Starved to Death...

Starved to Death...

35 posts
28 Feb 2014
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
stolenfaces

Where do you draw the line then, how much state subsidy should a failing business get, presumably you support the DWP's attempts to supply staff to people like Poundland as free labour. Surprisingly (if you're a bit simple, it's surprising) wages are driven down further and the owners of the companies pay themselves more, and their tax advisers more. If a company pays a decent wage, how can they compete with one receiving a taypayer subsidy unless they too reduce wages. If you're saying that capitalism doesn't work then let's not pretend it does. If you want all companies to be eligible for hidden subsidies, why not admit that the system has failed and embrace state ownership. Of course the ex-employees you talk of are already totally dependent on the state, if they rely on the state to pay their rent. ps Even Osbourne has been calling for the minimum wage to be increased for this reason.


Honestly?
I don't know where to draw the line, it is almost impossible to say, everyone will disagree, even if it is possible for anyone to say where, then justify the decision. 
There is no easy answer.   The obvious and most easy is to give everyone on tax credits and/or receiving housing benefit a pay rise, one sufficient for them to afford to live.

Two problems arise, how much is "afford to live"?  Do we include mobile phone accounts, Sky TV, smoking, drinking, luxury items, cars,  luxury clothing and the real bad one, the real double effect of the pay rises, all other staff will want a rise to maintain the status difference between the unqualified labour and the skilled and  the massive effect this would have on inflation.  No matter what party is in government, the knock on effects would cause utter mayhem. 

Left wing, help everyone, right wing, help no one;   neither solves the problem and what is worse, as I have mentioned a few times over the last year or so, if we think the 2008 to 2011 crash was bad and damaged us all, wait for the big one, the inevitable massive crash that will level everyone and everything, the one that means all this consumerism will have to stop and we will have to live sustainable lives, such as people did until around 1950.   We have all become far too greedy and expect too much.  The economy cannot support this level of consumerism and provide the public services everyone seems to want and demand. 

It's catch 22, short of a miracle, things will go on as they are, people struggling, while others appear to be doing so well.  One day, things will change and it will be utter chaos; crime will be rife and the only answer then will be armed forces on the streets.   Scary thought, but it has to happen one day. 
Posted 3 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
mattharper
Honestly? I don't know where to draw the line, it is almost impossible to say, everyone will disagree, even if it is possible for anyone to say where, then justify the decision.  There is no easy answer.   The obvious and most easy is to give everyone on tax credits and/or receiving housing benefit a pay rise, one sufficient for them to afford to live. Two problems arise, how much is "afford to live"?  Do we include mobile phone accounts, Sky TV, smoking, drinking, luxury items, cars,  luxury clothing and the real bad one, the real double effect of the pay rises, all other staff will want a rise to maintain the status difference between the unqualified labour and the skilled and  the massive effect this would have on inflation.  No matter what party is in government, the knock on effects would cause utter mayhem.  Left wing, help everyone, right wing, help no one;   neither solves the problem and what is worse, as I have mentioned a few times over the last year or so, if we think the 2008 to 2011 crash was bad and damaged us all, wait for the big one, the inevitable massive crash that will level everyone and everything, the one that means all this consumerism will have to stop and we will have to live sustainable lives, such as people did until around 1950.   We have all become far too greedy and expect too much.  The economy cannot support this level of consumerism and provide the public services everyone seems to want and demand.  It's catch 22, short of a miracle, things will go on as they are, people struggling, while others appear to be doing so well.  One day, things will change and it will be utter chaos; crime will be rife and the only answer then will be armed forces on the streets.   Scary thought, but it has to happen one day. 
No it isn't difficult. There are two solutions one is to run a capitalist society properly for business with a reasonable welfare state (where your NI contributions are actually invested like an insurance premium for your hard times and pension) or secondly a proper socialist state where the state (ie you and me) own Royal Mail, The Railways, British Gas, National Grid etc. so if they 'overcharge' us we get the profits rather than someone in the Virgin Isles or France or USA), build/buy council houses and impose rent controls...etc If you put the minimum wage up to £10 an hour, would companies go out of business? or would the people who had the extra money in their wage packets go and spend it and create a huge boom where everyone was better off ? Apparently much of the current recovery is down to PPI payouts...
Posted 3 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 3 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
"The welfare dependents the government loves? Rich landowners" (Headline Quoted) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/rich-landowners-farmers-welfare-nfu-defra
Posted 4 March 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
tonycsm
Tragic is one word for it!  However, there are lots of genuinely'disabled people who I've known or know who do work for a living but in certain quarters, once someone is in receipt of disabilty benefit it seems any form of re-assessment as to whether one is fit or not to do some form of work at some point is met with hostility, particularly from the left.. Not all disabilities are permanent and not all disabilities prevent people from doing some form of work so there has to be some form of re-evaluation balance. Over the years I've also known quite a number of claimants who were 'supposedly' physically disabled, receiving all the benefits, cars etc, yet they were equally as active as myself...they're the ones spoiling it for the genuine claimants. To be blunt ...there was **** all wrong with them that removing their benefits wouldn't have put right and before anyone chimes in asking if I'm a doctor, I knew these people personally and all were supposed suffering from 'bad backs' yet they could in most cases, do some physically activities that I couldn't - their biggest problem was their aversion to working for a living and knew every trick in the book on how to avoid doing so. One even had a 4 x 4 as a mobility vehicle....so that he could get his scuba diving equipment in and out more easily! My partner's sister is registered as nearly blind yet she moved to London, went to university, studied hard and became a  lawyer and is now working full time....she could have sat at home, claimed benefits being registered as disabled, but instead chose to work. There's nothing wrong with reviewing a claimant's continued entitlement to receive disability benefit providing it's done fairly and proportionately - clearly in this case it wasn't done correctly and the poor chap who was clearly suffering from serious mental health issues was failed miserably. It's much easier to identify someone with a genuine physial disability, but often far harder to identfy those with with genuine mental health issues...these are the vulnerable people who need protecting in our society with a better level of advocacy to speak out for and protect them in these situations. This and any government has a duty to reduce fraudulent claims from the taxpayers money... it's who they employ to carry out the evaluations here that is the problem and why this case was so tragic.
Nicely argued.. I've always thought that we should stop all imigration except for those who need protection. As has been said here immigrants are doing jobs the 'British' population won't do. Thing is, when those jobs are not being done, those who choose not to work would have no excuse and employers would have to put wages up to attract staff... Guess to some of you this will be seen as Racist. I just feel it's common sense in a Country that has no money and does not have enough space, Schools or Hospitals. Oh and I'm perfectly aware that taxing big business would probably rake in more money and that not all those on Benefits are avoiding work.
Posted 4 March 2014
Edited by thelook 4 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
thelook
Nicely argued.. I've always thought that we should stop all imigration except for those who need protection. As has been said here immigrants are doing jobs the 'British' population won't do. Thing is, when those jobs are not being done, those who choose not to work would have no excuse and employers would have to put wages up to attract staff... Guess to some of you this will be seen as Racist. I just feel it's common sense in a Country that has no money and does not have enough space, Schools or Hospitals. Oh and I'm perfectly aware that taxing big business would probably rake in more money and that not all those on Benefits are avoiding work.
I just find your 'arguments' uninformed and simple-minded - doubtless you will be voting for UKIP. The vast majority of 'Immigrants' pay their taxes and are net contributors to the exchequer (as they are young and fit). People who think that workers should be paid a pittance so that ordinary people can afford to eat in a restaurant (for example) are living beyond their means and their life-styles are being subsidised my the misery of those on minimum wage or below. Immigrants, people on benefits, the EU, Trade Unions, energy companies, Ralph Milliband etc, etc... are all vilified by the Daily Mail, so that people don't actually need to question the competence of this government, the greed of the rich and the abject failure of this society to offer normal people a decent life.
Posted 4 March 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
stolenfaces
I just find your 'arguments' uninformed and simple-minded - doubtless you will be voting for UKIP. The vast majority of 'Immigrants' pay their taxes and are net contributors to the exchequer (as they are young and fit). People who think that workers should be paid a pittance so that ordinary people can afford to eat in a restaurant (for example) are living beyond their means and their life-styles are being subsidised my the misery of those on minimum wage or below. Immigrants, people on benefits, the EU, Trade Unions, energy companies, Ralph Milliband etc, etc... are all vilified by the Daily Mail, so that people don't actually need to question the competence of this government, the greed of the rich and the abject failure of this society to offer normal people a decent life.
Here's the thing. You suggest I'm uninformed and simple minded and make wrong assumptions about my political beliefs. However, it's not me that has resorted to insults or failed to read a post correctly before spouting insults. I fail to see where I have vilified anyone, I've not mentioned immigrants as avoiding tax or said that I think workers should be payed a pittance. I won't go over what I posted, I'm sure you can read it again. I stand by it, I believe it's about numbers not prejudice. Of course our outlook both Left, Right and Middle is always swayed by our location those who live in leafy suburbs may well feel differently to those who live in Slough this doesn't make either of them uninformed or simple minded and to me, just so you know, the far left are as bad as the far right.
Posted 4 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
thelook
Here's the thing. You suggest I'm uninformed and simple minded and make wrong assumptions about my political beliefs. However, it's not me that has resorted to insults or failed to read a post correctly before spouting insults. I fail to see where I have vilified anyone, I've not mentioned immigrants as avoiding tax or said that I think workers should be payed a pittance. I won't go over what I posted, I'm sure you can read it again. I stand by it, I believe it's about numbers not prejudice. Of course our outlook both Left, Right and Middle is always swayed by our location those who live in leafy suburbs may well feel differently to those who live in Slough this doesn't make either of them uninformed or simple minded and to me, just so you know, the far left are as bad as the far right.
This reads like a UKIP brochure to me. A complete lack of facts and logic. A belief that is not supported by facts is either prejudice or religion. You proudly announce that some people might think you racist, then when I describe (in a factual manner) YOUR POST as simple-minded, you get upset and describe it as insult. I don't know whether you are simple-minded, live in the leafy suburbs, think yourself right or left-wing, my only evidence is the sum of your posts here, which read as if they are quotes from UKIP/ The Daily Mail.
Posted 4 March 2014
CCP
Photographer
CCP
Many people have died because of ATOS. One woman I remember had cancer, she was deemed fit for work, she put in a apeal, but by the time it had come through she was dead. I watched the documentary filmed under cover, by someone who filmed the training that new employees go through working for ATOS and the trainer said that they're only allowed so many per day to be given enough points to be allowed to deemed not fit for work, and the others regardless of how fit or unfit they are, will be marked as fit for work. If they pass too many, they are told to take some off even if they're not fit to work. One young lad who was born paralised and was confined to his bed with all sorts of tubes hanging out of him, had a letter through to post, saying if he didn't turn up for an assessment he would have his benefits stopped. People working for ATOS are told, if someone can push a button, then they're fit for work.

Posted 4 March 2014
thelook
Photographer
thelook
stolenfaces
This reads like a UKIP brochure to me. A complete lack of facts and logic. A belief that is not supported by facts is either prejudice or religion. You proudly announce that some people might think you racist, then when I describe (in a factual manner) YOUR POST as simple-minded, you get upset and describe it as insult. I don't know whether you are simple-minded, live in the leafy suburbs, think yourself right or left-wing, my only evidence is the sum of your posts here, which read as if they are quotes from UKIP/ The Daily Mail.
Having never read as UKIP brochure or, to the best of my knowledge The Daily mail, I bow to your superior knowledge... 'Proudly'??? You can tell that from a text written on a keyboard??? More assumptions I'm afraid. You never mentioned my post you said my arguments were. If you're going to be insulting at least have the courage to stand by it rather than hide behind the it's your post nonsense. I quote 'I just find your 'arguments' uninformed and simple-minded'. The only bit you've got right is 'I don't know'. I will leave it there!
Posted 4 March 2014
pompeytog
Photographer
pompeytog
thelook

Having never read as UKIP brochure or, to the best of my knowledge The Daily mail, I bow to your superior knowledge... 'Proudly'??? You can tell that from a text written on a keyboard??? More assumptions I'm afraid. You never mentioned my post you said my arguments were. If you're going to be insulting at least have the courage to stand by it rather than hide behind the it's your post nonsense. I quote 'I just find your 'arguments' uninformed and simple-minded'. The only bit you've got right is 'I don't know'. I will leave it there!





Don't worry dude, stolen faces always resorts to accusing people of being Daily Mail mouth frothers when someone puts up a reasonable debate against what he says.
Probably best to ignore him  

Posted 4 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
pompeytog

Don't worry dude, stolen faces always resorts to accusing people of being Daily Mail mouth frothers when someone puts up a reasonable debate against what he says.
Probably best to ignore him  



It’s just that we want to be modern, open minded, cosmopolitan & welcoming people, embracing the opportunities and the responsibilities that go with the 'Free Market

...That means immigration and emigration - Get over it! frown
Posted 4 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
thelook

Nicely argued.. I've always thought that we should stop all imigration except for those who need protection.......... Oh and I'm perfectly aware that taxing big business would probably rake in more money and that not all those on Benefits are avoiding work.


Well if you are are xenophobe or a misanthrope?, the EU is just the place for you! This is becuase it gives even people like you open borders! Now you have the opportunity  to leave 'Lil Ingerlun' behind and to piss off to Transylvania! - There is vitually no one there and mahoosive space to rant and froth in sad

Posted 4 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
CCP

Many people have died because of ATOS. One woman I remember had cancer, she was deemed fit for work, she put in a apeal, but by the time it had come through she was dead. I watched the documentary filmed under cover, by someone who filmed the training that new employees go through working for ATOS and the trainer said that they're only allowed so many per day to be given enough points to be allowed to deemed not fit for work, and the others regardless of how fit or unfit they are, will be marked as fit for work. If they pass too many, they are told to take some off even if they're not fit to work. One young lad who was born paralised and was confined to his bed with all sorts of tubes hanging out of him, had a letter through to post, saying if he didn't turn up for an assessment he would have his benefits stopped. People working for ATOS are told, if someone can push a button, then they're fit for work.


.. Yes and that is what this thread is all about! - The Costs of Cameron's cuts!

Another example:- From the Independent...


...Thousands of young people have been forced to go without food or other essentials after their benefits were wrongly stopped under a “draconian” new sanctions regime, research suggests.


A sanction can mean having welfare payments cut off entirely for a minimum of a month and as much as three years for “repeat offenders”. The hardline system, which means people can end up cast adrift for accidentally missing an appointment, is thought to be one of the reasons behind the vast numbers turning to food banks.

Experts say young people are being unfairly singled out by the strict new system of penalties. Despite making up only 27 per cent of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants, 18- to 24-year-olds have accounted for 42 per cent of all sanctions handed out.

In total, 343,744 young people have had their benefits stopped because a job centre decided they have not abided by strict rules. About one in five cases results from someone failing to attend an interview with an employment adviser, though there have been examples of people being sanctioned for this despite never receiving an interview time.

YMCA England is publishing a report this week into the damaging impact of sanctions on the young people it works with. Denise Hatton, its chief executive, said: “The level of incorrect decisions being made by Jobcentre Plus is frankly scandalous. Benefits are supposed to be a lifeline and safety net for those most in need. When these benefits are taken away, it can be disastrous. When this is done without due cause, it is reprehensible.

“It is no surprise that the young people we support feel that the job centre is simply a place they have to go to be processed and punished.”

Of 79,924 young people who asked for their case to be reconsidered since the system changed on 22 October 2012, 38,969 had the decision overturned. A further 6,455 are recorded as successfully appealing a sanction, though the DWP says it is re-examining its own appeal statistics.

Sally Copley, head of UK campaigns at Oxfam, said that getting sanctions overturned is a “really painful” process that can drag on for months. Oxfam is pushing for more intensive one-to-one support for unemployed people as a more effective way of tackling poverty.

Shadow Employment minister, Stephen Timms, said: “David Cameron’s out-of-touch government is letting young people down, and the number of young people on Jobseeker’s Allowance for over a year has doubled since the election. The shambles at the Department for Work and Pensions, with a staggering 58 per cent of appeals against sanction decisions upheld, is distracting job centres from their real job of getting people back to work.”

The DWP has been dogged by claims that job-centre staff are given weekly or monthly targets for the number of benefits sanction decisions to take. The department strenuously denies this, describing the numbers as management information, not a target.

Nearly all YMCAs (94 per cent) responding to research out last week reported an increase in the number of young people they work with being sanctioned, with just under two-thirds indicating that the increase was significant.

More than four-fifths of the vulnerable young people who were sanctioned reported being forced to go without essential items. The most common areas where they were forced to cut back or go without were: food, 84 per cent; housing costs, 81 per cent; and toiletries, 75 per cent.

Citizens Advice has been inundated with requests to its bureaux for help with those facing sanctions since the changes came in 16 months ago. Citizens Advice chief executive, Gillian Guy, said: “Sanctions are meant to be a last resort but the experience of many of our clients is that job centres sanction first and ask questions later. In many cases the Government’s sanctions regime pushes people working hard to get a job further away from employment.

“A four-week minimum sanction can make it an uphill battle to put food on the table, let alone take on the training and skills development needed to maximise the chances of getting work.”

Now - What Was That Again About Big Business Tax Avoidance?


Posted 4 March 2014
Edited by jivago 4 March 2014
CCP
Photographer
CCP
Oh don't get me started on sanctions! Not long ago I was watching youtube videos about people on JSA being sanctioned. One video was an interview with a whistle blower who was working in the Jobcentre, and he was told he had to sanction so many a week, regardless. If he didn't meet the amount he could lose his job. He had to find excuses to sanction people, and felt guilty because he had to stitch people up. He said that he couldn't look them in the face when they came back to sign on.

Posted 5 March 2014
HMansfield
Photographer
HMansfield
jivago
The DWP has been dogged by claims that job-centre staff are given weekly or monthly targets for the number of benefits sanction decisions to take. The department strenuously denies this, describing the numbers as management information, not a target.
Are they still denying it, even after the notorious "Easter Eggs" memo was confirmed in Parliament as genuine? Next month, Universal Credit comes in, and use of Universal Jobmatch becomes mandatory for those on JSA. It's a hideous, bug-ridden, security lacking system where you can apply for a job and it won't show up in your application history as they don't count any that redirect you to the employer's website. Throw in the amount of spam on there, and it's entirely possible for someone to apply for 100 jobs a week and either have none of them counted, or none of them be genuine. Unjustified sanctions are going to rise either due to Universal Jobmatch being a massive pile of arse that doesn't work properly, or because it's so well suited to abuse.
Posted 5 March 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join