Re: Cameron's Unemployment Knowledge

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:13:09 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:43:49 +0100, Maria
<theoldwomanwholivedinashoe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 00:01:59 +0000 (UTC), anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr A.
N. Walker) wrote:

In article <mtlig3d0nncn3lpgpde43drbdl86ujlj1g@xxxxxxx>,
Maria <theoldwomanwholivedinashoe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Or switch to "citizen's income", [...]
I understand all that - my reluctance is that the amount (that abelard
is talking about) is simply too low to be of any use except maybe to
pensioners.

Abelard intends CI to drive everyone to productive work.
I intend it to replace our present baroque benefits schemes. For
the elderly, CI will *be* the old-age pension, which is thereby
abolished. For the unemployed, the sick, the poor, the children,
it will replace the tax credits or whatever, which are therefore
abolished. For the normal taxpayer, it will be the tax allowances
which are abolished. For everyone, in amount it will be pretty
much the existing old-age pension, so that scarcely anyone will
notice the difference financially [and for the few who do, it is
easy to make transitional arrangements].

Not even the Chancellor will notice.

But if you are unemployed, or sick, or poor, or old, you
will be able to undertake whatever work you like at whatever pay
you like for whatever hours you like, without it affecting by one
iota the CI you receive. So you won't have to *prove* that you
are ill or unemployed, and no snooper will be able to snitch on
you and get your benefits stopped. "Pick it up, it's yours."

OK....sounds good in theory - however, the vast majority of people
have nothing to do with benefits per se (leaving out basic state
pension)...those people will suddenly receive money that they haven't
asked for and don't need.

you are vastly under-estimating the problems

No I'm not.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/02/rotw_gordon_bro.html
"Parts of Britain are now almost wholly dependent on the state. In
Manchester Blackley, 67% of the electorate are government employees or
welfare clients, the figure is 67.5% in Liverpool Walton and a
staggering 71% in Cynon Valley. In some areas where old-fashioned
manufacturing or mining has long since died out, government has taken
its place, leaving ghettos of dependency where there is no room for
the market economy to breath. Such places will be forever dependent on
wealth being generated in those parts of Britain (largely London and
the south-east) which are not yet socialised; no wonder they are
staunch supporters of Mr Brown?s ever-expanding state."

you may follow up more if you care....look under 'client state' etc

the clown is building a client state....a socialist dictatorship where
most of the population are dependent on government handouts....


I've mentioned client state in about 10 posts in this thread alone.

he is also running up off book debts to the tune of at least £200
billion on top of the tax and spend you see...
he is also heavily falsifying government figures in other ways

How much does this amount to and how does that compare to the current
system (of only paying needy people)?
Also, the amount currently received by each client group varies - e.g.
more for sickness than unemployment, more if you are a lone parent or
disabled or have a disabled child, or those who are caring for a sick
or infirm relative. The payment would need to be approaching £100/week

no...this is not true....
if you had no 'benefits' trap
consider if the citizen's wage were only £40 a week.....then you'd
only have to earn £60 a week to met you desired £100...

if you were a loan parent you may also get £40 a week for the child...
dependent upon the details of the scheme.....

the effects are far more than appears on the surface.....
taking in lodgers or forming cooperatives would also become
more viable.....

for it to be of any use, but see also below.
Also mother's point - no amount of CI will make rent and council tax
affordable if you are sick or unemployed. Will those means tested
benefits remain?

don't focus on the amount....focus on the mechanisms.....

I am telling you it is not enough. Do we want to experiement to see
how many people we can put into malnutrition?

Evidence -

Here are my basic costs of living - not including food, clothing, tv
license, phone, car to get to work, childminder or anything else.

£21.25/week council tax (band A)
£92.31/mortgage (cheap house with £45k mortgage)
£9.50/week water
£20/week gas/electric

Total £140.06.
That is how much I need just to breathe in this house, whether alone
or not.
Anyone buying a property or renting anything other than cheap council
property) will need considerably more than that.
I could just about manage alone because I could work full time
(assuming I could get a job), but only if I walk to work, buy clothes
in the charity shop, and leave out a car and phone. With a child I am
stuffed because the cheapest childcare is £125/week full time.

Sorry, but I just can't see how it is going to work, or even why it is
necessary.
Did you have a look at the solutions I posted to Thored?

charles murray for eg is suggesting $10,000 a year in the usa and has
bothered to work out what he would expect the social effects to
be

Everything in the US costs a third to a half less than here, but even
so, £5k a year?

139780844742236 you should read it....

you would not have to pay the armies of spies and other nosies of
the clown's marxist paradise....

i am inclined to bring it in cautiously by degrees while watching the
market effects....
but there are other possibilities....


Yes, like the one I posted.

1) Streamlined benefits system - no blame - no waiting period, can
claim even a single day's benefit if necessary - this allows people to
take casual work without risk. Lazy bastards can be shifted to a
system offering training and inducements etc.
2) Ditch P45 - move between jobs more easily without a periiod of BR
tax
3) Increase basic tax allowances to £13k - what it should be
4) Abolish Tax Credits (gradually)
5) Abolish minimum wage (gradually)
6) Increase state funding of day nurseries thus releasing single
parents from obligations for 8 hours
7) Increase in benefits for people genuinely unable to work, to
improve their quality of life.

Commment?

.

Loading