Are we going to have an Election discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

quote:

greed and envy is a terrible taskmaster.

Only if it is so morally wrong to want to improve your lot and take risks -

Well look at your quote FFS. You didn’t just quote it, you tagged on what clearly looks like a parallel. So if you aren’t drawing parallels here why don’t you talk me through what you’re really saying?

How Socialism and the politics of envy have anything to do with a discussion on this election is beyond me. Matt’s clearly miffed at having been targeted by IR35 and has taken it personally as many do when new legislation clobbers them or removes a relief. I have every sympathy and can empathize as governments of both shades have been equally vigilant in parting me from my cash. As I’ve said I have little or no time for Blair and his modus operandi, but to think however that Labour’s apparatchiks are sitting around seething, hatching plans borne out of envy at Matt the capitalist, jammy git with his towering piles of cash and all the understated cool of that flat earth audio system, is surely evidence that one is on the verge of great madness. The only people who bang on about such things and try to clumsily shoehorn them into any discussion are right wing nuts who have as much relevance to today’s political landscape as the hardy souls of Socialist Workers Party. Blair, like Howard, like Thatcher, like Kennedy will tell you what you want to hear to get into your y-fronts and then they’ll turn over every stone to help make the pre-election sums add up. IR35, amongst others, was under one of those stones. It’s not personal and it’s nothing to do with envy, it was a glaring loophole that any government would have been happy to close. Howard’s war chest for tax cuts is a pittance and despite the headlines, you’d be pushed to get a cigarette paper between their spending plans, so no matter who gets in expect more of the same in the short to medium term. Sure, given the longer term the Tories would return to form and try their best to run the NHS and schools into the ground and no amount of bad publicity or politicking from that rubber-lipped, Mockney, knob Oliver will stop them feeding lips and arseholes to schoolkids.

All this talk of bureaucracy being the big threat is a cute line but it’s just a vapid whinge, it means nothing. It’s like asking “don’t you want clean hospitals or discipline in schools”? Everyone despises bureaucracy and specifically those who see it as an end in itself, but successive governments of every hue, despite talking up a storm, have shown themselves to be bloody useless at reducing the burden. Much as right wingers like to think they own the notion of slim, hands off government, in fact privatization, outsourcing public services and the internal market have only served to increase layers of bureaucracy and if you want to look to a startling growth in bureaucracy, big government and public service jobs not to mention state handouts and subsidies to unprofitable businesses then take a look west to your spiritual mentors in Washington. We’d all love small government that lets us get on with our life but it isn’t going to happen anytime soon with any government we get and despite all the bluster you all bloody know it.

quote:

quote:
If somebody is disabled and unable to perform any work they are unemployable.


...it all depends how you define "unemployable"

Laurie what’s your definition?

quote:

I don’t see why everybody shouldn’t pay tax of whatever income.

To some extent this may be a valid argument and as arguably successful tax avoidance and planning is hugely more prevalent, and more significant in financial terms, amongst the wealthy, it’s a very public spirited sentiment. As I’ve pointed out earlier I’m interested to hear how you’d suggest making up the loss to the exchequer and again what current problem would this flat rate be solving?

quote:

Laurie what’s your definition?

probably the same as the one you give..."unable to perform ANY work"

I have no quibble with supporting those unable to support themselves. In this sense I have Socialist tendencies

Regrettably there are many folk who claim and receive disability allowance and proceed to work in the Black Market

I am certainly not of the "Dailly Express" Parryesque brigade....I am not suggesting that all claimants are scroungers...just that more than a few are

I get a little resentful when folk I know personally claiming Disability have their mortgage paid, pay no Council Tax, smoke, drink , have two or three foreign holidays per year, have satellite TV, mobile `phones, have a new car provided every three years, get free dental treatment and prescriptions, are members of private health clubs etc etc....

Laurie

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
...So back to the point, are you in fact saying that the atypically tightlipped Parry and MichaelC are completely correct and that the UK has a problem with a significant number of recalcitrants who simply are unwilling to work? I’m quite open to this being the case but having read nothing about this large scale phenomenon and with the two Michaels going all shy on us, can you evidence or even quantify this? How many of the disability claimants are bogus?

What would you consider a 'significant number'? Obviously I don't know how many of the disability claimants are bogus. Certainly there has been a large increase of claimants under categories such as 'stress' which, while they may or may not be genuine, are not provable. My guess would be that the true number of people unable to work through disability is likely to be more in line with the percentages in France or Germany and probably a little lower as France and Germany probably have a proportion of 'bogus' claimants themselves.

quote:

Living on Working Tax Credit without doing any work amazes me if it’s true. Can you explain how does one do this and how much could one hope to receive pa? If all of this is true then I agree it should be a media scoop and an election issue.

From being unemployed a person can start a business in self-employment and receive tax credits. The amounts are, I believe, roughly comparable with unemployment benefit but there is an added advantage that the recipients can earn additional money from their self-employment (to an extent) without jeapardising the receipt of tax credit. However, it is not necessary for the tax credit recipients to work - they can merely claim that they have no clients yet or otherwise fill in their tax returns each year to show suitable losses or low income. In this way they could continue to receive the tax credit indefinitely.

Let me be quite clear that to live off unemployment benefit or working tax credit alone would be a pretty miserable existence. I brought the issue up in the context of the unemployment statistics.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
As I’ve pointed out earlier I’m interested to hear how you’d suggest making up the loss to the exchequer and again what current problem would this flat rate be solving?

Flat rate tax is considerably less expensive to implement than the existing system.

A flat rate tax would reduce or eliminate tax avoidance and planning amongst the wealthy and would result in more tax collected overall.

As the flat tax system is more efficient for the reasons above, the tax rate would be lower for the same overall income to the exchequer. This would result in higher growth which would, in itself, lead to more tax income and better funded public services.

In summary, higher efficiency, less avoidance, higher revenue with lower tax rates leading to higher growth and more money for public services, are the 'current problems' that flat tax would solve. Of course in the future the problems of maintaining our existing tax system will mount as we become progressively less able to keep up with increasing number of countries who have moved to flat tax.

I feel it's a lost opportunity that the Conservative party, who had no realistic chance of forming the next government, didn't come up with more radical and better differentiated policies.

Regards
Steve M

Laurie I think that we are almost entirely in agreement on this one. What I'm trying to establish here is why in a thread about a general election which is scarcely short on some pressing issues, we have some contributers who think it ok to raise the threatening spectre of significant swathe of idle spongers without seeing fit to justify their assertions. Without this evidence this is no different to last week's baseless assertion that swarms of asylum seekers were lowering the tone of the country. If it's a significant problem let's hear the evidence and act accordingly. If there's no evidence then let's shine a bright light on the prejudice and ignorance of those who make the claims.

Steve, I'm using the word "significant" as that was how MichaelC described the number of people who do not wish to work. Having come to my own conclusions about his motivations, I'm done waiting for him to answer my question so maybe you could ask him what he meant by "significant" and while you're there ask him for any evidence.

Something doesn't stack up about that Working Tax Credit. I was of the impression it was a top up of a few thousand and certainly nothing that you could survive on without an alternative income. If you're right it's a disgrace. I might ask someone to have a look at it. And I agree anyone I've met living on benefits has had a thoroughly miserable existence.

Re. the flat rate debate. The current tax system is indeed a mess, but there is no good reason why a progressive tax regime could not be implemented with similar efficencies and costs as a flat rate. Likewise, we could reduce avoidance by simplifying the progressive system and policing it more stringently. What's to stop the wealthy still finding a way to cloak and bury tax liability with a flat rate? There is still the problem that I alluded to earlier whereby the exchequer stands to lose quite a considerable chunk in hard cash whilst it waits to see if the theoretical efficiencies pan out and feed through. Again, what problem are we addressing in the UK with this expensive, and let's be clear, regressive tax?

As it's Friday, here is a funny reminder

quote:

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

I get a little resentful when folk I know personally claiming Disability have their mortgage paid, pay no Council Tax, smoke, drink , have two or three foreign holidays per year, have satellite TV, mobile `phones, have a new car provided every three years, get free dental treatment and prescriptions, are members of private health clubs etc etc....

Laurie

Laurie, if you think someone is abusing the benefit system their is a confidential telephone number you can ring.

It seems to be human nature that if something can be fiddled it will be. But I still stick by my earlier comment that benefits are not particularly easy to obtain.

Example: My son was made redundant early last year and had a terrible time getting his unemployment benefit. At first it was refused because his ex-employer said he had not been made redundant but had voluntarily left*. After local and area appeals this was later reversed and benefit was eventually paid. An extremely stressful process for my son who had to survive for a considerable time with no money coming in. He now works for a major furniture retailer and has vowed that he will never go near the benefit system again. I wish him luck.

* You may find this a little bit strange but my son has a compensation claim for negligence against the company for a serious accident a few years ago. He believes this was the reason the company made him 'redundant'.

Benefit scroungers are not crippling the county, they may be annoying to us but they are not a major problem.

Looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place...

The radio has just announced that the wealth gap is the 'widest since Victorian times', a 'legacy of the Tory years'.

Gordon Gekko said 'Greed is good'

Andy

quote:

Looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place...

You`re probably right...in terms of cost this sort of abuse is probably trivial...however it does highlight the absurdity of the system that allows these anomolies to exist...the real problem, as I`ve mentioned , is the crippling beurocracy that administers these absurd practices.

What I find interesting is the notion of "fairness" so oft used by politicians as if "fairness" represents an objective truth.

In reality "fairness" is subjective...one man`s fairness is another mans`s unfairness

Peddling policies as "fair" is all part of the falsehood and Lie of politics in general


Laurie

Laurie,

We live in a very complicated world and things just don't happen, do they, they have to be organised and administered. My youngest son, works in clinical coding in a local hospital, providing analytical data and statistics on diseases/injuries. Without this sort back-room work providing this data how on earth do we sort out what is required and where to put resources. I agree that bureaucracy should be kept to the minimum but they will always be needed.

Sorry to keep using my sons as examples but they both, in their own ways, are apposite to my arguments.

Andy

quote:

We live in a very complicated world and things just don't happen, do they, they have to be organised and administered.

Well, Question Time last night managed to bring this and the concerns of real voters into sharp focus.

Ok the predictable concerns about the legality of the war in Iraq came up, and a few nasty individuals who were here seeking asylum (they didn't say what type of asylum seekers they were) passed before our eyes. Then WHAM, out of nowhere (never mind left-field) we are listening to some middle-age mother compaining about the unreasonable short time it takes to see her GP. Guaranteed to be less than 48 hrs. Because her local surgurey won't let her book an appointment more than 48 hrs ahead. Even when the doctor has just asked her to "come back for a follow-up next week"

Now, our Tony B Liar was well caught out on this one. Took a couple of re-takes to make sure he understood the problem, said what was happening was absurd and he would look into it.

Now which bunch of fat-cat bureaucrats dreamed this system up? or should I say "organised and administered" it.

No wonder our Tony was sweating.

No wonder the electorate is so apathetic

Cheers

Don

What Top Up Fees ?

quote:

Now which bunch of fat-cat bureaucrats dreamed this system up?

Somebody dreamt up the target of no more than 48 hours to see a GP. The surgeries obviously find the best way to meet this target is to not make appointments for more than 48 hours in the future. Cause and effect. If some of the 'fat cat bureaucrats' actually had any idea how the world worked they'd have thought about this.

Paul

In reality in UK today, most GP's take advanced booking appointments for any time the patient wishes, you're just repeating very cheap erection rhetoric, though I'm sure not deliberately old Bean, innit.


Fritz Von Durin the War

BF, of course......

I forgot to switch the "irony" button on in the post above.

British voters question PM....Iraq, asylum.....length of queue at doctors

Headlines next morning in British Press....dominated by length of queue......



Of course we've all suffered the kpi brigades. Insist we have kpis.....but forget that the mere existance of the kpi will, itself, modify the behaviour of those affected by it.......often with disaterous effect.

And not just a few GP practices are affected, the audience poll proved that this is an epidemic, affecting more than one third of Britain today.....MRSA....doctors queues....if I had the will to live through this election, I still wouldn't rate my chances of survival ....

Cheers

Don

...bugger... I re-read my last post and realised I'd forgotten the old irony switch again...

Cheers

Don

Nice one Don, I you weren't such a nice sounding dude I'd ask you if in fact you weren't Michael Howard himself ? Can yopu please refresh my sodden memory and remind me what KPI means, I'm totally lost on that one John ?


Fritz Von I bet our Mick's into his 3'rd large
filofax and tonic already lodging his complaints to those who'll listen, no synthetic water though, Oh No !!!

Of course encouraging the under 16's to start smoking, and smoke more by introducing youth vouchers and lowering the prices to 50p a pack, will certainly sort out the pension problems in the long term.


Fritz Von Obese kids Ugh, and Our Gordon say's my Son's going to Pubic school anyway, just loke Daddy and Our Tony in true Hardy tradition, innit:

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
...bugger... I re-read my last post and realised I'd forgotten the old irony switch again...

Cheers

Don

I've burnt many a shirt that way too

key performance indicator

In the flying business the only kpi I work to is that number of safe landings, divided by the number of take-offs, should equal one.

and there's not much tollerance allowed....

Cheers

Don

Yes, that sounds like a pretty reasonable ratio old bean


Fritz Von I'm now going to late night it with Chilean claret, pasta a'la fritz, and Midnight Cowbow on the gogglebox.

P.s. ´Check out Herzog, by Saul Below on your next holiday, it's a good reminder of how lucky we all are, innit


P.P.S. I got to know a lot of pilots etc, in a previous existance in the sailing & yacht club game, quite a crowd, as you know, innit ²

Don

You lucky bugger. In my last job I had to work to 23 KPI's.

Regards

Mick........KPI'ed out

Looks Like I caused a storm in a teacup whilst looking elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:

"we have some contributers who think it ok to raise the threatening spectre of significant swathe of idle spongers without seeing fit to justify their assertions"


"If there's no evidence then let's shine a bright light on the prejudice and ignorance of those who make the claims"


"I'm using the word "significant" as that was how MichaelC described the number of people who do not wish to work. Having come to my own conclusions about his motivations"

I am not sure why you felt that I was raising the threatening spectre of significant swathe of idle spongers. I made an observation "I think we may have hit a fundamental problem. We are now (perhaps) dealing with a significant number of people who do not wish to work (why??? is it too cushy a benefits system? or the lack of values instilled in them as they grow up?)".

My thoughts are as follows:

There are approximately 1.5M unemployed (National Stats Office figures) registered as unemployed. It would also appear that this number has held reasonably steady for a number of years.

Clearly included within that number will be a significant (yes, I am using that word again) number of what I shall describe as transient unemployed ie those who have either "signed-on" for the first time whilst looking for work and those that have come out of employment for whatever reason and looking for work. These people will be short term unemployed only.

And clearly within that number will be a significant number who are longer term unemployed. Why should that be so? It may be that they are lacking in skills. It may be that they are residing in areas where there are low employment prospects.

A quick look at National Stats Office figures suggests that there are in excess of 600,000 vacancies at any one time. I have to say that I had expected this figures to be higher and I will also point out that this figure has been broadly similar for several years.

Yet we are seeing economic migration into this country. And before anyone tries to read into what I am saying let me make it absolutely clear that I have no problem with people coming into this country and landing jobs - indeed, fair play to them.

So why are there longer term unemployed? Is there an unwillingness to travel the UK seeking out gainful employment? OK I will accept that the costs of travel/accomodation can be a barrier. Is there an unwillingness to try out a different trade or profession? Builders are desperate for skilled tradesmen by way of example.

I have seen first hand a young girl walk from her job because she would be better off falling pregnant, getting housed and supplemented by benefits. Is that right? In my books it is clearly wrong. And hence my comment about the cushy benefits system.

My comment about lack of values arose out of reading another thread on the Padded Cell but I believe it to be relevant, Indded very relevant. Standards are falling. There is less pride. There is less desire for self-improvement. I suggest that this is so because of the ability to rely on the state. For these reasons there is less willingness to seek out and find that job.

I believe my comments are an accurate observation.

These are my observations based on what I see and read in the papers. It is arguable how accurate the papers are because each and every paper has it's own agenda.

I am intrigued to know what Bigmick thought my motivations were.

At the end of the day I can be convinced otherwise. I am open minded - this has been seen before.

Mike

A positive spin on the Iraq Entry question by Mr. Blair at his press conference has no doubt negated any nasty thoughts of the general populance. If only it had been so clearcut as the Falklands, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
In reality in UK today, most GP's take advanced booking appointments for any time the patient wishes, you're just repeating very cheap erection rhetoric, though I'm sure not deliberately old Bean, innit.

Actually Fritzy the 48hr trick is absolutely true. I had to take my Mother to her GP last week and came up against precisely this issue.

7^

For some reason this puts me in mind of Chairman Mao demanding increasingly ridiculous performance targets from the Chinese peasant farmers. Of course they made the targets - the reports they filed stated so. It was tragic that so many millions died of starvation but if it wasn't in the reports then it didn't happen. It didn't help that Mao decided that the sparrows were destroying the crops and ordered everyone to kill them. As a result of this mass cull, the insect pests that the sparrows had actually been eating devastated the harvest.

Government? The smaller the better, I say. I'd like to keep them out of as much as possible - education, the health service... The ideal would be to keep government out of government.