Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:48 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

So do you genuinely think there is nothing wrong with the welfare state? Everything is working well?

I genuinely believe that the welfare state was working well for the majority of the population, until this bunch of sociopaths decided to rip it apart

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:00 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I genuinely believe that the welfare state was working well for the majority of the population, until this bunch of sociopaths decided to rip it apart

Indeed.

I think there are areas that need tightening up, it seems too easy for instance to get JSA without any real checks into whether someone is actually trying to get a job. But that doesn't mean you punish everyone, you tighten up the system and punish those who aren't trying/abusing the system. Not demeaning, demoralising and punishing everyone.

Plus, any talk of reforming the Welfare state is almost irrelevant without addressing the largest components - State pensions and Housing Benefit. Anything else is merely fiddling around the edges. Yet funnily enough there is little talk about reforming state pensions by the government. Because it scares the bejesus out of everyone (and 1 of their large constituencies) and rightly so. People should get a decent pension in old age. But let's not pretend the Welfare bill can be reformed/reduced drastically without tackling by far the biggest element.
And Housing Benefit is merely a continual failure in both social and private housing provision.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:06 am  

Despite the portrayal of it being an assault of piss-takers and scroungers it is not. The reason is clear. If that's what a government wanted to clamp down on it would do so in a period of so called "full employment." No government that I can recall has ever done that. They always clamp down when times are hard and the bill goes up. Labour presided over a so called perpetual boom but did absolutely nothing meaningful to stop the mickey takers. If they had then the Tories would have less excuse for attacking the needy and vulnerable now. As always, politicians of all persuasions are the problem.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:27 am  

Dally wrote:

Despite the portrayal of it being an assault of piss-takers and scroungers it is not. The reason is clear. If that's what a government wanted to clamp down on it would do so in a period of so called "full employment." No government that I can recall has ever done that. They always clamp down when times are hard and the bill goes up. Labour presided over a so called perpetual boom but did absolutely nothing meaningful to stop the mickey takers. If they had then the Tories would have less excuse for attacking the needy and vulnerable now. As always, politicians of all persuasions are the problem.

That's possibly because in reality, the number of "mickey takers" really is not as great as government and some sections of the media might like us to believe.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:57 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

None of this detracts from the case that the welfare state is in need of reform.
Your post seems to suggest that I disagree with the whole idea of a welfare state when this is not the case.

Oh, do pardon me, it's just that "What a shocker. People who get free money for doing diddly squat kick off because they are soon to get less free money for doing diddly squat." didn't actually sound like a vote in favour of the welfare state.
Indeed, it sounded like an absurd reduction of what the welfare state is about.

The coalition makes noises about the tiny minority who fleece the system.
It then reduces the benefit for all, not just the abusers of the system.

All the while allowing tax evaders and avoiders to get away with it.
If they put as much effort and determination into chasing tax evaders and closing tax avoidance loopholes as they do into soundbites about benefit cheats and into benefit reduction, the deficit would sort itself out.
But they don't ... and you have to ask yourself why this is.
The answer is bleedin' obvious.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:20 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Oh, do pardon me, it's just that "What a shocker. People who get free money for doing diddly squat kick off because they are soon to get less free money for doing diddly squat." didn't actually sound like a vote in favour of the welfare state.
Indeed, it sounded like an absurd reduction of what the welfare state is about.

The coalition makes noises about the tiny minority who fleece the system.
It then reduces the benefit for all, not just the abusers of the system.

All the while allowing tax evaders and avoiders to get away with it.
If they put as much effort and determination into chasing tax evaders and closing tax avoidance loopholes as they do into soundbites about benefit cheats and into benefit reduction, the deficit would sort itself out.
But they don't ... and you have to ask yourself why this is.
The answer is bleedin' obvious.

Now if they opened up HMRC's investigation and prosecution divisions to private enterprise, that could prove interesting. If the contractors were paid by results, as a percentage of tax revenue paid (like a bounty hunter), I doubt we'd see the cozy arrangements so prevalent under Dave Hartnett

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:35 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

... But they don't ... and you have to ask yourself why this is.
The answer is bleedin' obvious.

... unless you're the sort of person who is happy to believe all the soundbites.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:42 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

All the while allowing tax evaders and avoiders to get away with it.
If they put as much effort and determination into chasing tax evaders and closing tax avoidance loopholes as they do into soundbites about benefit cheats and into benefit reduction, the deficit would sort itself out.
But they don't ... and you have to ask yourself why this is.
The answer is bleedin' obvious.

Do you know something, up until i read this little pargraph, i was of the view that i felt a little bit sorry for Osborne, he has a tough job (kinda) to do, and he's never going to be able to please everybody. The poorest among us, or just any regular anti-Tory will berate any cuts/caps aimed at us as ''oh, here we go, Tories narking on the poor and those on benefits again'', and to be honest, i fell for some of his stupid soundbites regarding the lazy etc etc (i ain't a Tory by the way). But, you're right, what IS he doing to close loopholes and chase tax-avoiders? What IS he doing to ensure that the better off (his mates) in this country are paying their (fair) share? The guy is a plank, and i don't know who it was who mentioned it, but his shouting-down people who disagree with his cuts just STANK of absolute arrogance.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:24 pm  

I'll tell you what he's doing about the tax system.

Bringing more people into the 40% tax bracket, while giving those with a taxable income of over £150k per year a five percent tax cut.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:31 pm  

100% Wire wrote:

Do you know something, up until i read this little pargraph, i was of the view that i felt a little bit sorry for Osborne, he has a tough job (kinda) to do, and he's never going to be able to please everybody. The poorest among us, or just any regular anti-Tory will berate any cuts/caps aimed at us as ''oh, here we go, Tories narking on the poor and those on benefits again'', and to be honest, i fell for some of his stupid soundbites regarding the lazy etc etc (i ain't a Tory by the way). But, you're right, what IS he doing to close loopholes and chase tax-avoiders? What IS he doing to ensure that the better off (his mates) in this country are paying their (fair) share? The guy is a plank, and i don't know who it was who mentioned it, but his shouting-down people who disagree with his cuts just STANK of absolute arrogance.

It's a total myth that the richest in this country don't pay their 'fair share'.