Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:50 am  

Mintball wrote:

Stop trying to deflect the question from yourself.

You're the one who has made an accusation. Now either back it up or take it back.

He won't back it up Minty because he can't. In his own words when we met in July "don't take any notice what I write on the message board, I just like to wind people up".

I guess he thought yesterday was my turn to be wound up, but it didn't work, again in his words peoples problem is thinking that a few random peoples opinion on line matters", so I took his own advice, his opinion of me is of no matter to me either.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:26 am  

So, Standee reckons that 30%+ are on the fiddle.
Does that justify penalising the other 70%?

We hear the same argument about the unemployed, who can all get a job "if they really want to", despite the number of vacancies being about a fifth of the number of people out of work.

What we don't get is honesty.
If these critics were honest they'd admit that they simply don't feel any conscience towards helping their fellow man.

If Thatcher's Britain was the "me" society, what we are seeing now is the "Why should I" society.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:29 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Seems like you got the abuse anyway!

Seriously though I understand this Cod'ed is a bloke in his 60's or 70's. You would have thought he would have grown out of trying to abuse people over the internet by now.

Hello Marie.
Yah Boo to you too.

[DaveO]

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:45 am  

The Video Ref wrote: Does it really need to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. I said "The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence." How is that anything other than a safety net? Why would anyone choose to live like that? Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... Your comments fails to address the point I made. The cost of living is what it is and if benefit levels and the wages of some people don't meet it then either the cost of living is too high or benefits and wages are too low. You seem to be suggesting that if market forces set wages at a certain level ( and with benefits set in relation to wages) and that means they aren't enough to meet the cost of living that is tough luck and people should go hungry. What other conclusion should I draw from your comments above? I'd also say if market forces are driving wages down as has happened (for all those bar the top few %) and living costs up the market isn't working and it needs regulating. This is the basis of Ed M's argument about an energy price cap and sorting out the energy market while the cap is in place. Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Not it's not. The argument the Daily Mail is making is that people have £500 a week cash in their hand or at least they want to give that impression. They ignore the fact they never see it and ignore the reasons why the amount of housing benefit is so high. The scandal is how much it costs the state to fund housing benefit not that these people get it. Your student loan is a poor analogy anyway. Under the post 2012 regime you would cease paying it if unemployed. Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. I seriously doubt it. The shortage of housing (your favoured supply and demand argument) will keep rents high. In any case rents are too high (as are house prices), period, and this is a problem for our economy as a whole and one engineered solely but this government. If they think rents are going to fall because of a benefits cap they are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. I'd expect instead to see an increase in homelessness and councils having to put people up in B&B's with rents staying high. Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move I will guarantee you all those who do have never found themselves in the situation that would force the same on them. This is why I consider them (and those who hold similar views) stupid and ignorant. It would do a lot of people good to experience a period of unemployment and to have to deal with the ludicrous workfare impositions now placed upon them. They would soon change their tune and would question why after having paid into the welfare state (for many years in some cases) it's basically vanished when they need to call on it. I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants. Prices are artificially high because of the governments help to buy scheme as well. Our puny economic recovery is being based on a debt bubble and service industries once again (exactly what Osborne said was the wrong thing to be doing in 2010). As to the over supply of BTL properties the fact the housing benefit bill is so high says that overall BTL landlords are still coining it at the taxpayers expense despite any localised over supply in some areas.

The Video Ref wrote: Does it really need to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. I said "The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence." How is that anything other than a safety net? Why would anyone choose to live like that? Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... Your comments fails to address the point I made. The cost of living is what it is and if benefit levels and the wages of some people don't meet it then either the cost of living is too high or benefits and wages are too low. You seem to be suggesting that if market forces set wages at a certain level ( and with benefits set in relation to wages) and that means they aren't enough to meet the cost of living that is tough luck and people should go hungry. What other conclusion should I draw from your comments above? I'd also say if market forces are driving wages down as has happened (for all those bar the top few %) and living costs up the market isn't working and it needs regulating. This is the basis of Ed M's argument about an energy price cap and sorting out the energy market while the cap is in place. Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Not it's not. The argument the Daily Mail is making is that people have £500 a week cash in their hand or at least they want to give that impression. They ignore the fact they never see it and ignore the reasons why the amount of housing benefit is so high. The scandal is how much it costs the state to fund housing benefit not that these people get it. Your student loan is a poor analogy anyway. Under the post 2012 regime you would cease paying it if unemployed. Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. I seriously doubt it. The shortage of housing (your favoured supply and demand argument) will keep rents high. In any case rents are too high (as are house prices), period, and this is a problem for our economy as a whole and one engineered solely but this government. If they think rents are going to fall because of a benefits cap they are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. I'd expect instead to see an increase in homelessness and councils having to put people up in B&B's with rents staying high. Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move I will guarantee you all those who do have never found themselves in the situation that would force the same on them. This is why I consider them (and those who hold similar views) stupid and ignorant. It would do a lot of people good to experience a period of unemployment and to have to deal with the ludicrous workfare impositions now placed upon them. They would soon change their tune and would question why after having paid into the welfare state (for many years in some cases) it's basically vanished when they need to call on it. I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants. Prices are artificially high because of the governments help to buy scheme as well. Our puny economic recovery is being based on a debt bubble and service industries once again (exactly what Osborne said was the wrong thing to be doing in 2010). As to the over supply of BTL properties the fact the housing benefit bill is so high says that overall BTL landlords are still coining it at the taxpayers expense despite any localised over supply in some areas.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:28 am  

WIZEB wrote: While were discussing benefits it's becoming transparently clear that IDS's flagship Universal Credit roll-out is an unmitigated disaster. No wonder there having to sanction so many claimants. Trying to recoup some of the financial black-hole he's created. T0sser with a capital T. This is what us benefit scroungers think of him:- http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspo ... y.html?m=1

WIZEB wrote: While were discussing benefits it's becoming transparently clear that IDS's flagship Universal Credit roll-out is an unmitigated disaster. No wonder there having to sanction so many claimants. Trying to recoup some of the financial black-hole he's created. T0sser with a capital T. This is what us benefit scroungers think of him:- http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspo ... y.html?m=1

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:07 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I said "The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence."

How is that anything other than a safety net? Why would anyone choose to live like that?

Too lazy to get a job unfortunately.

DaveO wrote:

Not it's not. The argument the Daily Mail is making is that people have £500 a week cash in their hand or at least they want to give that impression. They ignore the fact they never see it and ignore the reasons why the amount of housing benefit is so high. The scandal is how much it costs the state to fund housing benefit not that these people get it. Your student loan is a poor analogy anyway. Under the post 2012 regime you would cease paying it if unemployed.

Those who don't claim housing benefit and rent don't 'see it' either. It is probably paid by standing order each month.

DaveO wrote:

In any case rents are too high (as are house prices), period, and this is a problem for our economy as a whole and one engineered solely but this government.

Bonkers statement.

DaveO wrote:

I will guarantee you all those who do have never found themselves in the situation that would force the same on them. This is why I consider them (and those who hold similar views) stupid and ignorant.

Please show me some facts to support this 'guarantee'. The old 'everyone who has a different opinion' to me is ignorant line - really?!

DaveO wrote:

It would do a lot of people good to experience a period of unemployment and to have to deal with the ludicrous workfare impositions now placed upon them. They would soon change their tune and would question why after having paid into the welfare state (for many years in some cases) it's basically vanished when they need to call on it.

Breaking News: The Welfare state has vanished. The nasty government has abolished the welfare state. Must have missed this one in the news. Or are you grossly exaggerating?

DaveO wrote:

Prices are artificially high because of the governments help to buy scheme as well. Our puny economic recovery is being based on a debt bubble and service industries once again (exactly what Osborne said was the wrong thing to be doing in 2010)

'puny economic recovery' - you mean three consecutive quarters of growth, growth predicted at 1.3% in the final quarter of 2013 and the UK being the 'fastest growing Western economy' according to ICAEW.

You predicted zero growth? Please don't lecture us on the economy. You haven't a clue.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:29 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Too lazy to get a job unfortunately.

Those who don't claim housing benefit and rent don't 'see it' either. It is probably paid by standing order each month.


Bonkers statement.

Please show me some facts to support this 'guarantee'. The old 'everyone who has a different opinion' to me is ignorant line - really?!

Breaking News: The Welfare state has vanished. The nasty government has abolished the welfare state. Must have missed this one in the news. Or are you grossly exaggerating?

'puny economic recovery' - you mean three consecutive quarters of growth, growth predicted at 1.3% in the final quarter of 2013 and the UK being the 'fastest growing Western economy' according to ICAEW.

You predicted zero growth? Please don't lecture us on the economy. You haven't a clue.

Boo!

Didn't frighten me this time.

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:51 pm  

Are the neo-libs and Tories really so desperate that they have to resort to peeps like Ajw71 to cheer lead for them?

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:49 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Are the neo-libs and Tories really so desperate that they have to resort to peeps like Ajw71 to cheer lead for them?

Yes. Yes they are. And none of them can answer simple questions on their statements/views/posts. They just cry about abuse or how it's all so unfair and then disappear for a while...

[DaveO]

Re: Benefits Cap Is Legal : Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:21 am  

Ajw71 wrote: Too lazy to get a job unfortunately. And how many people do you consider fall into this category and why do you think those that don't should have to suffer alongside those who do? To keep you happy is not the right answer. Those who don't claim housing benefit and rent don't 'see it' either. It is probably paid by standing order each month. Those who don't claim housing benefit won't be getting £100's a week in benefit directly or indirectly . What don't you understand about the fact housing benefit is the biggest benefit cost? Bonkers statement. You really are not very bright. IMF says Help to Buy risks inflating prices "The IMF first expressed reservations about Help to Buy in its annual health check of the British economy in May, but has now joined a chorus of economists attacking the scheme for raising prices and pumping up an already rising market rather than helping people get on to the housing ladder." And as to rents what is happening under this government is as that bastion of Tory support the Daily Mail points out here: Monthly payments rising nearly FIVE TIMES faster than wages "Rents are rising nearly five times faster than wages in a toxic combination which is crippling millions of households, a report reveals today." House prices are up fueled by government policy and rents are out of control. All on this governments watch. Who's fault is that? Benefit claimants as well? Please show me some facts to support this 'guarantee'. The old 'everyone who has a different opinion' to me is ignorant line - really?! It took me five minutes to find those links above and I purposely looked for ones from sources other than those you would dismiss such as the Guardian. Five minutes to educate myself on the reality of the situation yet we have people who agree with a crude cap on benefits because of Daily Mail spin. What other conclusion is there to draw other than ignorance when they allow their opinions to be dictated by spin in newspapers? It's either ignorance or stupidity and what you don't seem to understand is your continued posting of statements that look simply as if you have swallowed the same spin hook line and sinker just labels you personally as one or the other. Breaking News: The Welfare state has vanished. The nasty government has abolished the welfare state. Must have missed this one in the news. Or are you grossly exaggerating? As I have paid into the welfare state for decades I would not expect to be told to go and work for Poundland for free to "earn" my benefits were I to find myself unemployed. I would not expect to have to attend the job centre daily to prove anything. I would not sit on my backside taking my £75 a week but would be seeking employment on a daily basis and the vast majority of those unemployed are the same. Yet despite this if I don't comply with workfare schemes etc I could lose benefits. So yes, the welfare state has vanished. 'puny economic recovery' - you mean three consecutive quarters of growth, growth predicted at 1.3% in the final quarter of 2013 and the UK being the 'fastest growing Western economy' according to ICAEW. You predicted zero growth? Please don't lecture us on the economy. You haven't a clue. I am sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about. That prediction from a firm of accountants has been met with understandable derision by those living in the real world to whom figures like 0.8% or 1.3% are meaningless. People are already fed up of hearing it when at the same time wages continue to fall and prices rise. What has your stock reply got to do with what I posted anyway? That the recovery such as it is being fueled by consumption (which increases debt when wages are falling as they are). Here is another link: UK gets wrong kind of economic recovery and there are plenty more. Read a few and educate yourself.

Ajw71 wrote: Too lazy to get a job unfortunately. And how many people do you consider fall into this category and why do you think those that don't should have to suffer alongside those who do? To keep you happy is not the right answer. Those who don't claim housing benefit and rent don't 'see it' either. It is probably paid by standing order each month. Those who don't claim housing benefit won't be getting £100's a week in benefit directly or indirectly . What don't you understand about the fact housing benefit is the biggest benefit cost? Bonkers statement. You really are not very bright. IMF says Help to Buy risks inflating prices "The IMF first expressed reservations about Help to Buy in its annual health check of the British economy in May, but has now joined a chorus of economists attacking the scheme for raising prices and pumping up an already rising market rather than helping people get on to the housing ladder." And as to rents what is happening under this government is as that bastion of Tory support the Daily Mail points out here: Monthly payments rising nearly FIVE TIMES faster than wages "Rents are rising nearly five times faster than wages in a toxic combination which is crippling millions of households, a report reveals today." House prices are up fueled by government policy and rents are out of control. All on this governments watch. Who's fault is that? Benefit claimants as well? Please show me some facts to support this 'guarantee'. The old 'everyone who has a different opinion' to me is ignorant line - really?! It took me five minutes to find those links above and I purposely looked for ones from sources other than those you would dismiss such as the Guardian. Five minutes to educate myself on the reality of the situation yet we have people who agree with a crude cap on benefits because of Daily Mail spin. What other conclusion is there to draw other than ignorance when they allow their opinions to be dictated by spin in newspapers? It's either ignorance or stupidity and what you don't seem to understand is your continued posting of statements that look simply as if you have swallowed the same spin hook line and sinker just labels you personally as one or the other. Breaking News: The Welfare state has vanished. The nasty government has abolished the welfare state. Must have missed this one in the news. Or are you grossly exaggerating? As I have paid into the welfare state for decades I would not expect to be told to go and work for Poundland for free to "earn" my benefits were I to find myself unemployed. I would not expect to have to attend the job centre daily to prove anything. I would not sit on my backside taking my £75 a week but would be seeking employment on a daily basis and the vast majority of those unemployed are the same. Yet despite this if I don't comply with workfare schemes etc I could lose benefits. So yes, the welfare state has vanished. 'puny economic recovery' - you mean three consecutive quarters of growth, growth predicted at 1.3% in the final quarter of 2013 and the UK being the 'fastest growing Western economy' according to ICAEW. You predicted zero growth? Please don't lecture us on the economy. You haven't a clue. I am sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about. That prediction from a firm of accountants has been met with understandable derision by those living in the real world to whom figures like 0.8% or 1.3% are meaningless. People are already fed up of hearing it when at the same time wages continue to fall and prices rise. What has your stock reply got to do with what I posted anyway? That the recovery such as it is being fueled by consumption (which increases debt when wages are falling as they are). Here is another link: UK gets wrong kind of economic recovery and there are plenty more. Read a few and educate yourself.