We're All In This Together .....

[amateur51]

this in today's torygraffix and this the original research paper


couple that with this modern classic research

Stonking stuff, Calum :ok:

[Flosshilde]

Indeed, most interesting (except I do wish that the second research paper had used 'gender' instead of 'sex' - most misleading :erm:).

Doesn't say much for Cams & Ozzy, does it?

[ahinton]

...with the possible exception of Barclays' shareholders...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17181213

[Lateralthinking1]

More on the Welfare Bill -

Letter received today from my MP. There's more but here is the gist:

"It is not the intention of the Bill to require people who are too ill to work to look for employment or lose their benefits......The one year limit on the length of time that people can receive contribution based ESA is an important measure designed to ensure that people make the journey back towards work. It strikes the right balance....it is double the length of time allowed for contribution based JSA.......

....It is only the contributory element of ESA that will be time-limited.....People should not be confined to six months out of work if that is not appropriate for them. Similarly there is a need for some patients to have full financial assistance....in those cases the Government has been quite clear, sufferers will continue to receive all the help they need.

....DLA will be subsumed in the new PIP which will continue to offer disabled people a non means-tested cash benefit that people can spend as they choose. It will also remain a benefit that is paid whether people are in or out of work..... People will not be required to undergo an annual assessment but will instead be reassessed after an appropriate time period".

[Flosshilde]

More on the Welfare Bill -

Letter received today from my MP. There's more but here is the gist:

"It is not the intention of the Bill to require people who are too ill to work to look for employment or lose their benefits......The one year limit on the length of time that people can receive contribution based ESA is an important measure designed to ensure that people make the journey back towards work. It strikes the right balance....it is double the length of time allowed for contribution based JSA.......

....It is only the contributory element of ESA that will be time-limited.....People should not be confined to six months out of work if that is not appropriate for them. Similarly there is a need for some patients to have full financial assistance....in those case the Government has been quite clear, sufferers will continue to receive all the help they need.

....DLA will be subsumed in the new PIP which will continue to offer disabled people a non means-tested cash benefit that people can spend as they choose. It will also remain a benefit that is paid whether people are in or out of work..... People will not be required to undergo an annual assessment but will instead be reassessed after an appropriate time period".

Oh dear - you do have to read between the lines, don't you? You're not required to work or lose your benefits, but at the same time there's a time-limit on a particular benefit. And what does "People should not be confined to six months out of work if that is not appropriate for them." really mean? And "People will not be required to undergo an annual assessment but will instead be reassessed after an appropriate time period" - which could possibly be less than a year, or more, so they will be left in a state of uncertainty about just when they might be called in to be assessed.

This bill is one of the nastier manifestations of what is becoming more & more clearly a very nasty government. The LibDems should be ashamed of themselves.

[MrGongGong]

This bill is one of the nastier manifestations of what is becoming more & more clearly a very nasty government. The LibDems should be ashamed of themselves.

Absolutely , they deserve nothing but contempt IMV :sadface:

[Serial_Apologist]

Oh dear - you do have to read between the lines, don't you? You're not required to work or lose your benefits, but at the same time there's a time-limit on a particular benefit. And what does "People should not be confined to six months out of work if that is not appropriate for them." really mean? And "People will not be required to undergo an annual assessment but will instead be reassessed after an appropriate time period" - which could possibly be less than a year, or more, so they will be left in a state of uncertainty about just when they might be called in to be assessed.

This bill is one of the nastier manifestations of what is becoming more & more clearly a very nasty government. The LibDems should be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed. The language, like so much else today, is Orwellian

[Lateralthinking1]

Oh dear - you do have to read between the lines, don't you? You're not required to work or lose your benefits, but at the same time there's a time-limit on a particular benefit. And what does "People should not be confined to six months out of work if that is not appropriate for them." really mean? And "People will not be required to undergo an annual assessment but will instead be reassessed after an appropriate time period" - which could possibly be less than a year, or more, so they will be left in a state of uncertainty about just when they might be called in to be assessed. This bill is one of the nastier manifestations of what is becoming more & more clearly a very nasty government. The LibDems should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, I thought flosshilde that I would wait to see what others said before I commented. I will still do that other than to add he says that oncologists are of the view that work can help to improve health and this will bring us into line with Ireland and France.

And this. One of the problems is the gap between the legislators' big picture and individuals' direct experience. I heard of a man with an autistic son, the latter in his thirties. The son has never been told about his condition and thinks he is basically ordinary. He has never worked. That strategy has worked for him and the family. The son has for decades worked voluntarily in a team with no demands on him. He grows vegetables and then packages them up for sale. He loves it and is immensely happy.

Now he is going to have to attend an interview with his father in which his father will be asked instrusive questions about his son's condition in front of him. The father fears that he will be upset by the interview. He is also worried that given his voluntary efforts he will be seen as able to work and made to do so. Possibly stacking shelves in a supermarket with the usual demands of employment. He is concerned it will kill him.

[MrGongGong]

What really disgusts me about all of this is that one would think that Cameron as the parent of a disabled son who tragically died would have a tiny bit of understanding. Unfortunately it seems that his personal experience counts for absolutely nothing, those of us who are the parents of children with disabilities are understandably very concerned indeed about what this will mean for our children in the future. We simply can't trust these politicians EVEN though some of them apparently have personal experience....... coupled with the fact that there really is NO mandate for this government to do what they are doing :grr:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i find it dispiriting in the extreme that my niece has to undergo such bullshit again [and all the disabled people she lives with] ....

[Dave2002]

i find it dispiriting in the extreme that my niece has to undergo such bullshit again [and all the disabled people she lives with] ....

My daughter works with autistic and disabled children. She gets paid peanuts despite being highly qualified. She barely earns enough to pay back her student loan. In the meantime Osborne thinks it might be a good idea to give way to business requests to abolish the 50% tax rate. I understand that there is an argument that the 50% tax is not very effective, but it sends totally the wrong message to the majority of the population that the people who consider themselves so indispensible that they have to have high salaries are able to lobby for a tax reduction, when they should be contributing far more.

I also have a friend with an autistic son, now in his late 30s. He looks normal and does some jobs as a shelf stacker, but there is no doubt that he needs looking after, and will continue to need care and help for the rest of his life. What provision is there going to be for him, and others like him, as they get older? People like that, and their families, should have as much help as we as a society can afford, and more. It should not just be up to the selfish rich and currently healthy to decide that they deserve minimal support.

[Lateralthinking1]

I wanted to mention somewhere the death of PC David Rathband. I thought it was terribly sad news. It really goes to show how the odds can be stacked against some people through no fault of their own.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-17217080.

I hesitate to make a political point. There is a risk of seeming to make capital out of it. At the same time, it seems right to see if there are any lessons that can be learned. That in many ways is a tribute to someone's life. This was a man who at 44 had lost his eyesight, his job, his marriage and his family. I would think that the circumstances of his most terrible injury were such that money was not a problem. Still, the psychological impacts proved overwhelming. While his situation was complex - both the incident that led to his injury and all the subsequent press attention - it made me wonder how many people there are alive who have also lost their eyesight, job, marriage and family. There are probably more than we think.

Cameron today spoke of his bravery. I don't know if he would feel that others in a similarly unfortunate position should work if they are not well off or else have their allowances reviewed. PC Rathband devoted considerable time to charity work but arguably that time for him would have been better spent on counselling. It might just have saved his life.

[teamsaint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9115576/The-Budget-the-50p-tax-rate-is-a-bomb-that-a-brave-Chancellor-would-defuse.html

well not ALL of us are in this together.
personally, I would love the opportunity to be able to contribute 50p in the pound to gormless george's holiday fund. All I need to do is stop being so stupid/idle/feckless/whatever, get up off my backside and get my salary up by £120k a year.
I would really love to stick the twerp who wrote this nonsense in a particularly riotous home end at a big northern football ground, and see him expound his views there !!

[Lateralthinking1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/b...ld-defuse.htmlwell not ALL of us are in this together. personally, I would love the opportunity to be able to contribute 50p in the pound to gormless george's holiday fund. All I need to do is stop being so stupid/idle/feckless/whatever, get up off my backside and get my salary up by £120k a year. I would really love to stick the twerp who wrote this nonsense in a particularly riotous home end at a big northern football ground, and see him expound his views there !!

There are very few modern day stances teamsaint that shout liars and crooks to me more than the one in this article. People like him are trying every trick in the book. Frankly, I get very tired of them calling black white and vice versa. They are treating us like fools.

1. We are somehow to believe that their reason for wanting to reduce the tax rate is to collect more tax, ie they believe in more socalism. If anyone believes it, they must be crackers.
2. The last Government is said to have fiddled the books to claim that the 50% rate raised more revenue. So that is its fault then and not a cover up for all the fiddling involved in non-payment and a demanded reward for crime. Rubbish.
3. All of a sudden the top rate of tax is really very much more than 50% because of NI. So all those on the lowest rate of tax don't pay NI then. It is only the poor millionaires. Utter nonsense.
4. A recent survey of millionaires by Skandia, a financial consultancy, found that just over half say they may emigrate. Of those thinking of leaving, high tax was the biggest factor. What percentage "may" emigrate because of tax? 26%?
5. "When California slapped a tax on its rich in 2001, its receipts plunged – 80% of which was to do with disappearing millionaires. But how many emigrated, and how many saw their fortunes perish in the dot-com crash? It’s impossible to say". Perhaps because it was all to do with the dot com crash. He doesn't want to say it. Total red herring.
6. Lawson reduced the tax to 40% in 1989. So for 10 of Margaret Thatcher's 11 years, it was 60% or more. However, 50% Brown was a socialist with a bomb - emotive - and she wasn't. Again, absolute tripe.

Why, if a lower tax rate would lead to more tax payments, would there not be a mass exodus of millionaires? All logic suggests that would be the consequence. Truth no longer matters in this country. The kind of psychological manipulation generally used in the past on foreign enemies is now the favoured tool. Reverse logic issued from the troughs. It is interesting to note that Harold Macmillan's speech about the need to create jobs, maintain public services, refuse to give in to greed, not have money swirling around, not sell off the family silver and work to unite the population was made in 1985, 22 years after he was Prime Minister. For it is 22 years this year since Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. Sadly the idea of her giving a similar speech today is just laughable. Footnote - I liked Macmillan's humour. I have noticed that humour tends to be lacking wherever there is greed.

[teamsaint]

There are very few modern day stances teamsaint that shout liars and crooks to me more than the one in this article. People like him are trying every trick in the book. Frankly, I get very tired of them calling black white and vice versa. They are treating us like fools.

1. We are somehow to believe that their reason for wanting to reduce the tax rate is to collect more tax, ie they believe in more socalism. If anyone believes it, they must be crackers.
2. The last Government is said to have fiddled the books to claim that the 50% rate raised more revenue. So that is its fault then and not a cover up for all the fiddling involved in non-payment and a demanded reward for crime. Rubbish.
3. All of a sudden the top rate of tax is really very much more than 50% because of NI. So all those on the lowest rate of tax don't pay NI then. It is only the poor millionaires. Utter nonsense.
4. A recent survey of millionaires by Skandia, a financial consultancy, found that just over half say they may emigrate. Of those thinking of leaving, high tax was the biggest factor. What percentage "may" emigrate because of tax? 26%?
5. "When California slapped a tax on its rich in 2001, its receipts plunged – 80% of which was to do with disappearing millionaires. But how many emigrated, and how many saw their fortunes perish in the dot-com crash? It’s impossible to say". Perhaps because it was all to do with the dot com crash. He doesn't want to say it. Total red herring.
6. Lawson reduced the tax to 40% in 1989. So for 10 of Margaret Thatcher's 11 years, it was 60% or more. However, 50% Brown was a socialist with a bomb - emotive - and she wasn't. Again, absolute tripe.

Truth no longer matters in this country. The kind of psychological manipulation generally used in the past on foreign enemies is now the favoured tool. Reverse logic issued from the troughs. It is interesting to note that Harold Macmillan's speech about the need to create jobs, maintain public services, refuse to give in to greed, not have money swirling around, not sell off the family silver and work to unite the population was made in 1985, 22 years after he was Prime Minister. For it is 22 years this year since Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. Sadly the idea of her giving a similar speech today is just laughable.

there are suggestions that Orwell predicted the future so accurately, (one that has come to pass in out country in our time), because he was an insider , and knew the agendas.
it wouldn't suprise me.We are in a mad world indeed. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
As Randy Newman says "where the rich just keep on getting richer, and the poor you don't ever have to see".