Secret Thatcher plans to scrap the welfare state now released.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Ahh, but how do you know Hugh ? That's the question

I had a few drinks with Dennis at a hotel bar at a conference - trust me, he was 'old school', so quod erat demonstrandum...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I had a few drinks with Dennis at a hotel bar at a conference - trust me, he was 'old school', so quod erat demonstrandum...

I had the pleasure of serving a few times and know exactly what his "Special" tonic is.

He was a good bloke.

[Hom3r]

To be honest, I don't see why anyone should receive more in benefits than people who work a 39 hour week.

IMHO benefits should be capped at £15 to 18,000.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

To be honest, I don't see why anyone should receive more in benefits than people who work a 39 hour week.

IMHO benefits should be capped at £15 to 18,000.

many hard working folk around here would find it hard to find a job that paid £18k after deductions

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by martyh

And yet in modern Britain we have very costly higher education that used to be free ,severe cut backs in defence ,serious doubts on the continuation of the state pension with a mandatory private pension paid through your employer and an NHS run by private trusts .All of the above was mentioned in the report and dismissed as crazy talk ,and yet ........

Good point, many of her outrageous views have happened by stealth, especially by Cameron.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

many hard working folk around here would find it hard to find a job that paid £18k after deductions

Two of my brothers struggle to get that after deductions.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

To be honest, I don't see why anyone should receive more in benefits than people who work a 39 hour week.

IMHO benefits should be capped at £15 to 18,000.

The benefit cap was mainly brought in because the cost of Housing Benefit has continued to rocket. This is the benefit that is cut if a person exceeds the benefit cap, but Housing Benefit has become out of control due to landlords now being allowed to charge whatever they like.

When you see these benefit bashing programmes on TV that say x person gets x amount per week, people think it's wrong when they compare it to what they are working for.

Don't forget though that most if that will go straight into their landlords pocket (the real benefit scroungers), in addition, because of the cuts, many tenants will have to subsidise their rent out of money that's been frozen for years that's intended for day to day living expenses.

Most Housing Benefit claimants are now working full time, yet are having to claim Housing Benefit due to exorbitant rents.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

many hard working folk around here would find it hard to find a job that paid £18k after deductions

True, but if they are low paid, have a large family or have expensive rent they would be entitled to claim in work benefits to supplement their wage.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Can you show where she said that Richard or do you just believe everything a rag like the Express states.

These previously secret papers were released by the National Archives, you could take a look at their website if you wish to satisfy yourself that what various newspapers have reported is correct.

[pip08456]

Even the Express doesn't agree with you, I'm not going to do your research for you.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by denphone

Two of my brothers struggle to get that after deductions.

The thing is that means tested benefits depend on a persons needs and wages don't.

So a single healthy person living with their parents earning say £15,000 a year, will be better off than someone in a rented house with a partner and children with a disability receiving £20,000 in benefits.

It's not that benefits are too high, it's wages that are either too low or aren't enough to meet the needs of the employee.

However, increasing wages can lead to a business folding due to it becoming unviable. Why should an employer have to take into account how many children a person has, how much their rent is etc?

If they were forced to, they would only take on people with low needs.

Various Governments have tried to resolve this issue since the Tories introduced Family Income Supplement (FIS) in the 1970's to overcome this problem.

Thatcher reformed Social Security in the eighties and replaced FIS with Family Credit.

In turn Blair replaced this with Tax Credits.

Cameron started to replace Tax Credits with Universal Credit and then embarked on cutting these in work payments and forcing employers to pay more in wages.

This is fine for large profitable companies, after all, why should the taxpayer subsidise their wage bill because they choose to pay so little.

However, this will force some small businesses to close.

I think the best solution would be to negate the need for most people to claim in work benefits by forcing employers to pay more and employees to be more responsible eg by limiting how many children that they can have (they will normally be limited to receiving help for two only from next year).

This problem has been exacerbated by EU migrants coming here and claiming benefits.

To get round the problem of small businesses having to pay higher wages that they cannot afford, perhaps some scheme where the employer receives a subsidy to pay the extra wages could be considered??

Maybe a rebate scheme for Business Rates can be reduced??

There isn't an easy one size fits all solution when everything is taken into account.

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Even the Express doesn't agree with you, I'm not going to do your research for you.

It isn't for me, it's you that's disputing the matter.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It isn't for me, it's you that's disputing the matter.

Wrong, I'm disputing the fact the the article you quoted backs up your assertion. It doesn't.

All that remains now is your opinion, if I agree with or dispute your opinion is irrellevant.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Good point, many of her outrageous views have happened by stealth, especially by Cameron.

I wouldn't say stealth i would say natural progress .As Hugh said we do not need a large standing army anymore ,as a service based economy we need more degree trained young workers ,funding for the NHS and pensions has changed through necessity .My point was that those with an ax to grind would say that the changes mooted in the report where horific and proved the evil of Thatcher.Those of us without an ax to grind would simply say she was foresighted enough to see those changes would happen anyway through necessity and to some extent she was right .

[RichardCoulter]

It's the sly underneath behaviour and lies that I dislike the most.

[Mr K]

I don't think anyone is really be surprised at 'Thatcher's Secret Plan'. What politicians would like to do, and what they are able to do are different things. Hopefully this is true of Trump.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I don't think anyone is really be surprised at 'Thatcher's Secret Plan'. What politicians would like to do, and what they are able to do are different things. Hopefully this is true of Trump.

Politicians do very well at what they want to do - screw the uneducated working man!

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Richard, you beat me to it.
http://news.sky.com/story/margaret-t...utcry-10671543

I think that 'evil'woman, would HAVE done it if she could. Sadly, it is going on today. We have private companies trying to take over the NHS.

And the Tories, no matter what they say, are ripping the Health Service to bits.

You only have to look at recents news items.

Patients waiting in corridors with Ambulances crews. Patients having to travel mlies to get beds.

And the Tories say. 'The NHS is safe in our hands' and what is that berk Corbyn doing NOTHING