PIP in a real mess.

[I1L2T3]

See what I mean...

 

This thread and so many others goes a long way to prove my point.

 

The petty namecalling, insulting and venom spit about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the Tories do.

 

 

You have no moral high ground because the right wing posters on here are in general just as bad, if not worse.

 

The amount of abuse I've taken on here for having left of centre views is quite something. Really quite something.

[Anna B]

I don't think its been proved one way or another.

 

PIP is quite rightly being monitored and may even be changed. Its no different to any other benefit. They should be constantly open to consultation and amendment. The world changes, life changes and we need to change with it.

 

If the government has made a balls up of it, then of course, they should cease immediately and get it into shape.

 

HOWEVER. There are SOME people out there who are receiving monies for things they don't need, don't use and (dare I say it) don't deserve. There are SOME people who claim for things when they could easily afford not to.

 

Controversial as cuts are, I am disgusted by this knee jerk reaction from certain media outlets and rent a mob organisations with ludicrous statements such as "attack on the disabled" "scum government" and a certain bearded old fart whose turn of phrase was as exaggerated as "declared war". None of this lot have said one thing about what THEY would do to solve the problem.

 

Its clear that whatever the Tory MP said on Question Time is not the supported by any statement or even suggestion from the PM, Chancellor or the rest of the cabinet. I suspect she will be regretting opening her gob so loosely without some facts to back it up.

 

I think they have, you just don't want to hear it.

 

Tax the rich, and make the bankers pay, so they don't get us in this mess again. (Oops it looks like it's too late for that one...)

[I1L2T3]

I think they have, you just don't want to hear it.

 

Tax the rich, and make the bankers pay, so they don't get us in this mess again. (Oops it looks like it's too late for that one...)

 

One quote I read today from Boris Johnson (no less) when responding to questions about the big institutions in the city wanting to remain in the EU, he dismissed them as:

 

"the people who engineered the biggest financial crisis of the last century"

 

Sometimes, just sometimes, they let their guard down and tell the truth

[Anna B]

You have no moral high ground because the right wing posters on here are in general just as bad, if not worse.

 

The amount of abuse I've taken on here for having left of centre views is quite something. Really quite something.

I know just what you mean...

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2016 at 23:44 ----------

 

One quote I read today from Boris Johnson (no less) when responding to questions about the big institutions in the city wanting to remain in the EU, he dismissed them as:

 

[B]"the people who engineered the biggest financial crisis of the last century"

[/b]

Sometimes, just sometimes, they let their guard down and tell the truth

 

Yeah, ain't that the truth...

[ECCOnoob]

I think they have, you just don't want to hear it.

 

Tax the rich, and make the bankers pay, so they don't get us in this mess again. (Oops it looks like it's too late for that one...)

 

I am talking about the problem of people receiving benefit awards who either don't need it, don't use it, are not entitled to it or at the least don't need the full amount.

 

Its nothing to do with taxing the rich or forcing the "bankers" to pay. The ISSUE is the problem of public spending being far too high and research which concludes that SOME of the recipients of benefits payments don't necessarily need them or should have them.

 

btw, taxing the rich in its most simplistic form would mean that someone has to completely overhaul the tax law so those earning over xxx amount or those who own xxxx amount of assets are compelled to pay over and above what the HMRC says they legally have to pay.

 

Making the "bankers" pay is more tricky. Pay for what exactly? If its the public bailout that the bank corporation was provided with then that appears to be already happening. As for any personal liability, well good luck trying to prove that individuals were personally negligent for bankrupting the country and therefore must be personally responsible for paying it back.

 

A government cannot legally stop an individual within a private organisation earning whatever their contractual agreement says they earn (that includes bonuses). A corporation is a private business and is therefore entitled to offer whatever terms it deems fits within the boundaries of the law.

 

Even if they did tax the rich and get bankers to pay, that still does not solve the issue of some people getting benefits payments that they don't need or getting too much for what they do need.

 

Should that be ignored if rich people and bankers are there to keep topping up the public purse?

Edited March 18, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[ANGELFIRE1]

What you talking about "shock". No shock for me.

 

Minster resigns because he does not support a policy. Its happened before and it will happen again.

 

 

What makes it a bit of a shock to me, it's the Minister who has overseen this debacle that has jumped on his sword.

 

Angel1.

[banjodeano]

What you talking about "shock". No shock for me.

 

Minster resigns because he does not support a policy. Its happened before and it will happen again.

 

Yeah.........but this one hurts tho lol.......and it was all going so well lol

[ANGELFIRE1]

Another interesting fact on the wireless today, apparently some MP's are saying it will cost more to collect the brass off the disabled (those that are proved to be fiddling or whatever) than they actually claim. It's economic madness.

 

Angel1.

[banjodeano]

Where is Eric when you need him lol

[Anna B]

I am talking about the problem of people receiving benefit awards who either don't need it, don't use it, are not entitled to it or at the least don't need the full amount.

 

Its nothing to do with taxing the rich or forcing the "bankers" to pay. The ISSUE is the problem of public spending being far too high and research which concludes that SOME of the recipients of benefits payments don't necessarily need them or should have them.

 

btw, taxing the rich in its most simplistic form would mean that someone has to completely overhaul the tax law so those earning over xxx amount or those who own xxxx amount of assets are compelled to pay over and above what the HMRC says they legally have to pay.

 

Making the "bankers" pay is more tricky. Pay for what exactly? If its the public bailout that the bank corporation was provided with then that appears to be already happening. As for any personal liability, well good luck trying to prove that individuals were personally negligent for bankrupting the country and therefore must be personally responsible for paying it back.

 

A government cannot legally stop an individual within a private organisation earning whatever their contractual agreement says they earn (that includes bonuses). A corporation is a private business and is therefore entitled to offer whatever terms it deems fits within the boundaries of the law.

 

Even if they did tax the rich and get bankers to pay, that still does not solve the issue of some people getting benefits payments that they don't need or getting too much for what they do need.

 

Should that be ignored if rich people and bankers are there to keep topping up the public purse?

 

The public purse would not need topping up quite so much if high earners (I use the word loosely) paid more tax. And if cuts have to be made, let's cut from the top where they'll hardly notice, not the bottom where every penny can be a matter of life and death. (I don't know of anyone at the bottom .of society that doesn't need every penny, whereas those at the top might just have to do without a new yacht this year.)

 

Why not overhaul the tax system? Heaven knows it needs it, rather than the benefits system?

 

A government might not be legally able to stop an individual earning oodles of cash of it is offered, but it can tax them until the pips squeak if they want.

 

As for 'making the bankers pay,' (I can't believe you asked 'what for?') There was criminality involved. Every other country has sent its renegade bankers to prison, but here, we have such class based reverence for those at the top we seem to think they are untouchable (except for poor, unconnected loners like Nick Leeson who was sent down for doing much the same things.)

It's not as though they have been humbled by their experience, far from it, they still have the arrogance to do it all over again. Maybe if they had been taught a lesson we wouldn't now be in a mess all over again.

 

Since the bank crash the world has turned upside down, and worldwide ferment is such that public disorder, even wars, are becoming ever more possible. All thanks to greedy, greedy super-rich men who couldn't spend all their wealth ever, no matter how hard they tried, but who simply cannot be rich enough, and want still more, more, more.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Anna B