Jump to content

UK Politics- A Taxing Transition


polishgenius

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So we should give more money to people who work more but less to those who don’t? What’s your solution here?

Can you prove that it isn't a rational decision for many of those living on subsidies? Quite often it earns you less if you take any random job than taking the meagre government handouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kiko said:

Can you prove that it isn't a rational decision for many of those living on subsidies? Quite often it earns you less if you take any random job than taking the meagre government handouts. 

These people are already doing part time work. Gah will somebody read the actual article!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

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 

Only if you assume you know the why and wherefores for them all. Which would mean ignoring all those listed by Derfel above.

Which you don't.

And the tories don't give a damn about - they just want to be seen to be being bastards to poor people, because it's what their base wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Which Tyler said:

Only if you assume you know the why and wherefores for them all. Which would mean ignoring all those listed by Derfel above.

Which you don't.

And the tories don't give a damn about - they just want to be seen to be being bastards to poor people, because it's what their base wants.

Nothing Derfel said was relevant because he didn’t read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Err... what?

So reading the article means that carers are incapable of working some-but-not-many hours?

*raises hand*

I'd LOVE to be able to work part time. In fact, I was offered a part time job in a lovely local bookstore recently. Unfortunately, seeing as carers appear to be at the very bottom of Tory Britain's social structure, the financial penalties for doing just a few hours work on top of my caring duties every week are appalling.

It doesn't matter that my mental health has suffered enormously over the past fifteen years. The DWP doesn't care about things like that. They simply do not give a shit about the emotional impact of giving up work to look after sick relatives.

The UK Carer's Allowance is £69.70 per week.

A tenner a day. That's how much this government thinks is acceptable to pay people who are caring for relatives full time. In my case, I am looking after two fully grown adults. How much extra do I get for that? Time and a half? Double bubble? Nope. I get fuck all extra. Fuck all.

Yet if I work just a few hours a week, my Housing Benefit basically gets stopped.

Seems entirely fair and reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

So reading the article means that carers are incapable of working some-but-not-many hours?

What I'm wondering is why, if you want these people to work more hours, the answer is to punish them if they don't: rather than rewarding them if they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...