Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Richard]

"Tax evasion and avoidance cost the Treasury an estimated £14bn a year"

Is that just in this year?

Priority for this Gvmt? Benefits and the Public Sector!!

How much does benefits and the public sector cost?

[blandy]

"Tax evasion and avoidance cost the Treasury an estimated £14bn a year"

Is that just in this year?

Priority for this Gvmt? Benefits and the Public Sector!!

How much does benefits and the public sector cost?

Tax avoidance is legal.

Tax evasion is not legal

Benefit fraud is estimated to cost about 2.4 billion a year (min 1.1, max 3 billon)

They go after benefits because it's money they have, that they pay out, rather than tax avoidance, which is money they don't have and aren't going to get, anyway.

Tax evasion and benefit fraud are both costly to pursue, but both should be chased harder, perhaps.

[jonno_2004]

its about time they started getting tough on the lazy generation (im refering to those on benefits)

Because all those on benefits are lazy, aren't they?

i think its harsh but needs to be done or we will end up like greece

If you believe that we are going to end up like Greece, how will getting 'tough' on this 'lazy generation', that you claim there is, prevent that from occurring (or is just another opportunity to reaffirm your prejudice about people receiving benefits)?

On the flip side Snowy I don't think he is saying everyone on benefits is lazy. Someone mentioned in a thread a couple of weeks back that when he/she goes to collect his benefit half the people in the queue were talking about how they're going to buy drugs with it. I think it would be foolish to deny that there aren't benefit cheats.

[chrisp65]

its about time they started getting tough on the lazy generation (im refering to those on benefits)

i think its harsh but needs to be done or we will end up like greece

I presume that was just a bit of trolling / flaming / unthinking generalisation that wasn't meant to be read seriously by anybody from my office that's been laid off recently?

[kidlewis]

if people earning £44k or more (excluding single mothers) can't make do without £80 a week then they need to man up big time.

me and my partner earn between us about £55k a year ...

Do either of you earn over the threshold for the 40% tax band?

no, wish one of us did though, would make things a lot easier.

[snowychap]

I think it would be foolish to deny that there aren't benefit cheats.

Indeed it would. Point me in the direction of someone who has made that claim and I'll back you up on your point.

What I have done is pick up on the kind of comment (often based upon, at most, anecdotal evidence and, quite frequently, someone else's anecdote) that, perniciously, paints all people in receipt of benefits as scroungers, parasites, a 'lazy generation', &c.

When the vast majority of the comments about a (disparate) group of people are negative ones then the association between that group and the pejorative traits in those comments become cemented in people's minds.

It doesn't matter how many times people may say something like 'Oh but I don't mean all', 'Obviously it's only some' or 'We will look after all of those who are actually ill or infirm' (whilst changing the very definition of ill or infirm to ensure that fewer people are ill/infirm/disabled/unable to work and stressing the word actually to imply that those people currently claiming to be something should be doubted), the repition of the negative stories only reinforces the prejudice.

That's without even looking at how it might ignore those people, for instance, referred to in Chris's post above.

[snowychap]

Do either of you earn over the threshold for the 40% tax band?

no, wish one of us did though, would make things a lot easier.

And you/your other half receive(s) child benefit?

[legov]

exactly lewis, it just seems people like to moan about anything.

its about time they started getting tough on the lazy generation (im refering to those on benefits)

i think its harsh but needs to be done or we will end up like greece

Lovely, American mentality. (not saying you're one)

This perception that people are usually inherently lazy needs to stop.

[Awol]

[

This perception that people are usually inherently lazy needs to stop.

I don't think many hold the perception that all people are inherently lazy, however they may (and rightly in my opinion) believe that some people choose a life on benefits when they are perfectly capable of working. If the Government are going to try and do something about that then more power to their elbow imo.

The concept of the welfare state as a safety net for those in genuine need is morally unchallengable. Sadly too many people take advantage of that community spirit precisely because they are lazy and are happy for others to fund their lifestyle choice.

[kidlewis]

Do either of you earn over the threshold for the 40% tax band?

no, wish one of us did though, would make things a lot easier.

And you/your other half receive(s) child benefit?

we do at the moment.

[drat01]

As predicted by some, ahem, Mr Clegg is shown again to be a liar about Sheffield Forgemasters

Clegg - screws up again

LABOUR has stepped up its attack on Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg over the axing of the £80m Sheffield Forgemasters' loan after official documents showed he backed the deal before the General Election.

Accounts of meetings with company bosses by civil servants as they thrashed out the deal claim Mr Clegg told Forgemasters it was "just the sort of thing we should be doing".

The documents, released to Penistone and Stocksbridge MP Angela Smith und

ADVERTISEMENT

er the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the deal – axed as part of a move to save billions of pounds soon after the coalition Government was created – also had Conservative support, undermining subsequent criticism from Ministers over the way the deal was structured.

Their release has reignited the row over the pulling of the loan only days before Business Secretary Vince Cable is grilled by MPs on Thursday over the decision, which has hampered the firm's chances of becoming a world leader in manufacturing components for new nuclear power stations. The comments were made in a memo by civil servant Janice Munday after a meeting with Forgemasters chief executive Graham Honeyman in April, shortly after the loan had been offered.

In the memo, Ms Munday wrote: "I stressed nothing certain until we had the chance to revert to Ministers post election. But SFIL (Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd] sanguine – pointing to positive statements from the Conservatives and rather (more] surprisingly Nick Clegg who had told them this was just the sort of thing we should be doing and saying he wants to bring his wife on a visit."

The following day, the person to whom Ms Munday emailed the report – whose details have been blocked out – replied: "The Nick Clegg comments are interesting."

Ministers have insisted the deal was only axed because it was unaffordable in the current economic climate, although at one point they claimed company bosses were unwilling to dilute their control of the company, a claim later disproved.

Ms Smith said: "I'm concerned that Sheffield really can't trust Nick Clegg on this issue any more. We've had statements that have turned out to be less than accurate and this really confirms the degree to which he's turned his face on the city in the interests of being part of the coalition Government."

But a spokesman for Mr Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam, said Mr Clegg would love to be able to support Sheffield Forgemasters and had always said it was an excellent company.

"It wasn't until after the election that we saw just how catastrophic a state Labour had left the public finances in. The Forgemasters decision was based on affordability."

Interesting that the scheme had Tory support also. But of course this has nothing to do with once one of their backers a local guy who wants the business got involved the scheme was ditched. This was a loan!!

[snowychap]

Do either of you earn over the threshold for the 40% tax band?

no, wish one of us did though, would make things a lot easier.

And you/your other half receive(s) child benefit?

we do at the moment.

You still will, won't you (unless I've read your circumstances incorrectly)?

Yet you exhort those who may be on a lower level of household income than you (and who will cease to receive it) to 'man up big time'? :?

[Risso]

Clegg sending his kids to the catholic London Oratory school (a school that takes no non-catholics) despite the Lib Dem manifesto saying that they'd do away with descriminatory selection in faith schools.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

His wife wears the trousers to be fair.

[Awol]

Clegg sending his kids to the catholic London Oratory school (a school that takes no non-catholics) despite the Lib Dem manifesto saying that they'd do away with descriminatory selection in faith schools.

On the last page mate :winkold:

[snowychap]

In the memo, Ms Munday wrote: "I stressed nothing certain until we had the chance to revert to Ministers post election."

That will (quite rightly) piss Yillan off.

[Demitri_C]

Because all those on benefits are lazy, aren't they?

snowyi thought you would understood i meant the lazy **** who make no attempt to look for work not everyone in general as obviouslythere are those who cannot work like those who are ill, injured or have personal problems

why should we work hard to pay these "clearing in the woods?"

what do you suggest we do snowy continue giving them money and get us more in debt?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The problem is, the tories are simplifying an issue that is far more complex. As a result they have an ill-thought policy which I suspect is only a tactic too dominate the headlines whilst the other policies are pushed through relatively unnoticed, then they'll go back and readdress the child benefit issue once the public has calmed down.

[Risso]

Clegg sending his kids to the catholic London Oratory school (a school that takes no non-catholics) despite the Lib Dem manifesto saying that they'd do away with descriminatory selection in faith schools.

On the last page mate :winkold:

Sorry Jon, missed that!

edit: where? :?

[snowychap]

Because all those on benefits are lazy, aren't they?

snowyi thought you would understood i meant the lazy **** who make no attempt to look for work not everyone in general as obviouslythere are those who cannot work like those who are ill, injured or have personal problems

why should we work hard to pay these "clearing in the woods?"

what do you suggest we do snowy continue giving them money and get us more in debt?

Well, I'm sorry, Dem, but it rather read that way and, to be rather brutal, I'm getting pretty fed up with the way in which people think that those on benefits are fair game for anything that the 'hard working families' would like to cast their way.

I acknowledge that there is a problem with those people who choose not to work and live (and intend to live) their lives solely upon benefits. What I don't agree with you (or others) on is the level of this problem.

Its magnitude is exaggerated by perception.

It would appear that you think this is crucial for dealing with the budget deficit. Of course it is not something which you want to occur (I'd suggest that it is always going to unless you remove all benefits full stop - the only way to eradicate trangression against the law is to remove laws) but to focus upon it like we are all being trained to do is a sort of conditioning (especially as there appears to be very little talk of benefit fraud that occurs when people claim and work). Complete eradication of either benefit fraud or those whom you might consider to be undeserving of financial assistance will not be likely to have any serious impact upon the state of the nation's finances and the continued instances of that fraud or the receipt of benefits by 'the lazy' will not 'make us like Greece'.

Implementation of much stricter rules which adversely affect those who are neither lazy nor conning the system in order to weed out those few who are, however, will probably give a few people a warm glow (and many something much colder).