UK Politics- A Taxing Transition

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'll never understand why conservatives hate handouts for the needy, but when corporations and the super rich seek and get welfare in the millions that's just smart business, especially when the latter won't pay living wages causing the former to ask the state for help. 

Riches, wealth, are a product of one’s innate virtue

If you are suffering you must be doing something to deserve it or cause it for yourself and thus change your lifestyle to be more virtuous to better in a system.

 

Edited September 22 by Varysblackfyre321

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So what is the actual objection to this system then? I haven’t heard one other than ‘some people might get caught who don’t deserve to’ which is just a matter of poor implementation. Should people not be encouraged to get jobs rather than relying on tax payer money? 

People are working fulltime, sometimes a lot more than that between two or three jobs and can't make ends meet and are then told to ask the government for help, at the same time when those at the top have never been richer. Something is clearly wrong yet you're totally cool with this it would seem.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

People are working fulltime, sometimes a lot more than that between two or three jobs and can't make ends meet and are then told to ask the government for help, at the same time when those at the top have never been richer. Something is clearly wrong yet you're totally cool with this it would seem.

Then they wouldn’t be affected by the rules. So what is the issue?

Edited September 22 by Heartofice

[mormont]

Maybe people should read the article? 

I'll summarise. This affects people working less than 15 hours per week, who for some reason the UK government want to also spend their time looking for jobs that offer more than 15 hours per week. They require that people who already have a job, look for another job (or for more hours at the current job). You must show proof that you've been doing that or you could have your benefits cut. Disabled people unable to work more than 15 hours will be exempt.

The number of people this affects is relatively small (around 120,000) and the savings will be minute, much less than the cost of implementation. It's a punitive measure done for performative reasons on the basis of no evidence at all. It is, as the Labour spokesman notes, not a serious plan to improve the economy or support people into work. It's bashing a few poor people to show the Tory voters that the government might be spending giant wads of cash but it's fundamentally still a Tory government. It's ideological bullshit bullying. 

[BigFatCoward]

NI cuts, me and Mrs will be significantly better off, the people that really need some help not so much. What a bizarrely regressive policy. 

[Heartofice]

Yeah I’m still not seeing what the actual issue is with the policy other than it might be too expensive ( which I’m not sure is true btw, seeing as it’s an existing scheme that will just be extended)

The question is whether we should be handing out benefits to people who are content to just work part time? Why should we do that? If there are jobs available then people who are only working a day or two a week should be out there looking to get them rather than just claiming credits. Benefits should be for people who need them not for people who just can’t be bothered to work.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So far you’ve gave some vague useless proclamation on not being opposed to on principle because you’ve encountered people not actively seeking employment and who relied on government for succor. 

If, as selfrighteously blind fools accused (not the person quoted here!), there are some working class people who prefer handouts to working, what in hell has this to do with subsidizing working class - poor - NOT RICH people to have heat this winter when unless one is VERY RICH one cannot afford to heat their homes, the job cannot heat the work place either, public spaces such as libraries can't afford heat either, and right and left all sorts of places are closing their doors because of the cost of heating and electricity?

Edited September 22 by Zorral

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Why should we do that?

Defend the policy change directly.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If there are jobs available then people who are only working a day or two a week should be out there looking to get them rather than just claiming credits.

Perhaps the job simply doesn’t pay enough given the demands of labor and rising costs of living and inflation.

Easier to exploit individuals when they don’t have any/much safety net to fall back on

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Benefits should be for people who need them not for people who just can’t be bothered to work.

Says the man crying about people declaring a need to sever the royal family from the government’s breast.

Edited September 22 by Varysblackfyre321

[The Anti-Targ]

Why should the government give money to the lazy and indigent to keep them warm-ish over winter?

Because it's inhuman not to.

Work or freeze is not the ultimatum people with basic common decency should be imposing on others. That's torture not motivation.

Quote

...supplement your income with ‘other’ methods.

So they are working, just not the sort of work our social contract likes and for which no tax is ever paid. 

Edited September 22 by The Anti-Targ

[Which Tyler]

Tax evasion by those who can afford to pay tax is good and laudable, and anyone saying otherwise is just jealous.

Tax evasion by those in poverty is disgusting and heinous, and anyone doing it should be hounded and shamed.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why should the government give money to the lazy and indigent to keep them warm-ish over winter?

Because it's inhuman not to.

Work or freeze is not the ultimatum people with basic common decency should be imposing on others. That's torture not motivation.

So they are working, just not the sort of work our social contract likes and for which no tax is ever paid. 

Basically yeah, if you can get a job but choose not to because you can’t be arsed, why should the state subsidise your laziness?

[Derfel Cadarn]

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Basically yeah, if you can get a job but choose not to because you can’t be arsed, why should the state subsidise your laziness?

People were having to use AL days when petrol peaked because they couldnt afford to drive to work.

Some people cant afford to work because of childcare; council nursery places can be hadd to get, and privste nursery is expensive. Not everyone has the luxury of family who can look after kids, and then there’s summer holidays when kids are off.

Carers: My sister had to quit a £30-grand job, her rented house, and move into a council flat adjusted for disability, because my youngest nephew needs full-time care. She’d love to get back to work, but its not on the cards any time soon.

Edited September 23 by Derfel Cadarn

[Which Tyler]

@Derfel Cadarn

Youre making 2 basic mistakes here.

A] You think that compassion is a good thing, not a weakness

B] You have the capacity to accept that people who aren't like you both exist, and have value.

[john]

The state should support lazy people (if we want to reduce them to that) because it’s in the long term interest of the state to do that. The government is more focused on the long term interests of themselves by pandering to a voting bloc so they remain in power.

 

[mormont]

Again, this measure isn't aimed at people who don't have a job. It's aimed at people who work part-time, but don't make enough to live on, because their job is low paid.

[mormont]

And just in case you harboured some idea that this was about balancing the books, saving money, etc., the Chancellor has helpfully just handed a massive tax cut to people earning over £150,000 per year.

[Spockydog]

So their plan is do as much damage as possible before the cunts are out on their ears, never to hold power ever again. 

Keir Starmer to face calls at Labour conference for electoral reform

Quote

 

Keir Starmer is set to face increasing pressure at Labour’s conference over embracing electoral reform, with delegates expected to approve a motion calling for the party to replace first past the post with a proportional system.

At last year’s conference, about 80% of constituency party delegates voted in favour of embracing proportional representation (PR). The motion was defeated after 95% of votes from affiliates, almost entirely unions, opposed the move.

Since then, three of the biggest five unions linked to Labour have changed their stance. Unite and Unison, which between them comprise about half of union votes, both voted to embrace PR at their own policy conferences. The smaller CWU also backs the idea.

Sandy Martin, the former Ipswich MP who chairs the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, said it seemed likely that a motion on the issue would be debated at this year’s conference in Liverpool, which begins at the weekend, and if so would pass.

 

 

[Heartofice]

Well the main aim seems to be encouraging people to take up work, because there are vacancies but a number of people only doing a few hours work a week. Getting people working is generally good for society 

[mormont]

Tory ideology, folks. Rich people are incentivised by giving rewards, poor people are incentivised by punishment.

[Spockydog]