PDA

View Full Version : so which one for the axe?



vetran
24th June 2015, 10:28
David Cameron and George Osborne must find an extra £12B as benefits cut begins | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136020/Which-benefits-cut-Cameron-Osborne-extra-12billion.html)


Which benefits would YOU cut? As Cameron and Osborne wield the axe to find an extra £12billion, here's where the welfare budget is really spent
Benefits for pensioners account for 60 per cent of the welfare budget, but will be spared from future spending cuts
George Osborne to use Budget on July 8 to set out details of £12billion in cuts from £200billion benefits bill
Tax credits face heaviest cuts after David Cameron said firms were using them to top up workers' low wages

what do the panel think?

eek
24th June 2015, 10:31
David Cameron and George Osborne must find an extra £12B as benefits cut begins | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136020/Which-benefits-cut-Cameron-Osborne-extra-12billion.html)



what do the panel think?

As I said last week

Working tax credits
Housing benefit for those who are working
Child Tax Credit where more than 2 children

BrilloPad
24th June 2015, 10:39
Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.

GlenW
24th June 2015, 10:40
I would like to see MPs salaries halved.
Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?

vetran
24th June 2015, 10:52
Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.

If you halve MP's salaries you would only get rich MPs.

health & safety is a valid expense,

QE maybe.

TB bodyguards - hell yes.

eek
24th June 2015, 10:56
If you halve MP's salaries you would only get rich MPs.

health & safety is a valid expense,

QE maybe.

TB bodyguards - hell yes.

Could we bypass the removal of bodyguards and just ensure they had an accident and shoot the "wrong" person...

vetran
24th June 2015, 11:27
Could we bypass the removal of bodyguards and just ensure they had an accident and shoot the "wrong" person...

maybe the royal family can send him to Paris?

d000hg
24th June 2015, 11:56
Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved.650 * £35k = £23m. That's 0.2% of £12bn already. Well done BP.

d000hg
24th June 2015, 11:56
Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?

There's a saying from the Bible "the worker is worth their pay". But you could apply that either way when it comes to MPs :)

The Spartan
24th June 2015, 12:05
Hopefully the final salary pensions that are unfunded

oscarose
24th June 2015, 12:08
There's a saying from the Bible "the worker is worth their pay". But you could apply that either way when it comes to MPs :)

Which bible says such a thing?

:o

GlenW
24th June 2015, 12:45
Which bible says such a thing?

:o
Does it matter?
They are all bollocks.

BrilloPad
24th June 2015, 12:48
Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?

Yes. We might get people who want to do the job to help others.

Maybe on each ballot paper the candidate should put how much salary they want to do the job?

BrilloPad
24th June 2015, 12:49
Does it matter?
They are all bollocks.

The talk less bollox than politicians. Or scientists. Or (gold plated)gang members.

d000hg
24th June 2015, 12:52
Yes. We might get people who want to do the job to help others.They do. At least, that's why they get into politics. They probably don't make MP for 5-10 years after that.

DaveB
24th June 2015, 12:56
Which bible says such a thing?

:o

Bog standard King James. But it;s worth reading it in context...


Luke 10:3 "Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.
4 "Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way.
5 "Whatever house you enter, first say, `Peace be to this house.
6 "If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.
7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.
8 "Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you;
9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you."



It's not a reference to wages in the sense that we use today, rather an instruction to those spreading the word to accept what is given to them by those they convert or who take them in. They should rely on the charity of others to sustain them on their journey.

It's also worth remembering that anything like this has been translated through at least 3 languages before it ended up in anything approaching modern english and meaning of specific words has almost certainly been lost or misinterpreted along the way.

VectraMan
24th June 2015, 13:10
Luke 10:3 "Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.
4 "Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way.
5 "Whatever house you enter, first say, `Peace be to this house.
6 "If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.
7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.
8 "Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you;
9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you."

Seems to be saying: Blessed are the scroungers.

Eirikur
24th June 2015, 13:14
stop providing religious studies on state universities
Start taxing churches
Pay lower salaries for teachers

NotAllThere
24th June 2015, 13:28
It's also worth remembering that anything like this has been translated through at least 3 languages before it ended up in anything approaching modern english.Wrong. Mainstream English translations of (Canonical) New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts exclusively (albeit the Gospels were from an oral tradition of probably Aramaic), the Canonical OT on Hebrew manuscripts, with reference to Septuagint. There are theories of other sources, but such theories should only be considered if you're wearing a tin-foil hat to keep out the martian radiation.

There are only a few words in the New Testament that do not exist in other non-scripture Greek texts. The OT ancient Hebrew has more uncertainity - for example, no-one really knows what "skin of their teeth" really meant - but the majority of the text is correct with a high degree of certainty - archaeological discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed this.

Please note the above ignores tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.


Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?
It could hardly make it worse.

Any cuts should be made where they're going to make a substantial difference. That's why cutting MPs salaries' is rather pointless.

vetran
24th June 2015, 13:45
Well Gove is making friends in the legal profession. Maybe some of the cuts will come there.

alphadog
24th June 2015, 13:47
I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

oscarose
24th June 2015, 13:50
I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

because they are good at voting

:o

vetran
24th June 2015, 13:52
I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

the wealthy pensioners vote and mainly for the tories.


It does seem that some benefits should be means tested if it doesn't cost too much though.

The Spartan
24th June 2015, 14:12
I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

Depends on how you want to approach it, thing is if you're putting into the system then you should be entitled to something back eventually or be able to opt out of putting in, in the first place.

So if you're a spender through life you get a pension but if you're cautious and plan your retirement you end up getting less, not really a great idea to me.

SimonMac
24th June 2015, 14:28
Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.

Salaries for MP's were brought in in 1911 (£400 a year IIRC) as they wanted more "commoners" in the house of commons, so those without a private income were usually unable to stand for parliment before salaries were introduced

VectraMan
24th June 2015, 14:29
Depends on how you want to approach it, thing is if you're putting into the system then you should be entitled to something back eventually or be able to opt out of putting in, in the first place.

It's tax. Should we all be able to opt out of tax because we never get something back? That's not really the point of tax. I know ostensibly NI is meant to pay for your pension, but nobody really believes that.

If you means tested pensions including property value, then you'd probably save a fair wedge. On top of that you'd encourage the old dears to sell up, move somewhere smaller/sunnier, thus solving the housing crisis. And solving the housing crisis would effect a big saving on housing benefit.

SimonMac
24th June 2015, 14:30
the wealthy pensioners vote and mainly for the tories.


It does seem that some benefits should be means tested if it doesn't cost too much though.

Thats one of the biggest problems, its a nightmare trying to means test everyone, and you can't simply tax the richest because everyone has ambition that one day they too could be rich if they work hard

The Spartan
24th June 2015, 14:34
It's tax. Should we all be able to opt out of tax because we never get something back? That's not really the point of tax. I know ostensibly NI is meant to pay for your pension, but nobody really believes that.

If you means tested pensions including property value, then you'd probably save a fair wedge. On top of that you'd encourage the old dears to sell up, move somewhere smaller/sunnier, thus solving the housing crisis. And solving the housing crisis would effect a big saving on housing benefit.

So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

It was in fact NI I was more or less on about, but still the point stands why should anyone get less because they've prepared for their future while others don't.

BrilloPad
24th June 2015, 14:50
So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

The Spartan
24th June 2015, 14:54
Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

It does need more housing stock but isn't that more to do more with certain areas?

Also having areas of highly concentrated economic activity doesn't make it any better, shouldn't it be more spread out throughout the country. There seem to be a lot of properties in Wales to buy when I looked today.

darmstadt
24th June 2015, 14:57
Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.


Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?

As the government are so keen on privitisation ,outsourcing, PFI and so on as 'apparently' they bring savings, then why not themselves? Surely they should be showing an example :tongue

vetran
24th June 2015, 14:59
Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

maybe the wrinklies built enough for themselves, the youngsters should do the same.

when I was a kid houses were cheap to buy because there were lots spare or not wanted much.

VectraMan
24th June 2015, 15:33
So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

It was in fact NI I was more or less on about, but still the point stands why should anyone get less because they've prepared for their future while others don't.

Well yes, but you can say the same about all sorts of things. Why should anyone pay more tax just because they worked harder at school and got a better job? How is that fair?

If benefits are to pay for people that can't support themselves, why are we giving them to someone who's sitting on a half a million pound house? That money will just end up in the pockets of their children when they die, even if their children are lazy scroungers who've never worked hard or done anything right in their lives. Is that fair?

The Spartan
25th June 2015, 06:47
Well yes, but you can say the same about all sorts of things. Why should anyone pay more tax just because they worked harder at school and got a better job? How is that fair?

If benefits are to pay for people that can't support themselves, why are we giving them to someone who's sitting on a half a million pound house? That money will just end up in the pockets of their children when they die, even if their children are lazy scroungers who've never worked hard or done anything right in their lives. Is that fair?

Because it belongs to them, maybe when they bought it all those years ago they had no idea it'd be worth that much in years to come. It may end up in the pockets of their children but not before inheritance tax is no doubt paid on it, other than that have you ever considered that they may have a sentimental attachment to their home?

I'm not saying anyone should pay more tax for working harder, it's just the way the current system works not that I agree with it.