[Archived] The General Election 2015

[Rover-the-Top]

Cutting taxes and raising pay only affects a few? Huh? There's a lot of sense in cutting taxes rather than collecting them only to give them back. Whether the sums add up is another matter.

I'm happy on the fence, you get the best view. I've never understood people getting tribal about which political party they support.

[yoda]

Cutting taxes and raising pay only affects a few? Huh? There's a lot of sense in cutting taxes rather than collecting them only to give them back. Whether the sums add up is another matter.

I'm happy on the fence, you get the best view. I've never understood people getting tribal about which political party they support.

Excellent point RTT. A good study would be to determine how much the party system has held the country back with it's points scoring instead of doing what's best for the good of the country and the people. Happens all the time at local level with councillors bickering from the different parties instead of doing what is needed for the community.

[Baz]

The bit in bold, Is that not the correct thing to do ?

Where it goes wrong is in your following point, better off on benefits.

Getting benefits for doing nothing is wrong in principle. I would change it so that you have to do something to get benefits.

They are harming a lot of people who are reliant on benefits, like disabled people, mainly because they are easy targets. Helping these people is the right thing to do in principle.

No one is saying the work-shy should get a free ride, but thats only a very small % of the benefits bill.

[yoda]

They are harming a lot of people who are reliant on benefits, like disabled people, mainly because they are easy targets. Helping these people is the right thing to do in principle.

No one is saying the work-shy should get a free ride, but thats only a very small % of the benefits bill.

Just to make it clear, I am referring to able body people, I also don't think it is a small percentage of the total. Will try to find out though.

[Paul]

Just to make it clear, I am referring to able body people, I also don't think it is a small percentage of the total. Will try to find out though.

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Fraud is 0.7% of total benefit cost.

DWP figures 2012/13:

Total benefit cost: £164 billion

Over payments: £2.2 billion or 1.3%

Fraudulent claims: £1.2 billion or 0.7%

So eliminating genuine errors by claimants and official clerical errors will save more than clamping down on scrounges.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

In 2012/13 and 2013/14 the estimated uncollected tax was £34 billion per annum.

"HMRC attributed £3.1billion of the gap to tax avoidance and the amount lost through illegal tax evasion was 4.4billion.

Some £14billion of income tax, national insurance contributions or capital gains tax went uncollected, along with £13.1billion of VAT.

Corporation tax made up £3billion of the gap, with excise duties accounting for £2.7billion."

Now I don't suppose anyone would accuse either David Cameron or George Osborne of taking the easy option of taking money from hard working law abiding families instead of going after those who are failing to pay their legally due taxes.

After all who needs £69 billion

[Baz]

Just to make it clear, I am referring to able body people, I also don't think it is a small percentage of the total. Will try to find out though.

Sorry Yoda, I wasn't accusing you of that, just that theres a misconception that all benefit recipients have other options, where many are totally reliant on them, but the media is happy to bring up the extreme examples of the women with 10 kids, but not the tens of thousands of disabled people who cannot work. The tory government is hacking away at the welfare system, and really affecting people's lives, whilst on the other hand it's selling off assets well below market value (post office / lloyds bank) to make it financially attractive to the same people who seemingly have an optional taxation system.

[yoda]

I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Fraud is 0.7% of total benefit cost.

DWP figures 2012/13:

Total benefit cost: £164 billion

Over payments: £2.2 billion or 1.3%

Fraudulent claims: £1.2 billion or 0.7%

So eliminating genuine errors by claimants and official clerical errors will save more than clamping down on scrounges.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

In 2012/13 and 2013/14 the estimated uncollected tax was £34 billion per annum.

"HMRC attributed £3.1billion of the gap to tax avoidance and the amount lost through illegal tax evasion was 4.4billion.

Some £14billion of income tax, national insurance contributions or capital gains tax went uncollected, along with £13.1billion of VAT.

Corporation tax made up £3billion of the gap, with excise duties accounting for £2.7billion."

Now I don't suppose anyone would accuse either David Cameron or George Osborne of taking the easy option of taking money from hard working law abiding families instead of going after those who are failing to pay their legally due taxes.

After all who needs £69 billion

Who mentioned fraud ?

I am talking about able body people (from all backgrounds I might add) who legally get benefits and are fit to work. They get benefits while "they are looking for work" and other reasons.

That figure is not shown in any of the figures you posted above.

These people should do something in order to get said benefits.

[Paul]

The bit in bold, Is that not the correct thing to do ?

Where it goes wrong is in your following point, better off on benefits.

Getting benefits for doing nothing is wrong in principle. I would change it so that you have to do something to get benefits.

Apologies when replying before I misunderstood your point. The above, I think, is the original one in particular the last sentence.

I can see your point and the argument for creating work for those receiving benefits but I really struggle to see how this would be practical to implement.

The "cost of working" is already an issue for those in low wage employment. By this I mean travel costs, child care etc.

Just to take child care as an example if benefit claimants were required to "do something" to earn their benefits this would need to apply to all claimants. If we required parents of young children to "do something" how would child care be addressed? This is a very expensive option - sending benefit claimants out to "earn" their benefit in some manner would in all likely result in higher benefit costs.

Hiw would you address travel costs? For many claimants benefit levels are remarkably low and travel to this "work" would create cost.

I'm also wondering about the social impact of the approach. Presumably earning these benefits would involve some form of work in the community? Cleaning up local parks etc? Surely if we consider this "something" people have to do has a value then we should create a decently paid job from it and put the claimant in to work. If not all we do is humiliate the individual by making him or her carry out a task society doesn't consider worthy of a wage.

Making claimants earn benefits, they may well have previously paid contributions anyway, is for me a view held by those who view claimants as scrounges.

Benefits for some are minimal and in other cases simply do not exist. Let me give you a real life example. My son, early 20s, was out of work April to September this year. It's an involved story which I won't bore you with but please take it from me this was not his fault.

My lad, despite having been employed previously, qualified for zero benefits - nothing at all. He literally had no money and we had to cover his rent, utilities and food. He had no money to travel to interviews. He decided to do some volunteering locally, 5 miles from home, initially I paid his travel costs and then bought him a bike, helmet, lights etc.

If you want claimants to "do something" can you explain how these people are going to fund this "something?" I can't help but feel your view is one of somebody, like many others, who see claimants as, for want of a better word, scrounges. In real life it's not the reality.

[yoda]

Apologies when replying before I misunderstood your point. The above, I think, is the original one in particular the last sentence.

I can see your point and the argument for creating work for those receiving benefits but I really struggle to see how this would be practical to implement.

The "cost of working" is already an issue for those in low wage employment. By this I mean travel costs, child care etc.

Just to take child care as an example if benefit claimants were required to "do something" to earn their benefits this would need to apply to all claimants. If we required parents of young children to "do something" how would child care be addressed? This is a very expensive option - sending benefit claimants out to "earn" their benefit in some manner would in all likely result in higher benefit costs.

Hiw would you address travel costs? For many claimants benefit levels are remarkably low and travel to this "work" would create cost.

I'm also wondering about the social impact of the approach. Presumably earning these benefits would involve some form of work in the community? Cleaning up local parks etc? Surely if we consider this "something" people have to do has a value then we should create a decently paid job from it and put the claimant in to work. If not all we do is humiliate the individual by making him or her carry out a task society doesn't consider worthy of a wage.

Making claimants earn benefits, they may well have previously paid contributions anyway, is for me a view held by those who view claimants as scrounges.

Benefits for some are minimal and in other cases simply do not exist. Let me give you a real life example. My son, early 20s, was out of work April to September this year. It's an involved story which I won't bore you with but please take it from me this was not his fault.

My lad, despite having been employed previously, qualified for zero benefits - nothing at all. He literally had no money and we had to cover his rent, utilities and food. He had no money to travel to interviews. He decided to do some volunteering locally, 5 miles from home, initially I paid his travel costs and then bought him a bike, helmet, lights etc.

If you want claimants to "do something" can you explain how these people are going to fund this "something?" I can't help but feel your view is one of somebody, like many others, who see claimants as, for want of a better word, scrounges. In real life it's not the reality.

Let me give you a real life example, we have 2 or 3 customers who do not work and live of benefits, they are able bodied and know how to work the system.

They go on different programs to ensue they still get benefits, get free travel while doing so.

Yet they still have enough money to but takeaways on a regular basis.

That's the real life that I see every week.

They know how to play the system.

I am sorry if you get the impression that I (like many others) see these people as scroungers. If they did not exist then then genuine cases for support like your son would be well taken care of.

[Baz]

Let me give you a real life example, we have 2 or 3 customers who do not work and live of benefits, they are able bodied and know how to work the system.

They go on different programs to ensue they still get benefits, get free travel while doing so.

Yet they still have enough money to but takeaways on a regular basis.

That's the real life that I see every week.

They know how to play the system.

I am sorry if you get the impression that I (like many others) see these people as scroungers. If they did not exist then then genuine cases for support like your son would be well taken care of.

For me then, you can legislate how ever you want, but they will work the system. In many cases, you need to have a lot of intelligence instead of continually putting people on training schemes that keep them off the unemployed statistics, and start saying to them you have had your training, heres a job paying the minimum wage, take it or see your benefit stopped in 6 weeks. You need to deal with these people individually, not by making wholesale cuts affecting the legitimate claimants.

[yoda]

For me then, you can legislate how ever you want, but they will work the system. In many cases, you need to have a lot of intelligence instead of continually putting people on training schemes that keep them off the unemployed statistics, and start saying to them you have had your training, heres a job paying the minimum wage, take it or see your benefit stopped in 6 weeks. You need to deal with these people individually, not by making wholesale cuts affecting the legitimate claimants.

Sounds like a plan to me. Better than doing nothing and continuing the current system

[RibbleValleyRover]

I actually think Frank Field might be spot on on the whole issue with the changes to the tax credits system. Make the changes more of a gradual staged process by reducing the tax credits gradually, look to increase the minimum/living wage more rapidly and then look at National Insurance and the tax thresholds. He thinks the system could in theory be abolished by 2020 and would cause less pain if it's not as fast.

Labour's motion in the House of Lords might be the best one, delay it and give the government an opportunity to rework it.

[Biddy]

I agree. That was the whole stupid thing about the Conservatives argument. Banging on that they needed to do this now to be able in the future to bring in "living" (yeah right - won't be by the time it comes in) wage and raise Tax rate thresholds. No, do them at the same time, it's not that hard a concept.

As you say, gradual steps on both reducing one and increasing the other rather than this stupid, take it all away and give back in 2-3 years time. barmy politics.

Hope the Lords show a backbone and block it.

[Baz]

I see the Lords have done the right thing, I believe many of the Tories are fuming. I think they should be very thankful, if the bill had passed, it really would have harmed the Tories.

[yoda]

I see the Lords have done the right thing, I believe many of the Tories are fuming. I think they should be very thankful, if the bill had passed, it really would have harmed the Tories.

I wonder if people like Corbyn and other Labour types still think the House of Lords should be scrapped. It is the next to last defence in stopping a government getting out of control

[RibbleValleyRover]

Osborne just got a get out of jail card, a u-turn would have been more embarrassing now he has the opportunity (which he must take) to rethink the policy and come up with ways to make it less painful. I still think the tax credits system will be reformed just much slower now which is what he should have done in the first place.

Wonder what the government are going to do with the House of Lords, danger they might get a taste for stopping legislation so Cameron might have to act.

[Baz]

I wonder if people like Corbyn and other Labour types still think the House of Lords should be scrapped. It is the next to last defence in stopping a government getting out of control

It needs to be an elected chamber, theres no room for hereditary peers, or for the retirement home for mps who have lost their seat or cannot be bothered to travel to a constituency, but still want the money.

However its sad to say that the Lords has proven a better opposition than the Labour Party. This would have been defeated in the commons if many Labour MPs hadnt abstained.

Personally I think this case is an example of the problem we have with politics in the country at the moment. Before the election the Tories refused to spell out their program of cuts, and the media really didn't give them a hard time about it. They now are elected and can go ahead with whatever they want to put forward, and claim they didn't promise not to make that particular cut. It's simply not healthy, and will turn more people off, which means it's easier to do this again in the future.

I suppose it could be worse, in Portugal, the President is not for allowing the majority left-wing party to take power, and wants the pro-euro minority to carry on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html

[yoda]

It needs to be an elected chamber, theres no room for hereditary peers, or for the retirement home for mps who have lost their seat or cannot be bothered to travel to a constituency, but still want the money.

However its sad to say that the Lords has proven a better opposition than the Labour Party. This would have been defeated in the commons if many Labour MPs hadnt abstained.

Personally I think this case is an example of the problem we have with politics in the country at the moment. Before the election the Tories refused to spell out their program of cuts, and the media really didn't give them a hard time about it. They now are elected and can go ahead with whatever they want to put forward, and claim they didn't promise not to make that particular cut. It's simply not healthy, and will turn more people off, which means it's easier to do this again in the future.

I suppose it could be worse, in Portugal, the President is not for allowing the majority left-wing party to take power, and wants the pro-euro minority to carry on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html

Have the parties not agreed to end hereditary peers now, I thought they had so the should eventually end.

[Mike E]

Makes you wonder about the argument that people should serve as an MP for two years and be elected (within certain criteria) for 2 years in a 'jury service' type way.

Have to say, I'm usually the first to criticise the House of Lords, so credit where it appears due.

[Gav]

Watching George squirm on TV tonight was compulsive viewing, thankfully the Lords have thrown out this attack on the working poor, the government can still force it through but surely won't.

George is blaming 'constitutional issues' despte Cameron flooding the Lords with Tory peers, he should just accept he ****** up and go back to the drawing board.

Bet May and Boris are loving this, does nothing for his ambitions to be the next PM.

[Biddy]

George? I thought you'd copied Jim and insisted on calling him Gideon all the time?

Anyway, I find Osbourne a truly odious man. I think if he became leader of the Conservative party, it would have a similar effect as when Brown took over Labour.

I also finding it quite sickening that he was immediately on TV bleating about constitutional issues and the Lords. No, the Lords did the RIGHT thing and listened to the people, the facts and their own hearts and voted accordingly. That is how Parliament should be run, at least one house got it right. I wonder if the Conservatives will do anything to the Lords as the current feeling of discontent may push more and more people away from the Conservative bully boy attitudes.

[Gav]

George? I thought you'd copied Jim and insisted on calling him Gideon all the time?

Anyway, I find Osbourne a truly odious man. I think if he became leader of the Conservative party, it would have a similar effect as when Brown took over Labour.

I also finding it quite sickening that he was immediately on TV bleating about constitutional issues and the Lords. No, the Lords did the RIGHT thing and listened to the people, the facts and their own hearts and voted accordingly. That is how Parliament should be run, at least one house got it right. I wonder if the Conservatives will do anything to the Lords as the current feeling of discontent may push more and more people away from the Conservative bully boy attitudes.

Have you been sacked as a mod?

For the record it was me that started calling Osbourne Gideon, his real name by the way, not Jim.

As for the rest of your post, finally you're starting to smell the coffee.

Should I put that Dennis Skinner book is in the post?

[Biddy]

Have you been sacked as a mod?

For the record it was me that started calling Osbourne Gideon, his real name by the way, not Jim.

As for the rest of your post, think I'll start calling you Gav, finally you're starting to smell the coffee.

Should I put that Dennis Skinner book is in the post?

Not sure why you are asking about being a mod? (I've never been a mod btw, more of a rocker)

Apologies, I thought I saw Jim make the first reference to Gideon way back on this thread, and yes I know it was his given name which he changed. Again, I have read the thread. I was just surprised you actually called him George.

I'm not finally smelling the coffee at all. I have a lot of time for the Conservative policies and I do believe cutting welfare is the right thing to do. It should however be done in a managed way, to not leave anyone out of pocket unnecessarily. I actually wish there were better options for the centre ground politics.

I did look at the Dennis Skinner book again recently when I had Amazon kindle vouchers but didn't want to pay £5 for it. Maybe I will soon.

[Gav]

Cheers for the reasoned reply.

Cutting welfare is one thing, punishing people that go out to work for little pay is disgusting, and has rightly brought about this unusual measure that sees the Lords throw it back.

I have no time for the Lords myself, £300 a day expenses for unelected peers is another travesty, but this isn't a constitutional issue, it's about doing this right thing and I applaud them all for slapping George in the gob on this one.

It was pathetic to hear the chancellor blame constitutional issues for his problems when it's the Ill judged and ill thought out policy that's to blame.

Hopefully this will hurt him politically also, as he's a power hungry little toad, and I'd like nothing more than to see him hurt like he's hurting hundreds of thousands of people in the UK just to run a surplus, not just balance the books, but run a surplus to make him and the Tories look good, it's disgusting.

[Jimmy612]

(I've never been a mod btw, more of a rocker)

Like Ringo Starr I'm more of a mocker.