Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " To answer your question: Motability (free car and expenses) for an 18 year old with an autism diagnosis (who is high functioning, perfectly capable of working). Not a hypothetical scenario... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? To answer your question: Motability (free car and expenses) for an 18 year old with an autism diagnosis (who is high functioning, perfectly capable of working). Not a hypothetical scenario..." This ... A relative has two sons with a car EACH !?? And they're not basic models either. A motability vehicle should only ever be provided if it has to be specially modified for the person to use and it should always be the smallest most basic vehicle which meets the requirements. It should also be means tested as should every single benefit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " All the public sector is over manned and bloated and is not necessary for a functioning country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wouldn't involve spending less money but close tax avoidance loopholes. Also take a close look at the 'memorandum of the understanding of royal taxation' " £40bn annual tax gap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Screw that. Let tax be split into two portions, one for the basic running of basic services. Then (*within reason*) allow people to allocate the rest of their tax money on things like extra defense, the arts, immigration, enhanced NHS being keeping people alive, etc. The technology to do this is pretty simple. It should shut people up." Not sure if I’m missing something here but surely all current tax collection is spent on running public services? So you’d need a voluntary extra payments option to top stuff up? You just prompted a good one that I’d be happy to see cut to zero, the arts. Should be a business like any other venture. Also to add to that, arts degrees. What’s the point in loaning money to (making these numbers up to demonstrate a point) 10,000 arts degree students when there’s only 500 jobs a year in the arts? This money is never gonna be paid back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wouldn't involve spending less money but close tax avoidance loopholes." I agree totally. But I’d bet they already try to do this and that it’s a never ending “cat and mouse” process that just continually evolves. A bit like cyber security, it’s a task you can never complete. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much?" Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " Abolish in work benefits. Make out of work benefits minimal and demeaning, vouchers for the bare minimum to live and nothing else. Drastically reduce sickness benefits including cutting all of the mental health stuff. End motability, only subsidise the modifications required for a car to be able to be driven by a physically disabled person. Otherwise most cars are now big enough. Lock up those who enter the country illegally in tented camps with basic facilities. No hotels, pocket money or sim cards. No diversity managers or similar waste of resources in the public sector. No optional stuff in the NHS e.g. fertility treatments. I could go on all day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. " That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? " Old people have most of them in boxes under the bed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Old people have most of them in boxes under the bed. " Old people & dodgy people. Or maybe old, dodgy people?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? Abolish in work benefits. Make out of work benefits minimal and demeaning, vouchers for the bare minimum to live and nothing else. Drastically reduce sickness benefits including cutting all of the mental health stuff. End motability, only subsidise the modifications required for a car to be able to be driven by a physically disabled person. Otherwise most cars are now big enough. Lock up those who enter the country illegally in tented camps with basic facilities. No hotels, pocket money or sim cards. No diversity managers or similar waste of resources in the public sector. No optional stuff in the NHS e.g. fertility treatments. I could go on all day." Motability cars have been mentioned a couple of times. I’m gonna tell you about two sides of this, both are actual real situations… My mate recently started dating a new lady. Nice enough woman, seems very active and whist I don’t know how much pain she experiences, I’ve never yet seen her wince in pain. Just found out she has a motobility car. She gets high rate mobility component of PIP because of “a bad back”. The second case is of a child that gets high rate mobility component DLA. They are non verbal, tube fed, self harm and severely autistic. They sleep no more than 3-4 hours in any given 24 hour period. Probably cause a dozen hospital visits a year either for themselves or others because of their uncontrollable behaviour. Self harm is their way of communicating, trying to stop them self harming is seen as you trying to stop them communicating so they harm you. This child does not understand what a queue is. Waiting for a bus is not an option, they would probably be dead by now. They have been diagnosed with 5 different medical conditions, they are under the care of 3 different consultants at 3 different hospitals, one of which is central London. The nearest train station to them is 40 min drive in a car or 3 buses. Their mother is a single parent, dad has him 1 day every fortnight and cancels half the time and does not drive. The kids school is 40 mins drive each way and the respite care home is an hour each way. They get a taxi to school but at least twice a week the school call and ask him to be taken home by midday and a taxi is never available. His care is a 24/7 job and totally exhausting. When in school he is on 3:1 care, same in respite, but his mom is in her own. Losing the £297 a month car would put the kid in local authority care. The respite centre has told us this would cost the local authority £8,000 a week for the level of care he needs. But to look at the family (he has a sister 2 years younger) you wouldn’t see the need for disability payments or a free car. The two extremes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Screw that. Let tax be split into two portions, one for the basic running of basic services. Then (*within reason*) allow people to allocate the rest of their tax money on things like extra defense, the arts, immigration, enhanced NHS being keeping people alive, etc. The technology to do this is pretty simple. It should shut people up." I like this idea. It is very close to a direct democracy. But the politicians won't like it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You just prompted a good one that I’d be happy to see cut to zero, the arts. Should be a business like any other venture. Also to add to that, arts degrees. What’s the point in loaning money to (making these numbers up to demonstrate a point) 10,000 arts degree students when there’s only 500 jobs a year in the arts? This money is never gonna be paid back." The arts and culture in general add significant value to society that isn't quantifiable in monetary terms but even if all we are interested in is money then government spending on cultural things like the arts, museums, tax relief for creative industries etc is about £4.7 billion per year while the benefit to the economy is about £124 billion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You just prompted a good one that I’d be happy to see cut to zero, the arts. Should be a business like any other venture. Also to add to that, arts degrees. What’s the point in loaning money to (making these numbers up to demonstrate a point) 10,000 arts degree students when there’s only 500 jobs a year in the arts? This money is never gonna be paid back. The arts and culture in general add significant value to society that isn't quantifiable in monetary terms but even if all we are interested in is money then government spending on cultural things like the arts, museums, tax relief for creative industries etc is about £4.7 billion per year while the benefit to the economy is about £124 billion." Assuming that is true, we should send everyone to uni to study sculpture and the national debt would be fine in a couple of years 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? " Interesting point. There are 300 mil. £50 notes in circulation. I've had just two in a lifetime. Who has them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Interesting point. There are 300 mil. £50 notes in circulation. I've had just two in a lifetime. Who has them?" I used to be a croupier in a casino. We'd see them all the time. Nothing unusual for someone to bring a couple of grand or more, all in £50 notes. Old people definitely keep cash at home. The black market (drugs, weapons, prostitution etc) would be all cash. And that wouldn’t change if we went cashless, they would just use euros instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? To answer your question: Motability (free car and expenses) for an 18 year old with an autism diagnosis (who is high functioning, perfectly capable of working). Not a hypothetical scenario..." Motability has always been abused. Even when I was selling new cars 80's/90's. While there were many genuine claimants some could have raced me around the block (I was young and fit then) I remember one guy weighing up whether the boot was big enough for him and his mates Sunday league football gear. I used to say that one day somebody will get one for an ingrowing toenail. After what I've been reading today call me Nostradamus. Apparently alcohol abuse qualify's for a free car.  HELLO! Seems 770 people used that one last year. Drug abuse another 220.
Constipation is another one. OK only 20 used that but come on. Spoonful of Syrup of Fig and job done. There were even 10 who got one for Hemorrhoids.
By far the biggest group though were for anxiety. A whopping 34,000 claimed for that. I know that anxiety can be unpleasant (I get an attack every time I get a tax bill) but to qualify you for a free car? Give over.
Tennis elbow, failure to thrive (no, me neither) and social phobia were among a list that ran to over 500 different conditions.
Motability is sat on a £4 billion pot of money and its chief executive is paid £750k a year.
The numbers cam from the answer to a parliamentary question and published on the Guido Fawkes website. It also noted that one in five new cars registered was through the Motability scheme.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that is true, we should send everyone to uni to study sculpture and the national debt would be fine in a couple of years 🤣" Many people don't value arts education because they think of something like a guy on his own playing with lumps of clay but in reality people who think creatively end up doing all kinds of things. The creative industries sector employs about 2.4 million people in the UK - about 7% of all jobs. About 43% of this is in software development where people outside the sector think everyone comes from a science or technology background but in fact significant numbers of these have arts backgrounds as much of software development involves things lke graphic design, user interface design and documentation. After software the next biggest sub-sector is music, performing and visual arts. This employs aroud 311,000 people. Film, TV radio and photography employs 256,000 people. Even the small crafts sub-sector employs about 10,000 people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The black market (drugs, weapons, prostitution etc) would be all cash. And that wouldn’t change if we went cashless, they would just use euros instead. " What century are you living in? It's all Bitcoin, now... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Interesting point. There are 300 mil. £50 notes in circulation. I've had just two in a lifetime. Who has them?" I used to get a lot back in the day but that was mostly down to the business I was running. I keep very little cash in Sterling these days but always have a few 50€ notes and the occasional 100€ and 200€. The 500€ note is quite rare. They used to be known as "Bin Ladens" because he was easier to find. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Assuming that is true, we should send everyone to uni to study sculpture and the national debt would be fine in a couple of years 🤣 Many people don't value arts education because they think of something like a guy on his own playing with lumps of clay but in reality people who think creatively end up doing all kinds of things. The creative industries sector employs about 2.4 million people in the UK - about 7% of all jobs. About 43% of this is in software development where people outside the sector think everyone comes from a science or technology background but in fact significant numbers of these have arts backgrounds as much of software development involves things lke graphic design, user interface design and documentation. After software the next biggest sub-sector is music, performing and visual arts. This employs aroud 311,000 people. Film, TV radio and photography employs 256,000 people. Even the small crafts sub-sector employs about 10,000 people. " Fully agree that the arts are important but when an unmade bed and a brick wall are presented as "art" then there is no wonder people become a bit exasperated. If that is what they want to do then fine, but don't expect the taxpayer to fund you/it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Old people have most of them in boxes under the bed. Old people & dodgy people. Or maybe old, dodgy people? "There are a great many old, dodgy people  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are a great many old, dodgy people "Yeah, in our experience, they're dodgy enough without the exchange of cash... Just fluids... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Screw that. Let tax be split into two portions, one for the basic running of basic services. Then (*within reason*) allow people to allocate the rest of their tax money on things like extra defense, the arts, immigration, enhanced NHS being keeping people alive, etc. The technology to do this is pretty simple. It should shut people up. Not sure if I’m missing something here but surely all current tax collection is spent on running public services? So you’d need a voluntary extra payments option to top stuff up? " Public services would be pared back to the extreme minimum. Then taxpayers could allocate their excess taxes (they would still pay it) towards things they find important. If that's a statue of the queen, then great. If it's IVF, then great. If it's SIM cards for undocumented immigrants, then great. People would grumble less. And then people could also volunteer more money directly towards these things, too. The only people unhappy would be those who contribute no taxes, thus having less say over its allocation. This wouldn't be absolute... There would be some rules; we could'nt have all the cash going to frivolous causes, there would need to be some proportionality, or some incentive to keep things balanced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Screw that. Let tax be split into two portions, one for the basic running of basic services. Then (*within reason*) allow people to allocate the rest of their tax money on things like extra defense, the arts, immigration, enhanced NHS being keeping people alive, etc. The technology to do this is pretty simple. It should shut people up. Not sure if I’m missing something here but surely all current tax collection is spent on running public services? So you’d need a voluntary extra payments option to top stuff up? Public services would be pared back to the extreme minimum. Then taxpayers could allocate their excess taxes (they would still pay it) towards things they find important. If that's a statue of the queen, then great. If it's IVF, then great. If it's SIM cards for undocumented immigrants, then great. People would grumble less. And then people could also volunteer more money directly towards these things, too. The only people unhappy would be those who contribute no taxes, thus having less say over its allocation. This wouldn't be absolute... There would be some rules; we could'nt have all the cash going to frivolous causes, there would need to be some proportionality, or some incentive to keep things balanced." I like it, PR for public spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fully agree that the arts are important but when an unmade bed and a brick wall are presented as "art" then there is no wonder people become a bit exasperated. If that is what they want to do then fine, but don't expect the taxpayer to fund you/it." I know some people, myself included, struggle with seeing the value in some art but it's subjective and attitudes change over time too. Look at L.S. Lowry's paintings, people laughed at how primitive they were. The taxpayer bought one for £120 in 1947 (about £5,000 in today's money) and it's now worth £3.5 million. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The black market (drugs, weapons, prostitution etc) would be all cash. And that wouldn’t change if we went cashless, they would just use euros instead. What century are you living in? It's all Bitcoin, now... "High level yeah, but the blokes standing on the corners of our city streets only take cash. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Screw that. Let tax be split into two portions, one for the basic running of basic services. Then (*within reason*) allow people to allocate the rest of their tax money on things like extra defense, the arts, immigration, enhanced NHS being keeping people alive, etc. The technology to do this is pretty simple. It should shut people up. Not sure if I’m missing something here but surely all current tax collection is spent on running public services? So you’d need a voluntary extra payments option to top stuff up? Public services would be pared back to the extreme minimum. Then taxpayers could allocate their excess taxes (they would still pay it) towards things they find important. If that's a statue of the queen, then great. If it's IVF, then great. If it's SIM cards for undocumented immigrants, then great. People would grumble less. And then people could also volunteer more money directly towards these things, too. The only people unhappy would be those who contribute no taxes, thus having less say over its allocation. This wouldn't be absolute... There would be some rules; we could'nt have all the cash going to frivolous causes, there would need to be some proportionality, or some incentive to keep things balanced." Ah, I get what you’re saying. I’m in favour of this in principle but I think the NHS would get floods of cash and other areas wouldn’t. But perhaps that’s a good thing. I have a counter proposal tho…. Cut public services to the bare minimum you suggest and increase the tax threshold to £20k. 20% of that is gonna come straight back in VAT anyway and a lot more from alcohol tax. Also the in work benefits being reduced would be offset by less income tax being paid. Businesses would grow across the board and the increase in GDP would have positive effects of government borrowing costs. The problem of course is this bare bones public services couldn’t be done. Far too many people think spending needs to increase in every department and don’t care where that money comes from as long as it’s not them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " Does the answer have to be realistic ie something a government might actually do, or can it be fantasy-land, it'll never happen but... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? Does the answer have to be realistic ie something a government might actually do, or can it be fantasy-land, it'll never happen but..." Just give us both | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to spend less money on subsidising the wealthy ... that alone would be enough "Aw bless  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? Does the answer have to be realistic ie something a government might actually do, or can it be fantasy-land, it'll never happen but... Just give us both "Realistic: Hard to actually think of something a government would actually do, aside from removing support and services for the most vulnerable people in society. Unrealistic: Remove the tax breaks for the fossil fuels industry. Make them pay standard rates of tax As much as I don't want Iran/Israel to have nuclear weapons, I also don't want the UK/Russia/USA to have them either. Scrap trident. I am well aware that rejoining the EU wouldn't magically undo all the damage done, but as I'm picking things that won't ever happen, unbrexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Motability (free car and expenses) for an 18 year old with an autism diagnosis (who is high functioning, perfectly capable of working). Not a hypothetical scenario..." The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. I know someone autistic who's sensory sensitivities are so extreme that she cannot leave her home without having lung pains due to people wearing cologne, perfume or using a fragranced detergent. The tube is a nightmare, buses are a nightmare - even going into communal lifts are difficult and the supermarket across the road to her is almost always impossible - except at times it's empty. She doesn't have a car as she cannot drive - but she's incredibly limited to what she can do. And her diagnosis is Asperger's Syndrome - which is what people usually mean when they say 'high functioning'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. " In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw)" Side effect of that is it'll be safer for drug users too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free." it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? Abolish in work benefits. Make out of work benefits minimal and demeaning, vouchers for the bare minimum to live and nothing else. Drastically reduce sickness benefits including cutting all of the mental health stuff. End motability, only subsidise the modifications required for a car to be able to be driven by a physically disabled person. Otherwise most cars are now big enough. Lock up those who enter the country illegally in tented camps with basic facilities. No hotels, pocket money or sim cards. No diversity managers or similar waste of resources in the public sector. No optional stuff in the NHS e.g. fertility treatments. I could go on all day." How much do you think you'll save, by not having diversity managers? . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw)" I used to think so. Then I visited San Francisco | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw) I used to think so. Then I visited San Francisco "Been to New York recently? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw) I used to think so. Then I visited San Francisco
Been to New York recently?"Yes, there too. The whole argument of "Just legalise drugs, people are having it anyway. We can at least regulate and tax it" has a massive blindspot. There are numerous people who never tried drugs because it's illegal. Once you make it legal, people who never would have tried drugs also get into drugs. Sure some of them have control over their use, but many don't. With time, the city turns to shit with junkies all over. And now people in these places who originally asked for legalisation of drugs are asking the government to spend more money on rehabilitation of drug users. Of course the policy change they proposed was never a problem according to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw) I used to think so. Then I visited San Francisco
Been to New York recently?
Yes, there too.
The whole argument of "Just legalise drugs, people are having it anyway. We can at least regulate and tax it" has a massive blindspot.
There are numerous people who never tried drugs because it's illegal. Once you make it legal, people who never would have tried drugs also get into drugs. Sure some of them have control over their use, but many don't. With time, the city turns to shit with junkies all over.
And now people in these places who originally asked for legalisation of drugs are asking the government to spend more money on rehabilitation of drug users. Of course the policy change they proposed was never a problem according to them."Replace the word "drugs" with alcohol and we are essentially in the same position. Alcohol is legal, taxed and causes massive problems on the NHS. Yet we seem to tolerate that and have rehabilitation services for it. Our taxes pay for treatment and I don't begrudge that one bit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would say that they should stop spending money on trying to combat drug use. Legalise it and use it as a means to generate tax. (not a drug user btw) I used to think so. Then I visited San Francisco
Been to New York recently?
Yes, there too.
The whole argument of "Just legalise drugs, people are having it anyway. We can at least regulate and tax it" has a massive blindspot.
There are numerous people who never tried drugs because it's illegal. Once you make it legal, people who never would have tried drugs also get into drugs. Sure some of them have control over their use, but many don't. With time, the city turns to shit with junkies all over.
And now people in these places who originally asked for legalisation of drugs are asking the government to spend more money on rehabilitation of drug users. Of course the policy change they proposed was never a problem according to them.
Replace the word "drugs" with alcohol and we are essentially in the same position. Alcohol is legal, taxed and causes massive problems on the NHS. Yet we seem to tolerate that and have rehabilitation services for it. Our taxes pay for treatment and I don't begrudge that one bit.
"If alcohol never existed and someone invented it today, would it be legalised the way it is now? Just because we screwed up one way, it doesn't mean we should screw up the other ways too. San Francisco is a clear example of what happens when you legalise it. Do we want UK to become like that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to spend less money on subsidising the wealthy ... that alone would be enough" Give us an example of the government subsidising the rich, so that we have some clue what you're talking about | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Remove the tax breaks for the fossil fuels industry. Make them pay standard rates of tax" The fossil fuel industry don't get any tax breaks, and they currently pay twice as much tax as other companies. They'd thank you profusely if you made them only pay standard rates of tax | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fossil fuel industry don't get any tax breaks, and they currently pay twice as much tax as other companies. They'd thank you profusely if you made them only pay standard rates of tax " The other poster appears to have been correct according to this BBC report... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177 "BP and Shell both received more money back from the UK government than they paid in tax every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017)." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability." Using disability benefits given to them by the government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fossil fuel industry don't get any tax breaks, and they currently pay twice as much tax as other companies. They'd thank you profusely if you made them only pay standard rates of tax" "The other poster appears to have been correct according to this BBC report... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177 BP and Shell both received more money back from the UK government than they paid in tax every year from 2015 to 2020 (except Shell in 2017). " JTN and I have had this argument so many times, that I forgot others might not be aware of all the details. Yes, fossil fuel companies during that period were paying very little tax. This is because they they were expanding their fields, and that means lots of investment in finding new areas and building new platforms and pipes. They can claim back R&D costs, as well as capital infrastructure, and they'd been doing so much that they got to reclaim most of their taxes. That's all changed now that the new government has decided not to grant new licenses. The argument between JTN and I comes from the fact that all companies can claim back R&D costs and capital expenditure. The 'tax break' isn't limited to fossil fuel companies. That's why Amazon pays so little tax, because they reinvest all their profits into new facilities. When I said "the fossil fuel industry doesn't get any tax breaks", I meant that it doesn't get any special tax treatment just for fossil fuel companies. It does get the same tax rebate that all other companies get. I wouldn't class those as "tax breaks". But they do have to pay a much higher tax rate. Right now they pay 30% Corporation Tax, (unlike the normal 25% for normal large companies). They also pay an extra 10% "Supplementary Charge", plus an extra 35% Energy Profits Levy. If you made them pay "standard rates of tax", they'd love you for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to spend less money on subsidising the wealthy ... that alone would be enough Give us an example of the government subsidising the rich, so that we have some clue what you're talking about " Apart from what others have commented, "Corporate Welfare" receives considerable subsidies. In 2019 for example, the FTSE 100 companies of that time received just over half a billion £ in government subsidies. (The Government’s bank bailout meant that the financial sector received the most subsidies. Away from banking, notable recipients included BAE Systems (£44,782,094), Tesco (£10,396,037) and Unilever (£8,044,494).) . Corporate Welfare is a carrot. Social Welfare is a stick. . This could easily be fixed if there was a will to do so. . 1. Curtail the accountancy profession to merely report on earnings. Essentially "book keeping". 2. There is a flat rate of tax 3. There are no dispensations for anything. Essentially tearing up every little byzantine rule or ploy. Nothing can be offset, or deferred, or "worked around" or reported in creative ways. That's all gone. 4. Level playing field for all. 5. No "market distortion" with favour subsidies of any kind whatsoever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so the facts show that fossil fuel industry has huge tax breaks ..... on top of the enormous subsidies they recieve .... there's monumental savings to be had right there" The facts show that fossil fuel companies are entitled to the same tax treatment as all other companies when it comes to tax deductions, but they are charged triple the level of standing taxes. And fossil fuel companies in the UK don't get any subsidies. None at all. You can look up the net profit margin of fossil fuel companies. Most years it's less than 5%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Away from banking, notable recipients included BAE Systems (£44,782,094), Tesco (£10,396,037) and Unilever (£8,044,494)." All I can find on this is several anti-"Corporate Welfare" companies reporting the exact same phrases. Does anyone know of a breakdown of where these figures come from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so the facts show that fossil fuel industry has huge tax breaks ..... on top of the enormous subsidies they recieve .... there's monumental savings to be had right there The facts show that fossil fuel companies are entitled to the same tax treatment as all other companies when it comes to tax deductions, but they are charged triple the level of standing taxes. And fossil fuel companies in the UK don't get any subsidies. None at all. You can look up the net profit margin of fossil fuel companies. Most years it's less than 5%." pmsl ... aw bless! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so the facts show that fossil fuel industry has huge tax breaks ..... on top of the enormous subsidies they recieve .... there's monumental savings to be had right there" "The facts show that fossil fuel companies are entitled to the same tax treatment as all other companies when it comes to tax deductions, but they are charged triple the level of standing taxes. And fossil fuel companies in the UK don't get any subsidies. None at all. You can look up the net profit margin of fossil fuel companies. Most years it's less than 5%." "pmsl ... aw bless!" Run out of cogent arguments have you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Away from banking, notable recipients included BAE Systems (£44,782,094), Tesco (£10,396,037) and Unilever (£8,044,494). All I can find on this is several anti-"Corporate Welfare" companies reporting the exact same phrases. Does anyone know of a breakdown of where these figures come from?" Whilst I do agree there are several sites reporting the same findings, further research yields more up to date info. 22/7/2024 Britain’s largest arms company has benefited from £1bn in government science subsidies over the last 30 years, it can be revealed. More than 600 research grants for UK universities went on joint projects with BAE Systems. Tens of millions of pounds in other state handouts for universities helped fund internships at the company. The grants were awarded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a public body. It is tasked with distributing government research grants to universities for science, technology, engineering and mathematics projects. The council is a branch of UK Research and Innovation, which falls under the Department for Science. Around £933m of government science grants for universities has gone on projects with BAE since 1994, according to a Freedom of Information (FoI) response from UK Research and Innovation seen by Declassified. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " Politicians wages, they should give them less money. They keep freezing others wages, see how they like it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone know of a breakdown of where these figures come from?" "Whilst I do agree there are several sites reporting the same findings, further research yields more up to date info. 22/7/2024 Britain’s largest arms company has benefited from £1bn in government science subsidies over the last 30 years, it can be revealed. More than 600 research grants for UK universities went on joint projects with BAE Systems. Tens of millions of pounds in other state handouts for universities helped fund internships at the company. The grants were awarded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), a public body. It is tasked with distributing government research grants to universities for science, technology, engineering and mathematics projects. The council is a branch of UK Research and Innovation, which falls under the Department for Science. Around £933m of government science grants for universities has gone on projects with BAE since 1994, according to a Freedom of Information (FoI) response from UK Research and Innovation seen by Declassified." I have personal experience of this and it's a complex topic. Adding a 'free' intern to a company rarely helps the company, as that intern usually needs a huge amount of training before they become useful. On the other hand, I've seen the way BAE handle these interns, and they often use them as project resources without bothering to train them or assess the quality of their work. But to me the money paid out goes to R&D, and mostly to the intern. BAE might be cynically accepting these interns as a free resource, but they definitely aren't functioning as an income stream. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability." That would depend on your definition of "free". Yes the leasing payments are made from whatever the old Mobility Allowance is called this week. But when you can get the aforesaid allowance for tennis elbow, alcohol dependency (yes really ) drug misuse, Dyslexia (bet they have fun with the written driving test) or even the old Farmer Giles giving you a bit of gip. Then I would call it a free car.
Jeez, I even read somewhere that writers cramp was on the list.
I would also add that they don't pay road/car tax, the car is fully insured and all servicing costs are covered.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a petrol (sorry fast charging) allowance in there somewhere.
With apologies to the old Esso ad from years ago.
"The Motability sign means happy motoring".
If it's for free of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"so the facts show that fossil fuel industry has huge tax breaks ..... on top of the enormous subsidies they recieve .... there's monumental savings to be had right there" "The facts show that fossil fuel companies are entitled to the same tax treatment as all other companies when it comes to tax deductions, but they are charged triple the level of standing taxes. And fossil fuel companies in the UK don't get any subsidies. None at all. You can look up the net profit margin of fossil fuel companies. Most years it's less than 5%." "pmsl ... aw bless!" "Run out of cogent arguments have you?" "He never had any to run out of." Good point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability. That would depend on your definition of "free". Yes the leasing payments are made from whatever the old Mobility Allowance is called this week. But when you can get the aforesaid allowance for tennis elbow, alcohol dependency (yes really ) drug misuse, Dyslexia (bet they have fun with the written driving test) or even the old Farmer Giles giving you a bit of gip. Then I would call it a free car.
Jeez, I even read somewhere that writers cramp was on the list.
I would also add that they don't pay road/car tax, the car is fully insured and all servicing costs are covered.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a petrol (sorry fast charging) allowance in there somewhere.
With apologies to the old Esso ad from years ago.
"The Motability sign means happy motoring".
If it's for free of course."the person leases the vehicle from motability, ergo not free .... despite your tantrum displaying your politics of jealousy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability. That would depend on your definition of "free". Yes the leasing payments are made from whatever the old Mobility Allowance is called this week. But when you can get the aforesaid allowance for tennis elbow, alcohol dependency (yes really ) drug misuse, Dyslexia (bet they have fun with the written driving test) or even the old Farmer Giles giving you a bit of gip. Then I would call it a free car.
Jeez, I even read somewhere that writers cramp was on the list.
I would also add that they don't pay road/car tax, the car is fully insured and all servicing costs are covered.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a petrol (sorry fast charging) allowance in there somewhere.
With apologies to the old Esso ad from years ago.
"The Motability sign means happy motoring".
If it's for free of course.
the person leases the vehicle from motability, ergo not free .... despite your tantrum displaying your politics of jealousy "Where does said person get the money to pay motability? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where does said person get the money to pay motability?" It's paid out of the Enhanced Mobility Component of PIP - that is, someone scored 12 points or more in the mobility assessment. If someone wants to upgrade the available car, they can do so at a premium paid from their own income - which could be from working, as PIP is not a means tested benefit. The enhanced mobility component is extremely difficult to get - you have to prove you cannot walk for more than 50 meters or that you cannot go out without a risk to your own safety or wellbeing (including risks to others). Cherry picking a few fringe cases, without access to their actual health reports, is pretty disingenuous and sounds like manufactured outrage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where does said person get the money to pay motability? It's paid out of the Enhanced Mobility Component of PIP - that is, someone scored 12 points or more in the mobility assessment. If someone wants to upgrade the available car, they can do so at a premium paid from their own income - which could be from working, as PIP is not a means tested benefit. The enhanced mobility component is extremely difficult to get - you have to prove you cannot walk for more than 50 meters or that you cannot go out without a risk to your own safety or wellbeing (including risks to others). Cherry picking a few fringe cases, without access to their actual health reports, is pretty disingenuous and sounds like manufactured outrage. " But most people have a car anyway so why should someone get theirs paid for? Maybe when the scheme was designed, car ownership wasn’t as common, cars were smaller and there was a significant premium for automatics so it was justified for the few claimants. Now there are so many claimants, cars are bigger and mostly automatic, and most people have them anyway so the system is unsustainable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where does said person get the money to pay motability? It's paid out of the Enhanced Mobility Component of PIP - that is, someone scored 12 points or more in the mobility assessment. If someone wants to upgrade the available car, they can do so at a premium paid from their own income - which could be from working, as PIP is not a means tested benefit. The enhanced mobility component is extremely difficult to get - you have to prove you cannot walk for more than 50 meters or that you cannot go out without a risk to your own safety or wellbeing (including risks to others). Cherry picking a few fringe cases, without access to their actual health reports, is pretty disingenuous and sounds like manufactured outrage. But most people have a car anyway so why should someone get theirs paid for? Maybe when the scheme was designed, car ownership wasn’t as common, cars were smaller and there was a significant premium for automatics so it was justified for the few claimants. Now there are so many claimants, cars are bigger and mostly automatic, and most people have them anyway so the system is unsustainable." But lots do need very expensive modifications that most don't need, that said most on pip can get it one guy I new had to buy a new car as had to much money and was about to lose benifits so needed to stay under the 10k | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But lots do need very expensive modifications that most don't need, " This is 100% where the money needs to be focused. We know a family with a young girl with cerebral palsy, who was exactly the right recipient for this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now there are so many claimants, cars are bigger and mostly automatic, and most people have them anyway so the system is unsustainable." OK, so end the Motability Scheme (a charity) and let people buy older or cheaper cars using their enhanced mobility allowance. Many choose to do this anyway. What difference would this make to the governments pockets? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now there are so many claimants, cars are bigger and mostly automatic, and most people have them anyway so the system is unsustainable. OK, so end the Motability Scheme (a charity) and let people buy older or cheaper cars using their enhanced mobility allowance. Many choose to do this anyway. What difference would this make to the governments pockets?" Actually, we didn't realise this was a charity. As a charity, it's a perfectly wonderful idea, and should have much looser requirements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now there are so many claimants, cars are bigger and mostly automatic, and most people have them anyway so the system is unsustainable. OK, so end the Motability Scheme (a charity) and let people buy older or cheaper cars using their enhanced mobility allowance. Many choose to do this anyway. What difference would this make to the governments pockets?" The issue is that too many people are getting the allowance. Most people have cars anyway so the only thing that there may be a case for the government subsidising is major modifications to vehicles for the seriously physically disabled. Everyone else, there is no additional cost compared with the general population. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is that too many people are getting the allowance." Based on what information? Do you know how many people claim enhanced mobility and what their conditions are? Considering I've sat through assessments with people, I'd say too few people are getting it. "Most people have cars anyway so the only thing that there may be a case for the government subsidising is major modifications to vehicles for the seriously physically disabled." What about hidden disabilities - like autism with high levels of sensory sensitivity, or c-PTSD when the person cannot mix with anyone else. What about someone with osteoarthritis, who doesn't need a modified car, but still struggles with walking around due to constant pain? Running a car is expensive, and while I don't know how many people have them, there are still extra expenses involved that may put a car out of reach for some people. I honestly think there's a culture of resentment towards anyone perceived to be getting something for nothing - it's not driven by anything other than envy, and if it wasn't this they'd find something else to whinge about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fully agree that the arts are important but when an unmade bed and a brick wall are presented as "art" then there is no wonder people become a bit exasperated. If that is what they want to do then fine, but don't expect the taxpayer to fund you/it. I know some people, myself included, struggle with seeing the value in some art but it's subjective and attitudes change over time too. Look at L.S. Lowry's paintings, people laughed at how primitive they were. The taxpayer bought one for £120 in 1947 (about £5,000 in today's money) and it's now worth £3.5 million. " What it was bought for is a quantifiable value as that is what was actually paid, what it is worth now is conjecture as it is only with what someone will actually pay for it and that won’t be known until it happens | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I honestly think there's a culture of resentment towards anyone perceived to be getting something for nothing - it's not driven by anything other than envy, and if it wasn't this they'd find something else to whinge about." I don’t think it’s about people getting something for nothing. And I don’t think envy comes into it. Most people just don’t like fakes. People who are perfectly capable of working but instead of doing so, languish on benefits. I remember Jeremy Vine talking about the younger generation on his show with regard to anxiety. This generation claim to suffer with it in far greater numbers than previous generations and they were asking why. One “expert” said they just aren’t resistant like boomers had to be. Choosing to not work shouldn’t be an option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I honestly think there's a culture of resentment towards anyone perceived to be getting something for nothing - it's not driven by anything other than envy, and if it wasn't this they'd find something else to whinge about. I don’t think it’s about people getting something for nothing. And I don’t think envy comes into it. Most people just don’t like fakes. People who are perfectly capable of working but instead of doing so, languish on benefits. I remember Jeremy Vine talking about the younger generation on his show with regard to anxiety. This generation claim to suffer with it in far greater numbers than previous generations and they were asking why. One “expert” said they just aren’t resistant like boomers had to be. Choosing to not work shouldn’t be an option. " I'm Gen X. Completely different upbringing in a completely different world to the Gen Z's. They experience social and mental pressures I did not. How I dealt with things back then was appropriate for me and I developed my resilience for the time I lived in. For the stressors at the time. Those were not the same stressors as Gen Z's have. They have their own unique set of stressors, appropriate to the time they are living in now. "Experts" spouting offensive "advice" are not walking in the shoes of their victims. They are walking in their own. Their shoes may have fitted them once, but they do not fit a current generation. If they truly want to offer help, they could align cooperatively with the Gen Z's and aid them. Condemnation serves no one (and is a "stressor" in itself. Oh the irony!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I honestly think there's a culture of resentment towards anyone perceived to be getting something for nothing - it's not driven by anything other than envy, and if it wasn't this they'd find something else to whinge about. I don’t think it’s about people getting something for nothing. And I don’t think envy comes into it. Most people just don’t like fakes. People who are perfectly capable of working but instead of doing so, languish on benefits. I remember Jeremy Vine talking about the younger generation on his show with regard to anxiety. This generation claim to suffer with it in far greater numbers than previous generations and they were asking why. One “expert” said they just aren’t resistant like boomers had to be. Choosing to not work shouldn’t be an option. I'm Gen X. Completely different upbringing in a completely different world to the Gen Z's. They experience social and mental pressures I did not. How I dealt with things back then was appropriate for me and I developed my resilience for the time I lived in. For the stressors at the time. Those were not the same stressors as Gen Z's have. They have their own unique set of stressors, appropriate to the time they are living in now. "Experts" spouting offensive "advice" are not walking in the shoes of their victims. They are walking in their own. Their shoes may have fitted them once, but they do not fit a current generation. If they truly want to offer help, they could align cooperatively with the Gen Z's and aid them. Condemnation serves no one (and is a "stressor" in itself. Oh the irony!)" I’m not sure only having four foreign holidays a year, seeing a few unpleasant videos on TikTok, and worrying about what gender you are today are really “stressors”. It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. " really? the right wing nut jobs hate society and any concept there of ..... Keith Joseph glove puppet prime minister margaret thatcher famously had a tantrum and screamed "There is no such thing as society" .... so your weak platitude on society is wholly meaningless tripe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. really? the right wing nut jobs hate society and any concept there of ..... Keith Joseph glove puppet prime minister margaret thatcher famously had a tantrum and screamed "There is no such thing as society" .... so your weak platitude on society is wholly meaningless tripe." “Margaret Thatcher”. Yawn. It’s 2025. Try crawling your way into the 21st Century. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If they truly want to offer help, they could align cooperatively with the Gen Z's and aid them. Condemnation serves no one (and is a "stressor" in itself. Oh the irony!)" The irony of what you say lies in the practise of facilitating/placating ‘aligning’ with them, that’s what has lead to them being unable to cope and being so anxious. People need to be put in testing situations from an early age for them to learn how to navigate life’s turmoil, not wet nursed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The term 'high functioning' is not a diagnostic label. If someone autistic needs a Motability car, then maybe they cannot use public transport or venture out without support. In this case, the parents agree it's madness, but hey, it's free. it's not free ... the person leases the car from motability. That would depend on your definition of "free". Yes the leasing payments are made from whatever the old Mobility Allowance is called this week. But when you can get the aforesaid allowance for tennis elbow, alcohol dependency (yes really ) drug misuse, Dyslexia (bet they have fun with the written driving test) or even the old Farmer Giles giving you a bit of gip. Then I would call it a free car.
Jeez, I even read somewhere that writers cramp was on the list.
I would also add that they don't pay road/car tax, the car is fully insured and all servicing costs are covered.
I wouldn't be surprised to find a petrol (sorry fast charging) allowance in there somewhere.
With apologies to the old Esso ad from years ago.
"The Motability sign means happy motoring".
If it's for free of course."Whether they take their allowance that they are due, or pay it to get a car, the cost to the state is the same, ie no savings. If you've seen some of the posts from kinkycoupleNW detailing her horrific struggles with benefits, carers, her health issues and more, then you'd perhaps have more compassion for how much of a struggle many people find, from the systems that provide minimal help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The most significant savings we can achieve lie in public sector spending. Any department or office that does not deliver clear value for money or exists as a duplication should be reviewed and, where necessary, removed. Public sector pay increases should be capped at the inflation rate. There should be no ambiguity on this point, and no platform for strike action where pay is rising with inflation. Unsociable hours and weekend premiums should be scrapped. Instead, we should properly staff to cover these hours as part of standard contractual obligations. All too often these payments are used as income top ups, creating purposeful inefficiency, shifting work away from core hours to attract bonuses. Any public sector worker who participates in strike action should not be eligible for overtime in that calendar month. Striking should not be followed by an opportunity to boost earnings through additional hours it it erodes public trust and incentivises disruption. Terms and conditions across the public sector should be standardised going forward. Outdated or irregular contracts should be removed either through restructuring or natural attrition. The UK’s public sector spending in 2023–24 was around £1.2 trillion. A very modest 1% reduction target would provide £12 Billion per year in savings. " Go Elon | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. really? the right wing nut jobs hate society and any concept there of ..... Keith Joseph glove puppet prime minister margaret thatcher famously had a tantrum and screamed "There is no such thing as society" .... so your weak platitude on society is wholly meaningless tripe. “Margaret Thatcher”. Yawn. It’s 2025. Try crawling your way into the 21st Century." aw bechod | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. really? the right wing nut jobs hate society and any concept there of ..... Keith Joseph glove puppet prime minister margaret thatcher famously had a tantrum and screamed "There is no such thing as society" .... so your weak platitude on society is wholly meaningless tripe. “Margaret Thatcher”. Yawn. It’s 2025. Try crawling your way into the 21st Century. aw bechod "Socialist view of British history: Beginning of time to 1979: nothing 1979 to the present: ThAtChEr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. really? the right wing nut jobs hate society and any concept there of ..... Keith Joseph glove puppet prime minister margaret thatcher famously had a tantrum and screamed "There is no such thing as society" .... so your weak platitude on society is wholly meaningless tripe. “Margaret Thatcher”. Yawn. It’s 2025. Try crawling your way into the 21st Century. aw bechod
Socialist view of British history:
Beginning of time to 1979: nothing
1979 to the present: ThAtChEr"does dim synnwyr yn hynny. ceisiwch ysgrifennu rhywbeth dealladwy os gwelwch yn dda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Old people have most of them in boxes under the bed. Old people & dodgy people. Or maybe old, dodgy people? "I'm neither old or dodgy and I'm not self employed I always use cash have never used my card to buy anything only thing it gets used for is the cash machine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah the ‘tax gap’ definitely needs sorting. We should move to a cashless society, it only seems to be the tinfoil hat conspiracists that seem to be against it. Maybe it’s to deflect from the fact they are self employed working cash in hand & like things kept as they are thank you very much? Perhaps a new thread for this topic as it’s a very interesting one? I’m the opposite of a conspiracy theorist by the way, but I’ve been to Starbucks on more than one occasion where their networks were down and they couldn’t take orders because they are “card only”. Once was a drive thru on the A120 and the next Starbucks on my route was 2 hours away. That, admittedly, is the main remaining barrier & obviously you think of the recent power outage in Spain. If the systems can be improved with fail-safes there is little excuse not to continue heading in this direction as the benefit to the exchequer would be potentially enormous. There are something like £50 bn worth of bank notes not circulating in the system I also read not too long ago. Wonder why? Interesting point. There are 300 mil. £50 notes in circulation. I've had just two in a lifetime. Who has them?" No idea but wen ever I draw money out and they try to give them to me I refuse its shocking how many shops won't take them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m not sure only having four foreign holidays a year, seeing a few unpleasant videos on TikTok, and worrying about what gender you are today are really “stressors”. . It just shows how decadent and weak our society has become. Western civilisation is just way past its apex. " This is not my age, and from your vitriol I dare say it is yours either. . We can either help the younger ones or condemn them, and I think you've made it abundantly clear your position on the matter. . I cannot imagine treating my nieces and nephews with such denigration. . We both have choice. Manage our relevancy to the younger generation, or manage ourselves out of that relevancy. . My father managed himself out of my relevancy for exactly the same hostility. We didn't speak for 40 years, and I saw him only alive once in that time. He created those conditions, and sowed those seeds. I'll be damned if I intend to walk that same path. My job is to listen and nurture my nieces and nephews. To understand and appreciate their challenges, and help them overcome them in positive and meaningful ways to them. It is actually quite rewarding, I have found. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to spend less money on… 1) The Royal Family 2) Nuclear Weapons " Agree totally with the first. Not sure how much it would save but should be done. As for the second, I’m not sure where to get cheap nukes from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to spend less money on… 1) The Royal Family 2) Nuclear Weapons Agree totally with the first. Not sure how much it would save but should be done. As for the second, I’m not sure where to get cheap nukes from. " Doesn't Facebook help? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prison system costs just under £7billion a year in total at a cost of just over £50k per head per year. How many of these people could we put elsewhere? For example. If foreign nationals are gonna be deported after completing their sentence, send them back before spending all that money on them. I understand this number is around 10k? How many are multiple repeat offenders that are just going to keep coming the same crimes no matter what? And how many are doing long long sentences for serious crimes? If these people don’t want to live by our laws and repeatedly proving that with their actions every time they get out, why are we paying for them. Drop them off an an island somewhere and leave them to it. Some for murders and sex offenders a year in jail while they exhaust their appeal claims then get rid. " Not saying I disagree, but how many Brits are currently in jails abroad, as you can’t have it all ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should have dummy nukes instead of real ones. No one will know & it’ll be a lot cheaper than Trident." But you just told them lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prison system costs just under £7billion a year in total at a cost of just over £50k per head per year. How many of these people could we put elsewhere? For example. If foreign nationals are gonna be deported after completing their sentence, send them back before spending all that money on them. I understand this number is around 10k? How many are multiple repeat offenders that are just going to keep coming the same crimes no matter what? And how many are doing long long sentences for serious crimes? If these people don’t want to live by our laws and repeatedly proving that with their actions every time they get out, why are we paying for them. Drop them off an an island somewhere and leave them to it. Some for murders and sex offenders a year in jail while they exhaust their appeal claims then get rid. Not saying I disagree, but how many Brits are currently in jails abroad, as you can’t have it all ways." Can you see Iran wanting to send brits home? The same logic applies to many countries. But just because they are sent back here, doesn’t mean we put them in jail. They can go to work and add to the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prison system costs just under £7billion a year in total at a cost of just over £50k per head per year. How many of these people could we put elsewhere? For example. If foreign nationals are gonna be deported after completing their sentence, send them back before spending all that money on them. I understand this number is around 10k? How many are multiple repeat offenders that are just going to keep coming the same crimes no matter what? And how many are doing long long sentences for serious crimes? If these people don’t want to live by our laws and repeatedly proving that with their actions every time they get out, why are we paying for them. Drop them off an an island somewhere and leave them to it. Some for murders and sex offenders a year in jail while they exhaust their appeal claims then get rid. Not saying I disagree, but how many Brits are currently in jails abroad, as you can’t have it all ways. Can you see Iran wanting to send brits home? The same logic applies to many countries. But just because they are sent back here, doesn’t mean we put them in jail. They can go to work and add to the economy. " What are you arguing for here? Get all prisoned Brits home and send them to work now matter the crime? Rapists and murderers? It's fine because they're British? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prison system costs just under £7billion a year in total at a cost of just over £50k per head per year. How many of these people could we put elsewhere? For example. If foreign nationals are gonna be deported after completing their sentence, send them back before spending all that money on them. I understand this number is around 10k? How many are multiple repeat offenders that are just going to keep coming the same crimes no matter what? And how many are doing long long sentences for serious crimes? If these people don’t want to live by our laws and repeatedly proving that with their actions every time they get out, why are we paying for them. Drop them off an an island somewhere and leave them to it. Some for murders and sex offenders a year in jail while they exhaust their appeal claims then get rid. Not saying I disagree, but how many Brits are currently in jails abroad, as you can’t have it all ways. Can you see Iran wanting to send brits home? The same logic applies to many countries. But just because they are sent back here, doesn’t mean we put them in jail. They can go to work and add to the economy. What are you arguing for here? Get all prisoned Brits home and send them to work now matter the crime? Rapists and murderers? It's fine because they're British? " Was that what I said? I didn’t say “get them home” at all so the rest of your argument it moot. But I’ll indulge you…. Someone in Saudi doing 12 months for drinking booze. They decide to send them back. Are you advocating they get sent to prison here to finish their sentence? But a murderer would obviously. What I’m really advocating is we take somewhere like The Isle of Sheppey or one of the uninhabited islands in a dependant territory and make it the final destination for certain criminals. Like when we used to transport people to Australia. A points system where the severity of the crime gets you a relative number of points. Once you hit a certain level you’re gone. Someone who’s been convicted 37 times for car theft ain’t gonna change. Bye bye. Kiddy fiddlers and murderers etc. bye bye. Ian Brady and Myra Hindly probably cost the taxpayer over £5 million to “keep them away from society”. Why spend £5 million when you can do it for next to zero. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people calling for increased government spending…. Defence Education Pensioners Wages NHS Police Courts Prisons Probation Tackling the boats Roads - especially pot holes Housing The list is almost endless. What you seldom hear is “we need to spend less money on something” So what do you think we could actually cut back on and save some money? " State spending has been cut though?! Continuously for the last 45 years, through various degrees of severity or means and methods. Do you think there should be no state support and protection, non whatsoever like those what you listed above, like everyone should just fend for themselves? Or do you think it's better everyone gets a standing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" State spending has been cut though?! Continuously for the last 45 years, through various degrees of severity or means and methods. Do you think there should be no state support and protection, non whatsoever like those what you listed above, like everyone should just fend for themselves? Or do you think it's better everyone gets a standing?" At the turn of the 20th century (oldest figures I found) government spending was around 11% of GDP. If we ignore the war years and Covid, it’s steadily grown fairly consistently since then. It fell under the recent conservative governments of the 80s and 2010 to COVID, and increased by 10% under the rule of Blair/Brown. It is now something like 45% and climbing. The current government have already announced massive increases in spending and will probably continue to do so. Paid for partly in increased taxes and partly from borrowing. No money tree contributions yet again. It funny how when you post a question about controlling public spending, there’s always one or two lefties who say “so you want zero public spending, no benefits, no nhs, no schools”? Where did I say I wanted to do away with any of those things? If you don’t think spending should be cut and it should be increased, you’re entitled to that opinion. Start a counter thread asking what we should spend more on and how to finance it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
