Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

The coalition is making good noises on benefits so far, i think, in scrapping child benefit for those in the top two tax bands, and more importantly expanding in work benefits and having them taper off as you increase your income to further incentivise working. The former has a few caveats in the way it hurts single parents more, though means testing would likely cost more than the savings and a single parent on £45k is still wealthy, and it not coming in till 2013 which seems bizarre, and of course we'll need to see more than just rhetoric on the details of the second one, but the movement is good.

really? I'm getting hit by the loss of child benefit - IMO they are phasing it out too quickly. It'll cost us £2k a year to lose it, which will take time to adjust to. And not all high tax rate payers are rolling in cash, we're just a soft target.

My biggest problem with it is that it doesn't take into account household income, just individual income. So if I earn £44k, I don't get child benefit. But if two of us work, we can earn a total of £86k and still get child benefit, assuming we're both just under the threshold. That isn't fair IMO. Especially if you choose for one parent to stay home and look after the kids, which should not be penalised.

 

[Walshicus]

Atm i'm doing a the wire rewatch and playing halo reach online

All day everyday.

During the summer i cut grass when i can find the work , i don't work during the winter (Cold ass mornings are depressing)

so i just keep warm in bed with some pink floyd blastin

Why ? what do you do for a living ?

I still can't figure out whether you're actually a very clever Tory troll or not. Everything you've ever posted here seems too perfectly crafted to inflame those of us here who pay tax.

 

[SmokyDave]

I still can't figure out whether you're actually a very clever Tory troll or not. Everything you've ever posted here seems too perfectly crafted to inflame those of us here who pay tax.

It really isn't. It's just generic work-apathy. I see an awful lot of it 'round my way. One in four households in North Nottingham have no wage-earner present and now we're growing a fourth generation of people that will never enter employment.

Our idiotic benefits system caused this and I've no idea what will reverse it.

 

[Walshicus]

It really isn't. It's just generic work-apathy. I see an awful lot of it 'round my way. One in four households in North Nottingham have no wage-earner present and now we're growing a fourth generation of people that will never enter employment.

Our idiotic benefits system caused this and I've no idea what will reverse it.

Seems like our socialism went off course. Rather than rewarding and countering the exploitation of the worker, and protecting the vulnerable, we've created an underclass who feel they deserve everything when they don't.

The Tory instinct is to destroy all benefits and the welfare state, but this is just as dangerous as maintaining it as-is. We risk sliding into some American style corporatist hell. Then again, until recently Labour have shown no interest in reforming the system either.

 

[mrklaw]

Seems like our socialism went off course. Rather than rewarding and countering the exploitation of the worker, and protecting the vulnerable, we've created an underclass who feel they deserve everything when they don't.

The Tory instinct is to destroy all benefits and the welfare state, but this is just as dangerous as maintaining it as-is. We risk sliding into some American style corporatist hell. Then again, until recently Labour have shown no interest in reforming the system either.

I just want the Tories to get fucking stuck in. They're still pussying around at the edges, picking off easy targets here and there that bring in next to nothing in savings. Nothing beyond a pretty hardcore reform will bring big savings.

I'd have thought you could scrap almost all of the separate benefits and just have one basic system so you can properly track who is getting what and why. Yes it'll hurt, but the longer you leave it the worse it'll be.

 

[Meadows]

I'd probably contend that the problem isn't as bad as people think and possibly related to the lack of general employment around due to the recession, but I don't have any stats backing me up on it so its just my personal view.

So, how would you guys rate the coalition so far? I've been moderately happy, probably about a 7/10.

 

[Walshicus]

I'd probably contend that the problem isn't as bad as people think and possibly related to the lack of general employment around due to the recession, but I don't have any stats backing me up on it so its just my personal view.

So, how would you guys rate the coalition so far? I've been moderately happy, probably about a 7/10.

I'm still unwilling to give it the time of day.

It's clear half the cuts they're pushing are ideological and opportunistic.

 

[Garjon]

It really isn't. It's just generic work-apathy. I see an awful lot of it 'round my way. One in four households in North Nottingham have no wage-earner present and now we're growing a fourth generation of people that will never enter employment.

Our idiotic benefits system caused this and I've no idea what will reverse it.

You know, before I worked in a welfare office, I would've agreed with you wholeheartedly. Now, however, I've found that things are far more complex than you might think. I've seen some of our clients go to a Tribunal with absolutely no evidence to show that they might require Incapacity or DLA suddenly appear with a doctor's note stating that it is imperative that they receive those benefits. Whether that's due to a forged signature or a medical professional accepting a backhander is up in the air. The issue is that once this happens, how would you go about fixing it? You'd have to launch an investigation into every single applicant, or wait until they renew their claim the following year. Additionally, the reluctance to working could be attributed moreso to cultural change (e.g. the rise of the internet, parents not pushing their sons/daughters enough to work). Then there's the whole getting pregnant for the benefits thing, but that's something that will be nearly impossible to tackle, though I don't think it's nearly as common as you might imagine (from experience)
The major weakness in the benefits system, in my opinion, is how complex it is. There are several different benefits and each have different tiers of payment, some of which cannot be claimed for when claiming for others and so on. It's so complicated that it is nigh on impossible to do a proper calculation without specialist software.
Another thing (possibly the most shocking) is that the current system really punishes the disabled more than anyone else. If you are a new claimant, you have to fill in a very lengthy form (which is impossible for many disabled people) and to top it off, about 95% of claimants will ALWAYS be rejected on their first attempt. I don't know why this is so, perhaps it is to only grant DLA to those who are really determined to get it; an obviously stupid idea of course. The system is so obtuse, though I wouldn't be surprised if no government in the future actually deals with this, since it is quite a lucrative thing to withold.

 

[Chinner]

we should make gas chambers and put all the poor people in them.

 

[mrklaw]

we should make gas chambers and put all the poor people in them.

I'm not subsidising those with my hard earned taxes.

 

[Chinner]

I'm not subsidising those with my hard earned taxes.

well we could make a prison on south georgia and send all the criminals/poor people to there. then we can put all the homeless people in the (then) empty prisons.

 

[avaya]

I like the cut in child benefit for higher rate tax payers. Universal welfare state not dependent on income is madness and benefits need to be matched to income.

 

[radioheadrule83]

There's one thing Osbourne said that I definitely agree with and I think a lot of people would agree with:

"Unless they have disabilities to cope with, no family should get more from living on benefits than the average family gets from going out to work. No more open-ended chequebook"

As for the implementation, I don't know enough about it. I'm sure if I was in receipt of child benefits under the current system, and stood to lose out, I'd be pretty unhappy about it..

 

[kitch9]

I like the cut in child benefit for higher rate tax payers. Universal welfare state not dependent on income is madness and benefits need to be matched to income.

The radio is full of people complaining that couples who work both are both under the threshold will get more than single parents......

FFS, its not hard, get a partner and tell them to get a job.

 

[scotcheggz]

Another thing (possibly the most shocking) is that the current system really punishes the disabled more than anyone else. If you are a new claimant, you have to fill in a very lengthy form (which is impossible for many disabled people) and to top it off, about 95% of claimants will ALWAYS be rejected on their first attempt.

I've had dealings with this in the past and I think it's the only time in my life I've ever really felt rage. The system is so archaic and backward it's ridiculous. It needs a serious overhaul. I was doing some voluntary work, so it didn't even effect me directly but it was infuriating seeing all the hoops you have to jump through. That and the fact people need to see an "impartial doctor" who proceeds to ask questions so utterly basic and black and white they border on imbecilic, just makes the whole application system ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the way it treats people with mental health problems.

/rant

 

[operon]

The radio is full of people complaining that couples who work both are both under the threshold will get more than single parents......

FFS, its not hard, get a partner and tell them to get a job.

The problem with Osbourne idea is they way he is implementing it eg

Family A has one earner earning 45k and has one who is at home looking after the kids. They won't get any child benefit under this new system.

Family B has 2 earners each earning 40k, for a total income of 80k but will still receive child benefit under the new scheme, clearly not doing what he is intending to do, which is to make sure people don't receive this who have a certain income

 

[radioheadrule83]

The problem with Osbourne idea is they way he is implementing it eg

Family A has one earner earning 45k and has one who is at home looking after the kids. They won't get any child benefit under this new system.

Family B has 2 earners each earning 40k, for a total income of 80k but will still receive child benefit under the new scheme, clearly not doing what he is intending to do, which is to make sure people don't receive this who have a certain income

Scenario A will encourage arguments and possibly even faking a break-up just for the sake of affording to manage a family... on the face of it, that seems kind of counter to Tory emphasis on traditionalism and the family.

By the same token, the median and mean incomes for individuals in this country is around the £20-22k region - the vast majority of people in the UK make nowhere near 40k, and still manage to live, be it as part of a couple or alone. We have to ask ourselves whether we can afford to grant taxpayer funded comfort to Stay-at-home-Mums with relatively affluent partners.

Scenario B is the troubling one. £80k income households recieving more benefits than £40k ones is a nonsense. Its hard to imagine a way to strike a perfect balance or the perfect policy where *nobody* benefits inappropriately... but as I say, people earning upwards of £30-35k are in the minority in the UK. There will be enough mistakes, miscalculations and abuses for newspaper stories about the scandalous nature of a rich family recieving more benefits than poor ones, but there won't actually be that many of them... relatively speaking. And its not that much of a sea change from scandal stories about chavs with a million kids or whatever claiming more than the system should really allow. I'm not sure its possible to make taxation and welfare systems like these watertight and foolproof unless you arbitrate over everyones comings and goings with a fine tooth comb, case by case.

 

[Wes]

Dave was channelling an autumnal 2008 Obama at the start of this speech. Had fallen back into himself now though.

 

[operon]

Scenario A will encourage arguments and possibly even faking a break-up just for the sake of affording to manage a family... on the face of it, that seems kind of counter to Tory emphasis on traditionalism and the family.

By the same token, the median and mean incomes for individuals in this country is around the £20-22k region - the vast majority of people in the UK make nowhere near 40k, and still manage to live, be it as part of a couple or alone. We have to ask ourselves whether we can afford to grant taxpayer funded comfort to Stay-at-home-Mums with relatively affluent partners.

Scenario B is the troubling one. £80k income households recieving more benefits than £40k ones is a nonsense. Its hard to imagine a way to strike a perfect balance or the perfect policy where *nobody* benefits inappropriately... but as I say, people earning upwards of £30-35k are in the minority in the UK. There will be enough mistakes, miscalculations and abuses for newspaper stories about the scandalous nature of a rich family recieving more benefits than poor ones, but there won't actually be that many of them... relatively speaking. And its not that much of a sea change from scandal stories about chavs with a million kids or whatever claiming more than the system should really allow. I'm not sure its possible to make taxation and welfare systems like these watertight and foolproof unless you arbitrate over everyones comings and goings with a fine tooth comb, case by case.

Lots of that happening now already to get benefits, poeple legally separating, but are still a couple so that they can get benefits. It always used to make me laugh when labour kept shouting about you can pay people to live together, yet we pay poeple to pretend not to be together. Go figure

 

[Wes]

I feel a bit guilty liking Dave's speech about savage cuts to help the defecit. I'm so morbid.

 

[offshore]

I like the speech. David easily has the best delivery of the current leaders.

But then he just pulled a McCain and said to the audience "my friends". Don't like that.

 

[Chinner]

dave just confirmed that hes going bald. unlucky bro.

 

[Chinner]

WE'RE THE RADICALS NOW

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[offshore]

This Big Society idea is just BS.

 

[Wes]

The selling of the "big society" is all wrong. If they just re-imaged it correctly it would work fine.

 

[offshore]

You don't know whether to laugh or cry with these benefit stories. Here, woman who claims £29,000 on benefits spends £4,500 on making her tits bigger. Apparently the poor kids only have a PS3, 360, Wii between them, and another console each, plus 3 laptops between them...and they live a four bedroom house.

Osborne and Cameron need to wipe these fuckers out.

Most families who are due to lose their child benefit are worrying about how they'll make ends meet without it.

But for Kelly Marshall, who has five children by four different fathers, the handout has never been about paying for nappies, food and other everyday expenses.

She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.

And as many parents envisage tightening their belts after the Tories announced plans to cut the benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, she plans to save more of hers for liposuction and a tummy tuck.

Miss Marshall, who has never worked, rakes in almost £29,000 a year from benefits - and last year spent £4,500 to go from a 34A to a 34DD.

She explained: 'I have wanted a boob job since I was a teen. But it wasn't until I had five children that I could afford it - with all the extra benefits I get. Now I hope to have liposuction, a tummy tuck and regular Botox.

'I thought having children would make my boobs bigger, but that never happened so I decided to do something about them.

'I saved money from my benefits for four months to cover half the cost and put the rest on a credit card, which I pay back with my benefits.

'I know most people will think it is wrong I am spending taxpayers' money on my looks. But I deserve it because I am a good mum. Having children has taken its toll on my body. All mums should be able to have cosmetic surgery.

'I don't care that it is at the taxpayers' cost,' she told Closer magazine. 'I am just proud of my looks and family - and it's my decision what the money is spent on.'

Miss Marshall, 32, receives monthly payments of £870 in housing benefit, £975 in child tax credit, and £303 in child benefit, giving her an income equivalent to a pre-tax salary of £39,000.

Unbelievable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...cuts-Kelly-Marshall-spent-4-500-BOOB-JOB.html

 

[Salazar]

Osborne and Cameron need to wipe these fuckers out.

The dog and the youngest child should be spared. The rest: pulp in some giant machine.

 

[scotcheggz]

Come on chaps, you're quoting the daily mail. All these stories come from the mail or the sun or some such other bog roll. I'm not saying she isn't getting too much benefit, but really?

The story is written to make you mad. It's junk plain and simple. These stories don't have an ounce of good intention in them. There is bigger problems with the benefits system than some old slapper claiming 29k a year, selling a rose-tinted story to this old rag, see Gajorns post above for reference.

 

[Salazar]

Come on chaps, you're quoting the daily mail. All these stories come from the mail or the sun or some such other bog roll. I'm not saying she isn't getting too much benefit, but really?

*Shrugs*

Costs nothing to post on GAF calling for her brutal execution.

 

[Walshicus]

*Shrugs*

Costs nothing to post on GAF calling for her brutal execution.

Well, except respect and your humanity.

 

[Kentpaul]

Come on chaps, you're quoting the daily mail. All these stories come from the mail or the sun or some such other bog roll. I'm not saying she isn't getting too much benefit, but really?

The story is written to make you mad. It's junk plain and simple. These stories don't have an ounce of good intention in them. There is bigger problems with the benefits system than some old slapper claiming 29k a year, selling a rose-tinted story to this old rag, see Gajorns post above for reference.

The sun > all other uk news papers , its full of banter

 

[SmokyDave]

Well, except respect and your humanity.

'Humane' is not allowing for a burgeoning underclass entirely dependent on the state with no hopes, aspirations or work ethic. What we're currently doing is cruel and inhumane in the long run.

 

[Walshicus]

'Humane' is not allowing for a burgeoning underclass entirely dependent on the state with no hopes, aspirations or work ethic. What we're currently doing is cruel and inhumane in the long run.

Well, that's fine and I'm actually in favour of stopping that. It's not a mutually exclusive position to be against welfare scrounging and against the killing of welfare scroungers - as much as I know [hope] he's joking.

 

[radioheadrule83]

The sun > all other uk news papers , its full of banter

Its garbage. Since when are Jeremy Clarkson and Lorraine Kelly authoratative commentators on society?

It shouldn't have taken their hillsborough reporting to stop Merseyside reading it, they should have stopped buying it purely because its shit.

 

[Chinner]

i kind of agree with kentpaul, i find the sun really charming.

 

[Zenith]

You don't know whether to laugh or cry with these benefit stories. Here, woman who claims £29,000 on benefits spends £4,500 on making her tits bigger. Apparently the poor kids only have a PS3, 360, Wii between them, and another console each, plus 3 laptops between them...and they live a four bedroom house.

Osborne and Cameron need to wipe these fuckers out.


Unbelievable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...cuts-Kelly-Marshall-spent-4-500-BOOB-JOB.html

it's the Daily Mail.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Rupert & James Murdoch's opinion and influence + a small bit of actual news + tits + offers (like the 30p Sub at Dominoes) + 'banter' = the Sun.

I can see why people buy it, but its like a politicised comic or something, its not a proper newspaper.

 

[Chinner]

you can apply the same formula to most newspapers really. i mean frankly im just like you im like hurr hurr fucking murdoch, but i pretty much consider the times to be the best right wing newspapers.

i agreeeeeee though. still find the sun really charming, quite a good study of journalism, how they can shorten stories down to sentences or just one paragraph. its all very interesting.

 

[phisheep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11499638

Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, Balls to shadow Home Office, Cooper to shadow Foreign Office.

Not a bad call. Johnson will be good for popular credibility (economic competence is not all it is knocked up to be, not when you're in opposition), Home Office needs a brute and Foreign Office needs someone who can stand up to Hague.

Edit: Balls is going to have the tougher job in the short term if he tries to defend New Labour's assaults on civil liberties.

Wonder who is going to get Justice?

Edit: Ah, Sadiq Khan. Never heard of him.

 

[Empty]

The Johnson choice seems like an attempt to a) assuage the fears of those in the Labour party that Ed will move the party to the left significantly, as both Balls and Cooper, the tipped choices, are to the left economically on the deficit, whereas Johnson supported David Miliband and the Darling deficit plan, something which is especially important given that Ed didn't gain majority support among his MP's and b) to dispell charges of inexperience leveled at the current shadow leadership given that Ed only entered parliament in 05, having your number two be an old hand like Johnson helps.

 

[Walshicus]

Foreign Office needs someone who can stand up to Hague.

To be fair, that's not difficult. Hague's never been a heavy-weight contender, despite his past party leadership.

 

[Kentpaul]

you can apply the same formula to most newspapers really. i mean frankly im just like you im like hurr hurr fucking murdoch, but i pretty much consider the times to be the best right wing newspapers.

i agreeeeeee though. still find the sun really charming, quite a good study of journalism, how they can shorten stories down to sentences or just one paragraph. its all very interesting.

Its great just to sit down in the morning with your breakfast and a glass of orange juice and browse through the sun , its not full of its self like they boring ass news papers you see the suits on the train reading

I still can't figure out whether you're actually a very clever Tory troll or not. Everything you've ever posted here seems too perfectly crafted to inflame those of us here who pay tax.

Its hard getting back into work when your used to just chilling around the house waiting for the weekend.

I recently got back into working and my hands shook like a bitch when i had to pore wine for someone.

i was depressed for 3 days. fuck going threw that again

 

[Xun]

Its bullshit i want labour back

labour was awsome, making free travel for the old people ect, now fucking everything is being cut, i don't even enjoy reading the news paper when i take a shit these days cause that david camerons fucking smug mug is all over it everyday

FUCK YOU DAVID CAMERON GIVE SCOTLAND INDEPENDANCE.

WE DONT LIKE YOUR PARTY.

sorry about the caps guys i get worked up over this.

i need understand and support cival war.

New Labour really wasn't that great.

The Tories do suck balls though, but I suspected this.

 

[phisheep]

To be fair, that's not difficult. Hague's never been a heavy-weight contender, despite his past party leadership.

Not so much the ex-leadership, but he is very good on his feet while handling questions.

 

[blazinglord]

Not a bad call. Johnson will be good for popular credibility (economic competence is not all it is knocked up to be, not when you're in opposition), Home Office needs a brute and Foreign Office needs someone who can stand up to Hague.

I think Johnson's popularity has gone down since his misjudged comments about him not 'lying awake worrying about the population hitting 70 million in two decades' and criticising the electorally popular immigration cap system.

Edit: Balls is going to have the tougher job in the short term if he tries to defend New Labour's assaults on civil liberties.

I'm disappointed that Miliband has put authoritarian ID cards supporter Ed Balls as Shadow Home Secretary when he promised that he would strike a more liberal tone on surveillance during the leadership election. Still, Balls does tend to strike a more sensible note on immigration than Johnson.

Oh well, all the more reason to ensure that Labour must never again be allowed to get their hands onto the keys to number 10 again.

 

[phisheep]

I think Johnson's popularity has gone down since his misjudged comments about him not 'lying awake worrying about the population hitting 70 million in two decades' and criticising the electorally popular immigration cap system.

Not too worried about that. Thing is, Johnson does 'sane and sensible' better than the rest and that's what is needed right now in the shadow chancellor. It's a bit like the the coalition deal, you can't get everything you want but something needs to be done and it would be serious electoral suicide for Labour to oppose everything.

I'm disappointed that Miliband has put authoritarian ID cards supporter Ed Balls as Shadow Home Secretary when he promised that he would strike a more liberal tone on surveillance during the leadership election. Still, Balls does tend to strike a more sensible note on immigration than Johnson.

Oh well, all the more reason to ensure that Labour must never again be allowed to get their hands onto the keys to number 10 again.

Like I said, shadow Home Secretray has a tough job. Looks like a suicide mission to me waiting for Balls to put his foot in it. Probably a sound move though.

 

[Empty]

The other advantage to Johnson as shadow chancellor is that his age allows him to step down easily if David Miliband wants to re-enter the fold, whereas Balls and Cooper both put him out of contention for that position as they are long term picks.

I think Balls in the home office is an interesting pick, given his toughness at chasing down his opponents he would be perfect if Labour wanted to try and outflank the Tories from the right on crime and immigration, given that May is seemingly a rare liberal home secretary and a central plank of the coalition is their shared values on civil liberties. However Ed Miliband's entire pitch for leadership was about moving to a more Lib Dem position in these areas, and admitting the mistakes of pandering to the right here, and putting Balls who is further right than the tories on immigration and civil liberties contradicts that, as well as being a wasted opportunity when he could be be sent out again to attack Gove.

 

[phisheep]

The other advantage to Johnson as shadow chancellor is that his age allows him to step down easily if David Miliband wants to re-enter the fold, whereas Balls and Cooper both put him out of contention for that position as they are long term picks.

I think Balls in the home office is an interesting pick, given his toughness at chasing down his opponents he would be perfect if Labour wanted to try and outflank the Tories from the right on crime and immigration, given that May is seemingly a rare liberal home secretary and a central plank of the coalition is their shared values on civil liberties. However Ed Miliband's entire pitch for leadership was about moving to a more Lib Dem position in these areas, and admitting the mistakes of pandering to the right here, and putting Balls who is further right than the tories on immigration and civil liberties contradicts that, as well as being a wasted opportunity when he could be be sent out again to attack Gove.

Well it depends a bit on whether the idea is to (attempt to) shaft the Tories or to shaft Balls. The one thing Miliband has in his favour is time, because whatever they say it'll likely be three years* before they need to actually do anything.

EDIT: * at least

 

[Wes]

Balls; got kicked in the

 

[Wes]

Oh snap.

Ed with a zinger right out of the gate.