The state benefits system mega-thread.

Good!

as I've said in the other thread this is a form of corporate welfare and quite simply shouldn't go on at all or not as much.
This actually means some companies would have to pay higher wages since the state doesn't artificially subsidise the Labour market. Meaning this measure is actually hitting 'the rich!!'....

....but,you disagree with it?

but they wont pay higher wages will they? that is not how it works

Where did I say I disagree with this one? I have not said that just posted the story. Perhaps you should wait for me to actually say before you speak for me in future! :even more confused face:

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Where did I say I disagree with this one? I have not said that just posted the story. Perhaps you should wait for me to actually say before you speak for me in future! :even more confused face:

Oooohhh,getting worked up already are we? Touchy ?

Anyway,you wrote this

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

This one might have wider implications for more of the membership here lets see if any change their view now

which implies that you are still riding your Anti-Tory-let's-bash-the-rich-wave.At least it does to me... maybe you can offer an alternative viewpoint.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I have no idea if this should go on in the big thread as its a different benefit so I created a new one and its upto the team then

The other thread is the welfare state Mega-thread,there may be a hint in there...

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

but they wont pay higher wages will they? that is not how it works

You know this how exactly? If the UK government wasn't influencing the wage structure through this benefit,it probably would.Seeing that people will vote with their feet and take higher paid positions,then those employers who offer too low a wage will have to adjust to the market.
Another factor is that the Industry of course knows this and some companies probably factor-in the possibilities of benefit payments to their employees. In any case it distorts the wage structure and is no good as such.

Originally Posted by Will21st

1.Oooohhh,getting worked up already are we? Touchy ?

Anyway,you wrote this


2 which implies that you are still riding your Anti-Tory-let's-bash-the-rich-wave.At least it does to me... maybe you can offer an alternative viewpoint.


3 The other thread is the welfare state Mega-thread,there may be a hint in there...


4 You know this how exactly? If the UK government wasn't influencing the wage structure through this benefit,it probably would.Seeing that people will vote with their feet and take higher paid positions,then those employers who offer too low a wage will have to adjust to the market.
Another factor is that the Industry of course knows this and some companies probably factor-in the possibilities of benefit payments to their employees. In any case it distorts the wage structure and is no good as such.

1 No I am not as I explained before its all just a game. Just being pedantic mate jumping on any possible flaw in logic as people do to me

2 You are seeing the implication as I said please do not talk for me I am anti this system I have just as much ill will for Labour more anti capitalist but not a Marxist . If you actually look at my sig I am a member of UKIP but only because I want out of the EU

3 Yes but Tax Credits are Welfare however issued by HM revenue and customs so I thought I would leave it for the team to decide which you aint part of so hmm

4 It is my experience that in the capitalistic society where everything is greed orientated that employers would try to not increase wages and of course some simply will not be able to


I personally favour the idea of a Mixed Market Economy over the Free Market Economy the difference in theory would mean there would be less likelihood of economic downturns and capitalism's cycle of boom and bust

As it stands big business and corporations control the government in a MME the government would have some level of control over the businesses

[mertle]

Going to be honest if they scrap it without tackling standard living No its bloomin suicide.

How many economist told them take the demand out country it tanks. When they finished this country will be lucky to be third world.

They also plans to scrap or looking reduce national minimum wage. Another stupid move while the standard living is this high.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9965...-suggests.html

I sure we got bunch thick rich boys who economic skills like 4 year old. They just sucking demand out the economy then wondering why its tanking

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

No I am not as I explained before its all just a game. Just being pedantic mate jumping on any possible flaw in logic as people do to me

[Mod Edit - personal comments removed],that's all. No hard feelings,eh.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

You are seeing the implication as I said please do not talk for me

What,your pathetic red rep for something that was obviously implied?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

I am anti this system I have just as much ill will for Labour . If you actually look at my sig I am a member of UKIP but only because I want out of the EU

Yeah,saw your signature.You're not telling me what I know or don't know,are you? May get a red rep for that.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Yes but Tax Credits are Welfare however issued by HM revenue and customs so I thought I would leave it for the team to decide which you aint part of so

Yes,of course...

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

It is my experience that in the capitalistic society where everything is greed orientated that employers would try to not increase wages and of course some simply will not be able to

No,and thanks to that welfare from HMRC they won't feel the need to.A point I've now made three times.....

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

RizzyKing, l am in total agreement with what you are saying.

I also want to say soomething about foriegn workers taking the jobs in the UK.
If l was unemployed and looking for work l look at several points, the rent on my council house, my wife and the bills, l therefore look at what is there, l could not go for a job under £18.000 per year- reasons simple, if you get a job you have to work SIX weeks before claiming any benefit to put your money up, if you claim one benefit, you lose something else.

What l beleive is wrong is true what Rizzy King is saying if you go for Anti Tory, you get knocked down on this forum, it seems that everyone is saying that the coalition is correct in whats its doing.

Its always been known that the Tories will look after the rich, it proved yesterday that they will reduce the 50p tax down to 45p - WHY, if the rich have to pay more in taxes then so be it. They earn more money in interest sitting in the bank.

EVERYTHING has been done by the government is hitting the poor and the vulnerable - nothing to hit the rixch - in my book that is bad.

Foriegn workers, companies will always take on workers at the cheapest rate possible, and sometimes below the minimum wage, and dont please tell me that this does not go on - becuase it does.

The problem with your comment regarding the 50 percent tax rate is that if it wasn't reduced more rich people would move abroad and pay tax there, how would we manage to support the neady then?

[Russ]

Any more petty bickering will see infractions issued. I don't care who started, I will finish it.

Personal comments removed - any more of those, and infractions will be issued.

[peanut]

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

[Osem]

Originally Posted by peanut

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

Amen to that. A man who demanded he be left alone to live to do as he wished but wanted everyone else to pay for it. Selfish, low life personified.

Originally Posted by peanut

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

another policy I can live with far to many baby machines out there

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by peanut

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

Originally Posted by Osem

Amen to that. A man who demanded he be left alone to live to do as he wished but wanted everyone else to pay for it. Selfish, low life personified.

I feel it's sickening that our welfare state actually allows people like that to fester.
I think the problem is that it allows people like Philpotts to be completely unchecked by society since he lives in his own bubble and outside contact through work or other activities isn't really happening. The fact the guy has a dozen or so screws loose not-with-standing,obviously!

and yes,child benefit needs to be capped.... I'd actually prefer a system where those who work get tax relief for each child instead of cash,say a 2% reduction in income tax and NI,or something like that.Reward working families and leave more money in their pockets.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Will21st

I feel it's sickening that our welfare state actually allows people like that to fester.
I think the problem is that it allows people like Philpotts to be completely unchecked by society since he lives in his own bubble and outside contact through work or other activities isn't really happening. The fact the guy has a dozen or so screws loose not-with-standing,obviously!

and yes,child benefit needs to be capped.... I'd actually prefer a system where those who work get tax relief for each child instead of cash,say a 2% reduction in income tax and NI,or something like that.Reward working families and leave more money in their pockets.

He wasn't 'unchecked' as he's been on Jeremy Kyle and interveiwed by Ann Widdicome and seems to be well known in his area. But he gets away with because of the kids.

Though I do agree with the rest, but from what I also see that is childless couples (through choice or not) will be penalised by that.

[Osem]

Is it really any surprise that children, being the gateway to many benefits and other forms of support, are seen by some as no more than a means to an end whether that be cash in their hands or larger homes? That doesn't bode well for the future of these poor children.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by peanut

He wasn't 'unchecked' as he's been on Jeremy Kyle and interveiwed by Ann Widdicome and seems to be well known in his area. But he gets away with because of the kids.

Though I do agree with the rest, but from what I also see that is childless couples (through choice or not) will be penalised by that.

Ok,unchecked isn't the right term,maybe rather living outside of social norms,aided by the benefit system.

Originally Posted by Osem

Is it really any surprise that children, being the gateway to many benefits and other forms of support, are seen by some as no more than a means to an end whether that be cash in their hands or larger homes? That doesn't bode well for the future of these poor children.

No,it really isn't... this story should be even more incentive to make sure we as a society don't support such lifestyle choices.