Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by funky, Aug 6, 2010.
Why should Vodafone pay for rents?
There's a whole raft of changes to welfare benefits coming in over the next two years, already approved by parliament. We're about a year into a three year programme of changes.
Strangely NOT on the list is any change to the winter fuel payment of £200 or £300 to every pensioner household, regardless of income or savings.
I am talking about the £6bn tax that they were "let off". I suspect you know that and are being facetious, however
Ah right. It's OK cos a) their shareholders get extra money instead and b) the Luxembourg office is a genuine office and was absolutely definitely 100% not at all set up to minimise their tax bill. That's all right then
is this a joke?
Absolutely, especially anywhere in London. There should be some kind of government regulations for private landlords because right now it seems they can just do whatever they want, and don't even get me started on the letting agents. I know they're a bunch of crooks all round, but at least if you're buying you only get stiffed just the once - I particularly remember the time my mum & step-dad sold their house 10 years ago and by coincidence knew the buyers, unbeknownst to the agent that was trying to keep an extra £20k on top of their commission by hiding the real offers made. They eventually admitted to the "error" when confronted.
For renters it's constant lies concerning property management and further fees throughout tenancies. When I left my last place the agents were asking for an extra £200 a week from new tenants compared to what we were paying.
The flat I've just moved out of was £1000 a month for a one bedroom flat and that seemed like a BARGAIN in comparison to some of the shitholes I saw. The lady who took over the lease from us is paying £1200. How can a 20% rise in 12 months be allowed? It's completely immoral.
And it's another thing if the state can't afford to keep you. I just don't get the argument that parents aren't responsible for their children. No one else chose to bring them into the world. It's your responsibility as a parent to take care of your children and if they can't look after themselves as an adult, then you have to keep trying to support them. OF COURSE there are instances where this isnt possible, through no fault of anyone, but if those rare instances were the only instances where the state needed to intervene, there wouldn't be a problem and none of this would be being discussed in the first place.
I agree, and in an ideal world it's probably marginally preferable.
As for corporation tax, the whole thing STINKS and none of the major parties seem remotely fussed about it. What did Labour do about it in their 10 years of power? Absolutely fuck all, that's what. They're all as bad as each other.
I absolutely don't agree that asking market value for rent is immoral.
Perhaps the wrong choice of word if we're going to get into semantics.
there's not enough LAUGHING at PROFOUND DICKHEAD DAVID CAMERON in this thread now
maybe a picture would DO THE TRICK?
What a spack face.
Reading this...there's a lot I could reply but I think ultimately all I wanna say is that you're very, very lucky, but don't let the luck you've had dictate what views you hold
To be honest, you know absolutely nothing about my situation but you can rest assured that my views are not dictated by my own personal experience alone.
I'm not particularly keen on having children anyway, but the remote possibility that the state might force parents to keep providing for their children more or less indefinitely would certainly reduce that chances that I would ever want them. I can't imagine many parents approaching retirement, with adult children who either can't or won't get a job, being very pleased with the idea either. The benefit system isn't the ideal solution, but it seems to be much better than any of the alternatives.
Then we need to pay more in tax to support it, something I reckon the majority of working people reckon they could not afford to do.
I don't have a problem with higher taxes in principle, but I would hope that they would start with sorting out Corporation Tax and the various avoidance schemes used by the super rich. In spite of David Cameron's having told off a comedian, I can't see this government doing that anytime soon.
Well I moved back home with my dad a few months back. I'm VERY lucky to have family close by, within a reasonable distance from work, have a good relationship with my family and have a large household to move back to. That's not the case for most people at all.
I pay £600pm which is less than what I did in my 2 bedroom rented flat, but am primarily back to save money and because sharing isn't really an option any more. All of my friends are in different financial and living situations right now, so for a single person to find a decent sharer at the right time it's extremely hard. Sharing a house/flat with strangers is risky business - and in my experience stressful as I just ended up a 30yr old professional living with 21yr old students with no intentions of staying on any long term basis, which is much much worse than moving back home (again, lucky for me I'm in a big house and my Dad is away Monday to Friday and I'm out most weekends). To find any ideal house/flatshare you have to be equally as lucky as I am at home.
Living alone is ideal, but I'm not prepared to spend 75% of my take-home salary on living expenses. There is no way I would ever be able to save anything, ever.
The problem is that this country has an absolutely appalling attitude towards taxation. They just don't see the benefit. When the Jimmy Carr thing happened, by far the most common response I saw was "Well, we'd all do it".
The fact that it's well documented that big corporations and fat cats pay fuck all only fuels the apathy towards paying tax in general. It NEEDS to be sorted out. Now that it's so much more in the public eye than it ever was in the 90s, I'd HOPE Labour might actually make some serious commitments to it. I hate this fatalistic "It's never going to change" attitude. We should be FURIOUS.
It definitely needs to be sorted. I do think the coalition are focused on closing some of the tax avoidance schemes though - HMRC () are investigating quite a few of them at the moment. At least SOMETHING is happening now about them - it should have happened a long time ago.
What I don't really get about our society is how the welfare bill was still growing in size when the country was in economic growth? There was a letter from a reader in the Metro today about it. Surely it makes sense that in recession the welfare bill would be high and in times of growth would be lower? It just suggests that we've got serious problems with how our society works in general and we need to get to the root cause of it.
It would help if Cameron didn't keep laying HMRC staff off. They are seriously understaffed.
The USA are far worse in their attitude to taxes!
Can we not just fire them all and re-employ a completely new set of people?
That's hardly reassuring!
i'd say that if you'd experienced the sort of financial hardship that the people who the removal of this benefit will most affect then you wouldn't hold the view that you do. And by financial hardship I don't mean earning a low wage or not having money to go out, I mean having absolutely nothing and having no means of back-up. I don't know anything about your situation, you're right, but i'm sure if you'd been in a situation where you'd relied on the state handout to get you back on your feet, then you wouldn't have this attitude now.
The problem people have with these sorts of acts is not so much the technicalities of it - and you can argue all you want about how much money it would save or about how we're in an economic crisis - but that it pierces our own sense of morality, that it goes against how the majority of people perceive KINDNESS. That's what the underlying issue in debates like this, that it's TOUGH SHIT for those at the bottom because life is HARD so DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, as if those who are on top have driven themselves there on sheer will and ingenuity alone. Where are the people acknowledging that they are lucky and that they've done well? They're making up lies about how they did it all off their own backs, when actually it was the same kindness they were shown that they're not showing to others now.
What you don't seem to understand is that it's not that there are a whole load of families not supporting their offspring because they don't want to, it's because they CAN'T.
Suomi for Prime Minister
I understand that fully, I just don't believe that the current level of expenditure on the welfare state is sustainable, and whatever cuts are made will be shit for someone. However, plenty of people who claim housing benefit COULD be helped by their families rather than the state. Housing benefit is not the only option available to young people who aren't able to be supported by their families. There is job seekers allowance and state owned housing.
What are you going on about? What ridiculous generalisations. Life is FULL of people who acknowledge how lucky they've been with the start they've had in life. What a skewed vision of the world you seem to have.
And I'm all for kindness. I would like everyone who needs help from the state to get the help they need, but the economic situation prevents it from being possible for every single person, largely as a result of those who don't need it abusing the current system.
Disregarding the economics is just naive. As I said to Kate, I honestly believe I hold the same basic values as you, but short of completely throwing out the capitalist model and starting again as a socialist state, I don't think just carrying on as we have been for the last few decades is going to be possible.
BRING IT ON
I would like to just say here that the waiting list for a council/social housing property in my area is 24 years. So unless you're a 1-legged, lesbian, heroin addicted single mother with five kids you have absolutely no chance of getting anything other than a private landlord.
You think that's bad. Here, the waiting list for an allotment is 40 years.
I do not wish to belittle this topic, which leaves me mostly feeling quite ill.
Believe me, I would happily welcome it too.
But isn't it slowly being acknowledged by Economists that the 'deficit cut' approach to saving the economy is completely counter-productive? If so, does it REALLY matter that the welfare state could be perceived to be bloated (not my opinion)? For me, there are MUCH bigger priorities. And tbf, I feel like the Conservatives haven't understood how important to maintain the perception that all sectors of our community are 'toughing it out together'. Instead, the majority of the 'cuts' are aimed at the lowest income brackets, so I can understand why Su, Kate, VoR are AGGRIEVED.
Exactly. "We're all in it together" my CLUNGE. I still can't believe they cut the 50% tax rate.
Isn't today's u-turn on petrol tax a sign they're sort of acknowledging that making people poorer is the best idea?
God they're a fucking mess.
Well that's pretty easy to explain. When the economy's doing well and the government isn't strapped for cash, it doesn't have to be as careful about where it spends its money and so can afford to increase spending on welfare. It's only when the boom ends that it becomes apparent that the previous levels of spending were unsustainable, but by that point everyone is used to them and will fight tooth and nail to stop any reduction.