Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for?

[sten_super]

Not a critisism at all, I think your arguments are well put together and put forward, hence I thought you were a teacher/lecturer.

Where I think we differ is that I tend to see it from a different point of view due to my wife's job and feel that these "cuts" will inevitably hit the very people in society who are less able to shoulder the burden. Unfortunately, not everyone in society can afford expensive tax lawyers to avoid paying their fair share and in the same way, pork pies argument that everyone on benefit is a work shy scoundrel is disingenuous to the millions who cant work ( or are caught in the benefit trap")

I think it is job related, as a lot of our work is forecasting, and the first thing a client will ask me when I present a forecast is 'why?'. Hence I tend to have a pretty strong internal 'justification' for most of my opinions.

I actually absolutely agree that the cuts will hit the most vulnerable. However I'm not sure that the cuts are avoidable. It is clear that we as a country have been living beyond our means for the past few years (exacerbated by the banking crisis and recession), and some move needs to be made to readjust that.

Ideally we would increase revenues by cutting tax avoidance/evasion and that would enable us to maintain our spending levels. However, as I said in an earlier post, it is not that straightforward, as there is a revenue cost associated with stricter enforcement or increased taxation, either through direct costs (i.e. paying tax collectors) or through people leaving the country or finding new loopholes. As such, while I think it is worth pursuing tax evasion and considering increasing taxes on the rich, it is not the answer to all of our problems. These measures would still (IMO) have to be accompanied by some level of cuts.

 

[pork pie]

How good of you to take the time off from your Daily Mail for that nice piece of judgemental bile. As has been said before by others the jobs just aren't there. The fact is that unless people make the effort to find work their benefit gets stopped. Also, there are a whole lot of people who would work but they would be worse off if they did. You think that somebody should take a low paid job AND still be worse off ? Would you ? And if you say yes you're a bigger fool than I thought.

I think you have proved my point with your argument.

There should be NO situation where people should be better off on benefits than they are in work. But I susspect that your answer would be to expect wages to increase rather than to slash peoples benefits if they refuse to work?

The country cannot keep handing out money it has not got, and people who refuse (refuse - not are unable to!) to contribute to the nation's finances and expect to keep being supported by everyone else, should be given a reality check.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

As has been said before by others the jobs just aren't there.

Perhaps the previous Government were a little quick to import a million Eastern Europeans who are quite willing to work for wages that Brits won't accept.

Other European Countries put limits on the new members of the EU migrating to their County.

Not only have they taken jobs which should be being done by people currently unemployed, but they also put huge pressure on Housing, Schools etc...

Waits to be called Racist (or even a bigot....)

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Perhaps the previous Government were a little quick to import a million Eastern Europeans who are quite willing to work for wages that Brits won't accept.

Other European Countries put limits on the new members of the EU migrating to their County.

Not only have they taken jobs which should be being done by people currently unemployed, but they also put huge pressure on Housing, Schools etc...

Waits to be called Racist (or even a bigot....)

Nothing racist or bigoted about that statement - just shows why we should pull out of the EU as soon as possible ( that and £40m+ per day which could reduce our deficit ).

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Nothing racist or bigoted about that statement - just shows why we should pull out of the EU as soon as possible ( that and £40m+ per day which could reduce our deficit ).

Not sure what those in the manufacturing sector, including me, who's employers/clients are based in the UK only because they can access the single European Market would do though. Any ideas?

 

[pork pie]

Not sure what those in the manufacturing sector, including me, who's employers/clients are based in the UK only because they can access the single European Market would do though. Any ideas?

Yes, probably stay if we had the same deal as the Swiss.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Yes, probably stay if we had the same deal as the Swiss.

Which "deal" is that exactly?

 

[Cloughie]

Which "deal" is that exactly?

The swiss can trade tax free as the rest of the EU do, without being forced to hand over 40% (It was last time I read anything on the matter) of the nations GDP as all other EU member do. The Germans have been toying with the idea for months now.....

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Which "deal" is that exactly?

or the Channel Islands.

 

[pork pie]

Which "deal" is that exactly?

A complex series of agreements that gives them nearly all of the trading advantages, but none of the shit laws and costs that we are saddled with.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Perhaps the previous Government were a little quick to import a million Eastern Europeans who are quite willing to work for wages that Brits won't accept.

These economic migrants are doing the menial jobs on national minimum wage that the benefit claimants aren't prepared to do. Whats more is they're reliable and get on with the job instead of turning up late or throwing sickies all the time. Now that a lot of them are returning home or moving to another EU country these jobs are becoming available , to be filled by the dolescum who will lose their benefits if they're not prepared to work.

 

[pork pie]

These economic migrants are doing the menial jobs on national minimum wage that the benefit claimants aren't prepared to do. Whats more is they're reliable and get on with the job instead of turning up late or throwing sickies all the time. Now that a lot of them are returning home or moving to another EU country these jobs are becoming available , to be filled by the dolescum who will lose their benefits if they're not prepared to work.

I think the point here is that the great unwashed from our former socialist state will not get off their arses and do a decent day's work.

The poles etc., do however get a lot of skilled work in the construction sector in particular, and a normal rates of pay. The difference is they tend to be big, fit and strong, and very happy to work their nuts off.

 

[El Presidente]

I think the point here is that the great unwashed from our former socialist state will not get off their arses and do a decent day's work.

The poles etc., do however get a lot of skilled work in the construction sector in particular, and a normal rates of pay. The difference is they tend to be big, fit and strong, and very happy to work their nuts off.

I'm having an extension done on my house at present, and the builders are a couple of local lads, and they employ Poles.

I asked them why and they said it was because they worked harder, had an existing skillset, and the customers loved them to bits. They have taken on British apprentices on a few occasions, but have had to let them go because there was no desire to learn their trade.

 

[Dandyman]

I think you have proved my point with your argument.

There should be NO situation where people should be better off on benefits than they are in work. But I susspect that your answer would be to expect wages to increase rather than to slash peoples benefits if they refuse to work?

The country cannot keep handing out money it has not got, and people who refuse (refuse - not are unable to!) to contribute to the nation's finances and expect to keep being supported by everyone else, should be given a reality check.

Interesting. What action would you take against non-Dom's who avoid UK taxes but use our services and other benefits of UK living and want a say in how things are run?

 

[Dandyman]

Perhaps the previous Government were a little quick to import a million Eastern Europeans who are quite willing to work for wages that Brits won't accept.

Other European Countries put limits on the new members of the EU migrating to their County.

Not only have they taken jobs which should be being done by people currently unemployed, but they also put huge pressure on Housing, Schools etc...

Waits to be called Racist (or even a bigot....)

Is that a call to leave the EU, then ?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Is that a call to leave the EU, then ?

No, not at all.

All I am saying is that in 2004 when the Poland, Slovakia etc joined the EU, the Government should have put a ceiling on the number of migrant workers we allowed in. Plenty of other EU states did.

Perhaps even a points based system - Carpenters yes, cleaners no.

I believe they expected 40,000/50,000 and we ended up with nigh on a million.

They work hard, for low wages. So where's the problem? The problem is that SOME (not all) of the jobs they do (picking veg, cleaning hotel rooms) could be done by Brits who are currently unemployed.

There is also no doubt they have bought benefits to some industries, but have in some areas (my sister lives in Lincolnshire) put a great strain on local services such as housing and schools.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Is that a call to leave the EU, then ?

And Germany and others put caps on the numbers they let in, yet are still in the EU.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I just couldn't make some of this nonsense up. The situation described by pork pie, subsequently quoted by LB and then yourself, occured under 13 years of a LABOUR government. To attempt to pin the blame for insufficient taxation of the super rich on the 4 week old coalition government is pathetic and quite patently wrong.

I have quite a lot of patience for reasoned debate from people that I don't agree with, but not so much for people spouting complete and total rubbish.

Who is blaming Cameron?

I'm blaming the conspiracy of the super-rich that has been functioning smoothly since at least 1979. And probably before.

 

[mistahclarke]

Well, hopefully by then the countries finances won't be fuc*ed. Mind you, it's going to take a lot to remove all the years of Labour crap.

like it took years for Labour to repair what the Tories did before labour got power back?

Let's face it, we'd all love to meet the PM who could actually honestly tell us how f***ed this country really is, THEN sort the mess out (not just smudge figures to make it look like they have), then pull the money (about a few billion?) out their arse to sort all the "lost" finances out (that's the money that previous Governments have swept under the carpet in "delivering" their promises they couldn't keep). Then tell us we can retire at 50 with a pension of 30K a year.

The reality is that will never happen.

I'd guess, we will be lied to while the retirement age carrot is slowly edged further away until enough people die before claiming what is rightfully theirs -because the Pension fund simply does not have the money to support ageing Britain. And sadly we will be continuely lied to by Governement's who use a smear campaign to get elected. "Ask not what we will do for the country, but what we will do better than the last lot"

Rant over.

 

[Dandyman]

No, not at all.

All I am saying is that in 2004 when the Poland, Slovakia etc joined the EU, the Government should have put a ceiling on the number of migrant workers we allowed in. Plenty of other EU states did.

Perhaps even a points based system - Carpenters yes, cleaners no.

I believe they expected 40,000/50,000 and we ended up with nigh on a million.

They work hard, for low wages. So where's the problem? The problem is that SOME (not all) of the jobs they do (picking veg, cleaning hotel rooms) could be done by Brits who are currently unemployed.

There is also no doubt they have bought benefits to some industries, but have in some areas (my sister lives in Lincolnshire) put a great strain on local services such as housing and schools.

It was possible to put a cap on numbers during the accession period but now full membership exists any citizen of the EU (including large numbers of UK citizens) can live and work anywhere in the EU. The free movement of labour and capital is a key element of the EU hence my question.

The strain on housing and schools is a genuine issue but owes more IMO to a failure to build or create enough social housing over the last 30 years, the manipulation of the housing market to enrich relatively few people and insufficient support for community schools rather than sectarian and selective ones.