every man for himself culture rather than fostering a PROPER we are all in this together attitude whereby it is ingrained that whatever we do should be for the common good.(Human nature probably dictates that this is an impossibility- however, humans are socially conditioned creatures and over time, perhaps the me, me, me attitude could change - Jamiemartin would be able to shed more light on this I'm sure) The fact is though, I'm not sure any of us has a 'magic bullet' solution to sort out the spiralling welfare bill. What is apparent is that the current lot in power are very quick to come up with ideas that are ill thought through. It seems that any ideas they have hit the worst off hardest, we need to come up with ideas where we ALL share the load of resolving the crisis.
Bit of a non-starter to me!
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.