Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Govt Policy Flawed Says Toynbee


Recommended Posts

I have another friend who is on maxed out disability benefits and NOBODY would swap her life for the money she gets

Apart from some 75% of the worlds population.

That rather depends on her circumstances. Most of the world's population would rather be poor and healthy than "maxed out" on disability benefits and in permanent severe pain. Or paralysed from the neck down. Or so far gone in dementia that they don't know where they are or when they are or who they are talking to.

Of course, if she has a problem from birth then 75% of the world's population would not expect her to live to adulthood.

db

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We are all poorer because of statism, the poor included. But you will never understand, for you the government has to steal from those who work for a living to hand over to its own employees, and occasionally those that don't work.

So those who work in the private sector all labour mightily, while public sector employees live the life of riley. It galls you that the taxes paid by advertising executives, those who lie displayed across the bonnet of a new car for the camera or who try to persuade you to buy a new sofa pay taxes to support the public sector.

I also assume that you do not believe that flood control officers, nurses, rubbish collectors or policemen either pay taxes or "work for a living."

db

Link to post
Share on other sites

So those who work in the private sector all labour mightily, while public sector employees live the life of riley. It galls you that the taxes paid by advertising executives, those who lie displayed across the bonnet of a new car for the camera or who try to persuade you to buy a new sofa pay taxes to support the public sector.

I also assume that you do not believe that flood control officers, nurses, rubbish collectors or policemen either pay taxes or "work for a living."

db

No right-minded individual would deny the labours of the individuals you mention, but it's also worth pointing out that public sector workers are not net contributors to the tax system- sure, their subsequent spending choices will dictate how much the state claws back from the money given to them, but they do not 'pay taxes' in the manner in which I think you meant.

Edited by cheeznbreed
Link to post
Share on other sites
This government is the most incompetent in living memory
As Obama cuts $290bn from US defence, where is Murphy's challenge to Britain's excessive firepower, to Trident or empty aircraft carriers?

this woman is an idiot

the return to some semblance of a govt that has an inkling of what competency is, is a start, her first quote seems to assume that the last governmnet was somehow ok, she is an idiot, plain and simple

the 2nd quote is hilarious - the empty aircraft carriers would cost more to cancel than to build, as has been widely reported

what a thick stupid woman - how on earth did she do so well :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So those who work in the private sector all labour mightily, while public sector employees live the life of riley. It galls you that the taxes paid by advertising executives, those who lie displayed across the bonnet of a new car for the camera or who try to persuade you to buy a new sofa pay taxes to support the public sector.

I also assume that you do not believe that flood control officers, nurses, rubbish collectors or policemen either pay taxes or "work for a living."

db

As usual when discussing anything with a rampant leftie they leap to some fantasy strawman argument make all manner of wild assumptions.

In answer to your wild imaginations I'm quite happy with the jobs you post but we both know that the British state moved well beyond taxing us to pay for vaguely sensible things to excess profligacy many decades ago.

I notice lefties never attack me by saying something like "I assume that you do not believe that Service Manager Environmental Sustainability (£41,616), Head of Transformation (£73,000), a Diversity Professional (£100,000) or a Climate Change Officer (£40,716) either pay taxes or work for a living." Oh no... every time its Nurses and Police as if thats all the state spends its £722,200,000,000 a year on. And the reason lefties never try and defend those jobs is because they know full well they are utterly indefensible, but then proceed to undergo strenuous mental gymnastic to convince themselves that any reduction in the state means no more nurses or police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that bothers me most about the Guardian/BBC response to the HB cuts is the total failure to recognise who is paying for HB. It's not the rich, sure they pay tax but all they are handing over is fivers and tenners and lord knows they have plenty of those. The people who really pay for HB are the working renters who are pushed out into lower quality housing a long way from work because their wages cannot compete with the government's chequebook when they look for somewhere to rent.

Labour used to be the party of the working man (the clue's in the name) but is determined to become the party of families on benefits because their quality of life would fall significantly if they tried to work and pay their own way.

Toynbee is the original champagne socialist.

She and her ilk still live in the mental universe of 1900 - the world of Booth, Rowntree, 'Round about a Pound a Week' and 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. They still think Britain is full of struggling, noble urban peasants who, if only they received enough money from the state, could be turned into Guardian reading, champagne quaffing socialists themselves. They can't see that the current situation is perpetuating squalor and dependence through welfarism and destroying the productive middle and working classes to pay for it.

They still believe that the solution is to 'tax the rich' and that 'the rich' are some kind of moustache twirling, top hatted evil Tory landlords who should be taxed to help 'the poor'; without realising the entire situation is changed and that THEY are the rich elite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kingbingo

Nobody should be getting housing benefit

Hmmmm

A friend of mine has been left by her husband. He is lying through his teeth and refusing to pay bills. Her mortgage arrears are starting to climb. Pretty soon she will either be made homeless or be given benefit help to stay in her home with her son.

What would you suggest if the safety net is removed?

Very refreshing to have a reasonable and thoughtful response other than from the perpetually nasty and angry crowd who think that ordinary people should be treated worse than soiled disposable nappies. Things happen to people, often they have no control over circumstances and situations facing them. I want to live in a society who cares for people in need particularly where children are involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very refreshing to have a reasonable and thoughtful response other than from the perpetually nasty and angry crowd who think that ordinary people should be treated worse than soiled disposable nappies. Things happen to people, often they have no control over circumstances and situations facing them. I want to live in a society who cares for people in need particularly where children are involved.

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot … you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual when discussing anything with a rampant leftie they leap to some fantasy strawman argument make all manner of wild assumptions.

In answer to your wild imaginations I'm quite happy with the jobs you post but we both know that the British state moved well beyond taxing us to pay for vaguely sensible things to excess profligacy many decades ago.

I notice lefties never attack me by saying something like "I assume that you do not believe that Service Manager Environmental Sustainability (£41,616), Head of Transformation (£73,000), a Diversity Professional (£100,000) or a Climate Change Officer (£40,716) either pay taxes or work for a living." Oh no... every time its Nurses and Police as if thats all the state spends its £722,200,000,000 a year on. And the reason lefties never try and defend those jobs is because they know full well they are utterly indefensible, but then proceed to undergo strenuous mental gymnastic to convince themselves that any reduction in the state means no more nurses or police.

Oooh, well put!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toynbee is the original champagne socialist.

She and her ilk still live in the mental universe of 1900 - the world of Booth, Rowntree, 'Round about a Pound a Week' and 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. They still think Britain is full of struggling, noble urban peasants who, if only they received enough money from the state, could be turned into Guardian reading, champagne quaffing socialists themselves. They can't see that the current situation is perpetuating squalor and dependence through welfarism and destroying the productive middle and working classes to pay for it.

They still believe that the solution is to 'tax the rich' and that 'the rich' are some kind of moustache twirling, top hatted evil Tory landlords who should be taxed to help 'the poor'; without realising the entire situation is changed and that THEY are the rich elite.

I'm pretty sure that Joseph Rowntree, if he were somehow transported forward in time to the present day, would utterly loathe Polly Toynbee.

edit: spelling

Edited by tbatst2000
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Joseph Rowntree, if he were somehow transported forward in time to the present day, would utterly loathe Polly Toynbee.

edit: spelling

Bevan the founder of the welfare state originally said the only way the system could work without spiraling out of control would be to sterilize anyone gong on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bevan the founder of the welfare state originally said the only way the system could work without spiraling out of control would be to sterilize anyone gong on it.

I think they were both of the opinion that God helps them as helps themselves. Not that I believe in God I should add.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Pretty soon she will either be made homeless or be given benefit help to stay in her home with her son.

I think you meant to say money didn't you. Help would be better, such as giving her advice on what to do and giving her somewhere temporary to live when/if she could not afford to pay a mortgage. Don't think anyone on this forum would agree with tax payers paying for other peoples mortgages including myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No right-minded individual would deny the labours of the individuals you mention, but it's also worth pointing out that public sector workers are not net contributors to the tax system- sure, their subsequent spending choices will dictate how much the state claws back from the money given to them, but they do not 'pay taxes' in the manner in which I think you meant.

What I meant was [1] that they pay tax on their income, like everybody else, [2] that they pay NI like many others and [2] that they pay VAT on the goods and services which they purchase like everybody else.

I would go further, however, and say that they "public sector"/"private sector" divide being so assiduously promoted here and elsewhere is less clear cut. Even leaving aside the dubious PFI, so many companies are involved in "public" work - whether it is IT companies engaged in government work (like the appalling ATOS) or companies who make tarmac for roads or who sell medical supplies to hospitals - that taking the "public sector" out of the economy would leave many private companies without clients. And if these functions are all so pointless, then they would not be replaced by private sector institutions, and if they are simply "unsustainable" (nominated as my word of the decade) the same applies.

Even that does not cover the contraction in demand which follows any substantial contraction in any sector of the economy, which again affects those who deal in consumer goodies or in the optional consumption of services.

I am not advocating unbridled spending of borrowed money, but I do think that simply adopting a basic, "individual on payroll of public body = bad; individual on payroll of private company = good," is not only unreasonable, but simplistic to the point of being grossly misleading.

db

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not advocating unbridled spending of borrowed money, but I do think that simply adopting a basic, "individual on payroll of public body = bad; individual on payroll of private company = good," is not only unreasonable, but simplistic to the point of being grossly misleading.

db

It is not as misleading as you might think.

Someone in a private company (not a corporatist "outsourcer") is someone supported by voluntary spending

Whereas someone in a publicly funded job (be they part of the govt or a contract cleaner of govt offices for example) is someone supported by involuntary and (mostly) money spent on things that people don't want.

The danger is in assuming that something isn't "public sector" just because they don't report to the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not as misleading as you might think.

Someone in a private company (not a corporatist "outsourcer") is someone supported by voluntary spending

Whereas someone in a publicly funded job (be they part of the govt or a contract cleaner of govt offices for example) is someone supported by involuntary and (mostly) money spent on things that people don't want.

The danger is in assuming that something isn't "public sector" just because they don't report to the government.

corporatist outsourcers are one of thiose things Bevin, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Ron Paul, etc could all agree on. We can probably agree on here. They are the lowest of scum.

Only Blairites, Cameronites, Musollini and the yorkshire ripper would disagree.

Edited by iamdamosuzuki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas someone in a publicly funded job (be they part of the govt or a contract cleaner of govt offices for example) is someone supported by involuntary and (mostly) money spent on things that people don't want.

I think it's innacurate to say 'mostly' there. Whilst there's a shed load of money wasted on utter crap, I'd be surprised if it comes to more than 20% of the total. It's fun to have a laugh at the 100K diversity officer jobs (of which there should be precisely zero of course) but the reality is that there's very few of them compared to the real front line roles that most people do support.

Agreed on your other points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant was [1] that they pay tax on their income, like everybody else, [2] that they pay NI like many others and [2] that they pay VAT on the goods and services which they purchase like everybody else.

I would go further, however, and say that they "public sector"/"private sector" divide being so assiduously promoted here and elsewhere is less clear cut. Even leaving aside the dubious PFI, so many companies are involved in "public" work - whether it is IT companies engaged in government work (like the appalling ATOS) or companies who make tarmac for roads or who sell medical supplies to hospitals - that taking the "public sector" out of the economy would leave many private companies without clients. And if these functions are all so pointless, then they would not be replaced by private sector institutions, and if they are simply "unsustainable" (nominated as my word of the decade) the same applies.

Even that does not cover the contraction in demand which follows any substantial contraction in any sector of the economy, which again affects those who deal in consumer goodies or in the optional consumption of services.

I am not advocating unbridled spending of borrowed money, but I do think that simply adopting a basic, "individual on payroll of public body = bad; individual on payroll of private company = good," is not only unreasonable, but simplistic to the point of being grossly misleading.

db

I completely agree. 'Private' company or 'fake charity' employees whos income is derived entirely from Government spending are part of the Government in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's innacurate to say 'mostly' there. Whilst there's a shed load of money wasted on utter crap, I'd be surprised if it comes to more than 20% of the total.

Lets say 20% of government is as you say wasted crap.Thats enough to give everyone an increase in their tax allowance of about £6,000. That would make a hell of a difference to growth, and more importantly the lives of the poor. If your on £26k you would have no tax to pay (I'm bundling tax+NI). But, no, we can't do that can we.....we need to be caring, which of course means have a massive wasteful state.

What do you think would help the poor and low paid more, a tax cut like that, or another diversity officer. And yet I am told constantly that I'm the uncaring elitist..... lefties really dominate irony on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if these functions are all so pointless, then they would not be replaced by private sector institutions, and if they are simply "unsustainable" (nominated as my word of the decade) the same applies........

......... the contraction in demand which follows

A crucial point to understand: Production is what matters not demand. having people consume resource in pointless job does nobody any favours. If it did the USSR would have been the wealthiest nation on earth and places like Hong Kong with almost unbridled capitalism, would have the lowest gdp per head.

Precisely the reverse is of course true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go further, however, and say that they "public sector"/"private sector" divide being so assiduously promoted here and elsewhere is less clear cut. Even leaving aside the dubious PFI, so many companies are involved in "public" work - whether it is IT companies engaged in government work (like the appalling ATOS) or companies who make tarmac for roads or who sell medical supplies to hospitals - that taking the "public sector" out of the economy would leave many private companies without clients. And if these functions are all so pointless, then they would not be replaced by private sector institutions, and if they are simply "unsustainable" (nominated as my word of the decade) the same.

db

Travellers seem to always over-order on Tarmac anyway - so I'd imagine they'd take up some of the slack.

Edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's innacurate to say 'mostly' there. Whilst there's a shed load of money wasted on utter crap, I'd be surprised if it comes to more than 20% of the total.

If the government had spent 20% less per annum since 1997 we would not be in this mess.

That's the tragedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 439 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.