Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Boris3098, Aug 25, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
BBC News - Today - IFS: Budget 'very clearly regressive'
No Shit Sherlock!
Better to have to pay more of your income in tax with a view to an improvement, than to have no income, no hope of an income other than the 'boro and see benefits going to everyone but the ones who pay for them...
Just heard a summary of what people are talking about on Radio 4. It looks like the whole thing could go to court if it was proved that the coalition did not fully consider the impact their spending cuts would have under the Equality Act.
The feeling I got from the interview was that this has only come to the fore because the last government got the law in plce, but never made spending cuts like this in their budgets. The coalition then had to pick up the pieces, make the cuts, then get shafted (potentially) by the law.
Of course, if they can prove they had gone through the right process, it's all by the by.
Shock horror -- the biggest beneficiaries of Gordon Brown's lavish-generosity-with-other-People's-money lose out the most when the money runs out.
In other news, bears defecate in wooded areas. Full story at 10 o'clock.
Also according to Radio 4 (I know, I should get out more), 1 in 3 households receives 50% or more of their income from benefits. So, it's a reasonable bet that cutting them will cause some people pain.
I really would like to know the definition of "poor".
I've seen poor single mums wheeling their babies around in pushchairs that cost more than my wife's monthly "State Pittance",and poor kids walking around in trainers the cost of which would fill my little car for the month.
Poor,I don't think so.
So if you have less than £115 a week beer and food money then you are offically poor it seems
UK: numbers in low income - The Poverty Site
As Stoaty says bears defecate in the woods. Surprise. There are obviously still lots of people who have not quite understood that the rich will always be that bit better off than those with no money, that gap has always been there, it always will be.
Did I mention that Ursus has been spotted defecating in forested areas?
But gosh, didn't the good old government say things would be better?
It's surely all dependent on how you measure 'poverty' and how to deal with it. If you think that the poor should get all their money from the State, then reducing this by allowing them to earn more from the real economy (thus needing less from the State) means that that you think the Budget was a Bad Thing.
That's a purely Socialist viewpoint - that the State is Father and Mother (but no need for a Father, of course). It's akin to the BBC's going on and on about the Coalition's reducing public spending equalling "taking £5Bn out of the economy" when the truth is, quite obviously, the other way round - it's leaving £5Bn IN the economy.
£ 115 per week disposable income means just shy of £ 6000 per year!
Try telling a sub-Saharan African subsistence farmer living on less than $2 a day that this makes you poor.
We do not have poor people in this country any more -- it appears that being a paid for member of the Labour Party core vote is sufficiently lucrative.
They were having this debate on the radio this morning.....someone was getting very upset that the housing benefit was being capped at £400 a week......FFS that's £20,000 a year to cover your rent and bills, who the f*** needs £20,000 a year for rent and bills....if your house is that big you aren't 'poor'.
In the current economic climate, it might be worth re-visiting the Beveridge Report (Ed Beveridge et al 1942), and getting the poor to recognise the difference between "Need" and "Want".
Please bear in mind that "want" didn't originally mean "something that I'd like".
Here's what the report envisaged:
The Report offered three guiding principles to its recommendations:
Proposals for the future should not be limited by "sectional interests" in learning from experience and that a "revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching".
Social insurance is only one part of a "comprehensive policy of social progress". The five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.
Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state "should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".
The man responsible for the Welfare State would be appalled by what we have now.
Apparently people on the dole have to be allowed to live in places like Westminster and Islington. It's due to Discrimination, racism, or something.
Meanwhile, people who work for a living and pay their own way have a simple, and indeed compulsory, solution in case they can't afford where they are living -- they move somewhere cheaper.
But expecting that people who don't pay their own way do the same is wrong, apparently...
.....which, of course, is why we can never eradicate poverty. Taken to the absurd, if the national average was £1m p.a., people on less than £600k p.a. would still be poor.
Absolute poverty isn't an issue, but accepting that would put a lot of those in the statist leviathan out of employment.
Separate names with a comma.