REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[visage]

THM - You may want to consider the fact that administrators can see deleted posts, and think carefully before you make them, rather than having second thoughts afterwards.

 

[Kenny]

THM - You may want to consider the fact that administrators can see deleted posts, and think carefully before you make them, rather than having second thoughts afterwards.

ahahahahaha......

 

[Papper]

No. Im sure JK Rowling pays an absolute $#@!tonne of taxes, but I dont see her visiting a foodbank any time soon.

Most people on low incomes don't visit food banks and some people on higher incomes do. Suggests debt and money management play a part not your income.

With regards to the wiser point about immigration; Imagine that the state could draw up a balance sheet for every individual. Person X paid this much tax last year. They had their bins collected, they had these GP appointments, they set fire to their house so needed the fire service to come out and so on.

The aggregation of those individuals accounts is the national state - how much did the government receive in income, how much did it spend.

If you add people to that mix it effects both sides of the balance sheet. They use services, but they also pay taxes. Many many studies have shown that immigrants, being generally young, healthy and childless, tend to have a net positive effect on the economy - they pay tax, but dont tend to use the NHS, claim a pension, or have kids that need education.

So if you decided to remove them from the country, sure, you'd need to spend less on the NHS, education etc. But you'd be receiving less tax, and the drop in receipts tends to be greater than the drop in expenditure. Meaning the 'national state' I mentioned is worse than it was before - theres less money to go around.

So the message is that if you hear politicians talking about making tough decisions in the name of austerity, dont ask them to kick out foreigners, ask them whey they're not machine-gunning pensioners....

I'm not saying immigrants take more but I would point to the fact that given the knowledge that people are living longer why encourage hundreds of thousands of people to come and work for low wages and add to the dilemma. If they can't meet the demands placed on them by an aging population why add to the demand when it would have been far more productive getting the unemployed and on benefits into work? As I linked the affect on the economy has been minimal. I would really like to know how successive governments should have planned for the steep rise in the population?

A=B+C 10=5+5
A=B+C+D+E+F 10 = 2+2+2+2+2
A=B+C+D+E+F. 25=5+5+5+5+5

In terms of funding for public services, how do you get that 10 to become 25 ????

You make cuts, borrow or raise taxes. Either way you turn the living standards of the whole population are compromised.

The national debt and the amount of interest we pay on it (£60Bn pa) is factual.

 

[Lord Knows]

Maybe they should have a large food bank at the Job centre so that those sanctioned families have easier access to a bit of food.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You can typically only use a foodbank if you get referred there by the DWP or Citizens' Advice anyway (and it tends to be because they've stopped your benefits for some spurious reason). You can't follow the Daily Mail template of just rocking up unannounced and taking off with a few tins of soup because you don't fancy the queue in Waitrose.

 

[Papper]

Maybe they should have a large food bank at the Job centre so that those sanctioned families have easier access to a bit of food.

I'd be more interested to know why hundreds of thousands of economic migrants find work and the long term unemployed dont. I suppose the easy solution would be to guarantee each person a £25K income whether they worked or not. Problem being the country can't afford to do that and in any case you would still get people in debt and relying on food banks.

 

[Papper]

You can typically only use a foodbank if you get referred there by the DWP or Citizens' Advice anyway (and it tends to be because they've stopped your benefits for some spurious reason). You can't follow the Daily Mail template of just rocking up unannounced and taking off with a few tins of soup because you don't fancy the queue in Waitrose.

Exactly, but the majority of people on benefits don't use food banks.

 

[Alan]

Exactly, but the majority of people on benefits don't use food banks.

Source?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Knows]

I'd be more interested to know why hundreds of thousands of economic migrants find work and the long term unemployed dont. I suppose the easy solution would be to guarantee each person a £25K income whether they worked or not. Problem being the country can't afford to do that and in any case you would still get people in debt and relying on food banks.

I think its a disgrace that people in this country accept food banks, and that members of the community can be reduced to what must be a humiliating experience. We shouldn't be accepting this bollocks called sanctions off government. Your taking away a persons dignity.

 

[Johnny75]

I'd be more interested to know why hundreds of thousands of economic migrants find work and the long term unemployed dont. I suppose the easy solution would be to guarantee each person a £25K income whether they worked or not. Problem being the country can't afford to do that and in any case you would still get people in debt and relying on food banks.

Are you suggesting that we force people into employment?

 

[Papper]

Source?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Calculate the amount of people on benefits and take away the amount of people using food banks.

Appx 5M claim welfare benefits and there were just over a million visits to the food banks (some people more than once)

 

[Papper]

I think its a disgrace that people in this country accept food banks, and that members of the community can be reduced to what must be a humiliating experience. We shouldn't be accepting this bollocks called sanctions off government. Your taking away a persons dignity.

I'm completely agree but how much should the benefits be to stave off the need to use food banks ? I can see Deutschy's point of those who have benefits stopped but why are these benefits stopped?

 

[Papper]

Are you suggesting that we force people into employment?

No I think we should pay them more in benefits so they can have a better standard of living. Not sure how we can afford that though.

 

[Johnny75]

Source?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

He's right, just over a million people used food banks in 2016 (Trussel Foundation) but there are just under 3m claiming ESA/ incapacity benefit (DWP) for the same period. That doesn't include working tax credits or other in work benefits and I don't have numbers for them.

It doesn't mean the point he's making is right though.

 

[Papper]

He's right, just over a million people used food banks in 2016 (Trussel Foundation) but there are just under 3m claiming ESA/ incapacity benefit (DWP) for the same period. That doesn't include working tax credits or other in work benefits and I don't have numbers for them.

It doesn't mean the point he's making is right though.

That to me suggests some can manage low income better than others. The point I'm trying to make is that low income does not necessarily mean food banks.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I'm completely agree but how much should the benefits be to stave off the need to use food banks ? I can see Deutschy's point of those who have benefits stopped but why are these benefits stopped?

Why?

Being ten minutes late for a signing on appointment. Um - missing any appointment whatsoever and even good reasons make no difference if you don't phone first. And now if you start a JSA claim for your princely seventy odd quid a week, you now have to attend a sequence of "job club" appointments. Literally almost every day for two weeks. At £4.50 in bus fare a time. Miss one. And you are sanctioned for six weeks.

 

[Johnny75]

That to me suggests some can manage low income better than others. The point I'm trying to make is that low income does not necessarily mean food banks.

No it doesn't but ultimately you can't nanny people, you have to let them be themselves. An overbearing state isn't any good for anybody or we may as well bring back workhouses but with comfy beds.

 

[Lord Knows]

That to me suggests some can manage low income better than others. The point I'm trying to make is that low income does not necessarily mean food banks.

Some weeks a person will require more income than other weeks, we are not machines with a consistent usage.
Imagine kids with birthdays, school uniform. If your just managing then have an emergency is there a contingency fund at hand,

 

[Papper]

Why?

Being ten minutes late for a signing on appointment. Um - missing any appointment whatsoever and even good reasons make no difference if you don't phone first. And now if you start a JSA claim for your princely seventy odd quid a week, you now have to attend a sequence of "job club" appointments. Literally almost every day for two weeks. At £4.50 in bus fare a time. Miss one. And you are sanctioned for six weeks.

While I don't agree with stopping payments for any reason isn't the job club there to help people get jobs? I see that as support and I would expect a free bus pass as part of the support if the job club is not within walking distance.

 

[Papper]

Some weeks a person will require more income than other weeks, we are not machines with a consistent usage.
Imagine kids with birthdays, school uniform. If your just managing then have an emergency is there a contingency fund at hand,

I know that but in that case why do the majority of people on benefits not rely on food banks?