Iain Duncan Smith resigns from Cabinet

[sutty27]

no....the workers create the wealth

 

They didn't do much wealth creation before the entrepreneurs came along and employed them, and business couldn't expand end employ people without the banks.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

They're not asking for everything they want,

 

They appear to be asking to keep something that was given for a reason even though the reason no longer exists.

[banjodeano]

They didn't do much wealth creation before the entrepreneurs came along and employed them, and business couldn't expand end employ people without the banks.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

 

They appear to be asking to keep something that was given for a reason even though the reason no longer exists.

 

who says the reason no longer exists?

or is it just that the goalposts have been moved?

as i said in another thread, very many of these people that you feel do not deserve the money, are in such distress after losing the money, that they see no option than suicide, i dont think their surviving families would see it as callously as you do

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 21:01 ----------

 

They didn't do much wealth creation before the entrepreneurs came along and employed them, and business couldn't expand end employ people without the banks.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

 

They appear to be asking to keep something that was given for a reason even though the reason no longer exists.

 

Yes they did, the workers nearly always create the wealth

[Mister M]

They didn't do much wealth creation before the entrepreneurs came along and employed them, and business couldn't expand end employ people without the banks.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2016 at 20:52 ----------

 

 

They appear to be asking to keep something that was given for a reason even though the reason no longer exists.

 

Wealth creators, in the narrow definition, also includes disabled people, people who were once disabled, or may become disabled in the future. We all benefit from a social security system that's inclusive.

Similarly many who work in public services are also involved in the wealth creation process - teachers and youth workers are just two of those that spring to mind.

Also it's worth pointing out that 18% of the population aren't claiming PIP. Just a tiny fraction of them, and of this tiny fraction who are

asking to keep something that was given for a reason even though the reason no longer exists?

[Bob Arctor]

 

The people you are complaining about are the very people that create the wealth which enables the country to give the disabled something.

 

So explain to us how people working in securitization create wealth.

[sutty27]

So explain to us how people working in securitization create wealth.

 

It creates more liquidity in the market and allows the financial industry to supply credit and the credit is needed by business to expand their business and employs more people.

[I1L2T3]

It creates more liquidity in the market and allows the financial industry to supply credit and the credit is needed by business to expand their business and employs more people.

 

So it creates more debt then

[Bob Arctor]

It creates more liquidity in the market and allows the financial industry to supply credit and the credit is needed by business to expand their business and employs more people.

 

No it doesn't, it just re-sells credit, wrapped up in such complexity that no-one knows how risky it is. The financial industry is able to supply credit without securitization isn't it?

[Mister M]

So explain to us how people working in securitization create wealth.

 

I remember watching the documentary 'Inside Job' in which the process of securitisation, of those working in the 'industry' deliberately bundled high risk bonds with safe bonds. Consequently no-one knows what or where these high risk / sub prime bonds are....

I'd recommend watching the documentary....Definitely worthy of its Oscar win.

[ECCOnoob]

The problem with this example is that it is nothing to do with PIP. A person qualifies for the mobility component of PIP depending on the amount of support they need to make a journey, the amount of distress the journey causes them (usually relating to mental health) and the distance they can walk. Eligibility has nothing at all to do with the number of journeys you make or the distance travelled. Exactly the same for the daily living component - it's about the amount of help you need, not the frequency with which you have to do the tasks. Therefore, in the example you have given, deterioration in physical functioning would make no difference at all to PIP eligibility and the PIP award (unless they were previously getting the Standard rate and were now eligible for the Enhanced rate).

 

The two remaining possibilities are therefore that what you believe is PIP is in fact a Personal Budget payment from the local authority which can be made either has a cash payment or by the direct provision of services, and which would be reduced if the amount of activity someone needed assistance with reduced, or that you're lying.

 

I expect a withdrawal of your totally unnecessary statement by return.

 

He used to get DLA. That has since changed to PIP. He has gone from one rate to another. He does also get a personal budget and that has also just gone through more periods of assessment.

 

Call it whatever you will. DLA/PIP/Mobility/Personal Budget/Attendance. Its "benefit".

 

The point still remains. He used to get x amount. It has now been reduced to y amount because his circumstances have changed.

 

What he needed before he needs no longer.

 

He is certainly not the only one in that position and I repeat again for the umpteenth time! SOME PEOPLE DESERVE A CUT.

 

Cry-babies and rent a protestors can bang on all they want. Money is not infinite. Just because a review and a proposal was put forward does not automatically give them some right to start gobbing off and making absolutely ludicrous insults about the Government or quite frankly anyone in the outside world who (god forbid) might actually support it.

 

Say what you like but, Its was NOT a blanket attack on the disabled. It was NOT some inhumane scheme from the so called nasty party. It was a suggestion to try and sort out the mess that is the welfare state.

 

Its was a good proposal which I will concede has been badly put forward but ultimately mauled by the media to suit their agenda.

 

It like anything to do with welfare, the NHS or the Civil Service in general. Too many think its some protected bubble which just cannot possibly ever ever be touched. Nonsense.

 

MPs in the house today (from both sides) should have been ashamed of themselves. The world is blowing itself up due to terrorists and they spent the day name calling, squabbling, showing off and backstabbing just because an IDEA was suggested which was even slightly controversial.

 

All that hot air about defective budget, cat calls for Osborne's head on a plate and the budget still got through the vote.

 

1 minster throws bucket of slurry to try to enhance their career and the more moronic in the house treat it as if the whole right side of the house is ready to fall of a cliff.

 

I say it again, the Tories could offer everyone a million pounds and a free 5 bedroomed house and the left would still criticise and lay on this "nasty party" tag.

Edited March 22, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[LeMaquis]

Cry-babies and rent a protestors can bang on all they want. Money is not infinite.

 

I say it again, the Tories could offer everyone a million pounds and a free 5 bedroomed house and the left would still criticise and lay on this "nasty party" tag.

 

Strangely it was IDS and Tory backbenchers who were the main cry-babies and protestors in this, complaining that their own party was the nasty party.