UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
From a personal perspective, I was caught by the Tax Credits trap. We received a bill from HMRC for £4,500. Luckily, we had dug ourselves into a place that left us in a financial position to pay this amount, if we so wished.Instead, we fought back for 18 months. Letters to our MP, who was Tory and superbly supportive, the Adjudication Service and our own bloody mindedness and ability to defend our corner.
At no point did HMRC explain why they wanted this money or how the alleged over payment had occurred. In the end they wrote it off.
Most people are not in the position we were in. Most people would be at their wits end, scared of the knock at the door, especially if, like with us, they had set debt collectors and bailiffs on us.
The removal of the millstone of tax credits will force employers to either pay better wages or close facilities due to a lack of trained staff. At the end of the day people will move away from these companies towards those that pay better. As it should be. It'll certainly stop us, the taxpayers, subsidising these huge corporations that gain profits from us.
The problem Geoff is that, as osborne does, you are assuming that employers will improve wages as tax credits are removed.That is illogical: capitalism simply doesn't work that way. It will take a very long time for wages to be forced up whilst a large pool of unemployed, or even illegal labour exists. Plus, where does that leave the poorest in society? Worse off again, of course is the answer. A much reduced level of safety net. Why should we, one of the richest economies in the world, think that treating our poorest and most vunerable like this is acceptable?
This is the way the free market should work, Will. Supply and demand. The more agile employers will pay more to attract the best candidates. This will, in turn, force those reluctant employers to increase wages to stem the flow.I've seen this in action in India. A company I worked for lost 70% of their labour because a new company opened up the road and paid better wages. The old company's costs went up so fast they had to increase wages to stop the flood of staff and control the training budget. Previously, they had been forcing wages down as there was no competition for labour.
I agree that we do have poor and vulnerable people in this country, but Labour policies like the tax credit system perpetuates that state of poverty and helplessness.
Tax credits were a farce to be honest. They might have been a decent idea in theory but handing them over to HMRC doomed them. The HMRC can barely cope with taking money off people, but getting them to hand money out was a step too far for them (As was merging Inland Revenue and CustomsBut the problem is, Tax Credits are a subsidy to big companies. They know that they can pay less than a living wage, the tax payer steps in with a subsidy, and they hand the money to their shareholders.
As far as I can see the best solution is to stop them, allowing the living wage to take the slack and with some sort of backup mechanism to deal with those who were on them who fall outside this
It may be in monetarist theory Geoff, but that theory also pre supposes that the most vunerable in society will be perpetually poor and excluded from the benefits that the rest of us take for granted - something that the tax credits system was originally devised to obviate.Do you feel that it is right that the vunerable and unfortunate should be thrown to the economic wolves, to remain in poverty? That is the open Conservative objective, isn't it - and exactly what Osborne's policies are designed to achieve. There is almost no actual economic growth. No real new jobs - zero hour contracts don't count - no pressure or competition in the labour market, there are too many unemployed.
And how exactly does destroying the safety net release people from the poverty they suffer in the 5 richest economy in the world?
Best solution Jim? You are a big fan of increasing poverty and misery, then? Because that is what will happen.http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015...
The problem is I'm not a big fan of what was evolving into a system of almost corporate feudalism as well. The state was paying corporations large amounts of money to give people poorly paying jobs (which got them off the unemployment register but never offered them much real hope of things getting better)and with housing benefit, gave landlords large sums of money to provide pretty mediocre accommodation, in many cases accommodation that nobody not trapped by the system would have lived in.If we are to have a safety net, then surely it makes more sense to assess the needs of the individual and pay them money directly so they can meet that need, rather than massage the unemployment figures and pour money into the coffers of major corporations and slum landlords
There's a lot of work been done by people like Frank Field and Duncan Smith which I feel needs a chance of going forward. There's also a need for a public debate about employment and how people live. Frankly we don't need half the people working who are working. We've got people working purely because we cannot think of anything else to do.
Now I remember way back when I was at school this was pointed out then. We were going to have a leisure society. People would only need to work a few hours a week.
There are several problems with that. Firstly income. How do people afford to work ten hours a week. Let us assume that we have a coffee shop. Let us assume that the wage necessary for a decent lifestyle is £20k. We need three people on duty at all times and and we're open for 80 hours a week. If those people work 40 hours a week we need six people and that costs us £120k.
But if they only work 10 hours, we need 24 people which costs us £480k. How much are people willing to pay for a cup of coffee?
To some extent we could make steps in that direction. If we put were strong caps on salaries, (let's say that over £60k you paid 100% tax) this would drive down property costs because house prices and similar would fall.
The problem with that is that you'd then have to contemplate some sort of ban on people buying land and houses with foreign money or we'd end up with a lot of the nicest houses snapped up as holiday homes by wealthy Europeans etc
We'd lose a lot a people who reckon they're worth more. Given that we've got far too many people anyway, we could stand some of that. The problem is it would be the educated who went.
And this then comes to the second major problem. We need a far better education system to cope with a population who has all that leisure. Not only that but we need an education system capable of motivating boys, especially what you might describe as white working class boys, or at least those from low income families.
Thirdly I'm not sure whether this sort of system would work if linked into the world economy.
Unfortunately this country is inevitably and inextricably linked into the world economy, mainly because we have to buy so much from abroad, including food and energy. That has to be paid for in a currency the vendors will accept.
So that's why we need a grown-up debate. Just running with the old models isn't going to work. Given that automation is probably going to start hitting middle-class jobs now (which is inevitable because middle-class people are expensive to employ) I can see serious social disturbance if we don't have the debate, because the posturing political pygmies are going to discover that things start hitting nearer to home
The answer of course Jim, is a socialist society rather than a capitalist one.Ever since we began the race to develop new technologies, a new form of society has been envisaged (frequently by the sci-fi and fantasy writers) in which few people actually NEED to work. Automation and computerisation has removed the need for a lot of jobs. It has decimated the accounting industry for a start. (Geoff's OK of course! :-) )
However, as the socialist thinkers point out, this creates an unbalanced situation in which wealth/income is generated by a very few. The question to be addressed is: does that wealth remain in their hands as the wealth creators? That's a legitimate viewpoint. The consequence of course is that most of the rest of the country lives in true poverty with no real prospect of ever alleviating their distress. Or do we go for a proper re distributive model in which the benefits of technology are made available freely to all of us?
At the moment we hover about in the middle. Things socially are deteriorating, but there is an opportunity to make a choice. Personally I think that the Tories have looked at this and already made their choice. Hence their drive for a low tax environment, which in effect makes re distribution of wealth impossible and leads to the first of the two options I have outlined. Enormous wealth for a very few. A decent living standard for those who can maintain the computers and machines. Poverty for the rest.
Any of our Tory supporters here want to comment on this? Geoff? Lynne?http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/...
I wouldn't call myself a Tory supporter, I was brought up in a socialist household. I don't like a lot of the politicians of any party so I feel fairly distanced from both. On balance though the labour governments I've seen have spent more of other people's money with not particularly achieving much. As for the current tax credit saga, my daughter is a postie, when she goes back to work after taking her maternity leave, some of it totally unpaid, she will get no help whatsoever with a crèche. At £47 per day, but if she was unemployed she would get free crèche and be on the Flying start programme, available only for certain postcodes in our area. If someone is unemployed why do they need a crèche. They are available to look after their children all day.? Her partner works for the council and is on a manual workers wage so neither of them are highly paid. My daughter has a friend in Brighton on a student midwife grant, with 2 small children, whose partner works a very few hours at a supermarket and they have a better lifestyle than my daughter and her partner both working full time. The tax credit system is a joke
I thought the Tories had entirely closed down Flying Start/Sure Start?Is this a local effort for really depressed areas?
Will why are you surprised about Osborne's policies? It's a continuation of the Thatcherite drive to cream off the upper working class by offering council home ownership, share ownership etc and thereby creating a lumpenproletariat of those out of work (mass unemployment) and on benefits, their kids stuck in sink schools and so the cycle perpetuates of people on whose backs the economy is effectively boosted. Then they go to work cutting their benefits
Will wrote: "I thought the Tories had entirely closed down Flying Start/Sure Start?Is this a local effort for really depressed areas?"
It is Will, it's anew purpose built centre for children between 2 and 3 years old . My daughter mentioned it recently after going to a mum and baby group. There are some areas which are a bit rough but I wouldn't say the housing was substandard. They are all council owned houses and flats so shouldn't be in slum conditions.
Will wrote: "Any of our Tory supporters here want to comment on this? Geoff? Lynne?http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/..."
Unfortunately the browser here at the office doesn't support HTML5 very well (IE8) so will look forward to reading it when I get home.
Why do you think I'm a Tory supporter? I am a paid up member of a political party, but it's not the Conservative Party and, before you ask, it's not UKIP either.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "I'm surprised there's no comment here about the mess that Labour got themselves into yesterday. RMF, you must be as disappointed as me that The Sturgeon has ruled out another referendum. That mea..."
On the contrary, I'm happy she's keeping her powder dry and biding her time.
Labour are in a mess, and the Tories will soon be imploding over Europe. That's the opportune moment to strike.
Geoff, we might disagree on many things, but I'd never accuse you of stooping so low as to belong to UKIP.Perhaps one day you'll fess up as to your party?
Monster Raving Loony Party?either that or The SNP
He wears a colander on his head.
Marc wrote: "Monster Raving Loony Party?either that or The SNP"
What if he's a Lib Dem?
:)
Socialist Workers Party? No, probably not.
Will wrote: "Socialist Workers Party? No, probably not."Nailed it.
Will wrote: "The answer of course Jim, is a socialist society rather than a capitalist one...."
Had I ever seen a socialist society (by which I would assume state/workers ownership of the means of production etc) that could feed itself I'd think about it.
But in Eastern Europe socialism killed agriculture, and in Israel successful agriculture killed socialism
It the land isn't mine and the cows aren't mine, then be damned if I'm working twelve hour days, seven days a week to milk them appears to be the common attitude.
agriculture didn't work out too well in Cambodia & North Korea either
And the sparrows in Maoist China.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/1..."Another idiot journalist who talkes a serious issue and inists that the failed and ineffective US model of insured health care is the answer. Time you started buying a real newspaper, Geoff.
I think that the move to integrate social services with the NHS has a lot going for it. We've seen that in Barrow. A friend of mine is a carer working for the local authority.Moving a person from hospital back to home or into a nursing home is very badly handled, because it means that they're going to be funded from a different budget and the organisation holding that budget isn't in any hurry to take them on.
So the local hospital now has a team paid for out of NHS funds which go into the person's home, get it ready for them and then get the person moved in AND provide a care package for the until the local authority is willing to take over.
But to do this they're actually having to duplicate what the local authority should be doing.
I have no doubt there are other things that could be done as well.
I know people who've come to Barrow for day surgery and booked themselves into a hotel of similar, so their family can be with them and can accompany them into hospital, and so the person can have day surgery and not have to be admitted.
To an extend for people round here, 'Day surgery' has effectively 'privatised' part of the NHS. Going to Manchester for specialist treatment, you cannot rely on getting there and getting back in the day so you've got to book a hotel or something anyway. So the 'day surgery' has privatised hospital accommodation.
The accommodation changes happened gradually under the last labour government, nobody thinks them unreasonable. Up here we assume we'll have to travel 150 miles or more for certain treatments.
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/1..."Another idiot journalist who talkes a serious issue a..."
I disagree Will. The NHS is a mess and no one has done anything about it in government in 30 years. The problem is that no party in power wants to grasp the nettle and try and solve it.
People are dying unnecessarily. How many more will die before something gets done? We can't carry on like this, and just the comment you make is what makes it so politically dangerous.
That's why my OH was made redundant. He actually said to his chairman I wouldn't like to be you in the golf course when they find your hospital has shut. He was at the Kings Fund time and said the same in front of Tony Blair. His card was marked that day.
Anybody know the words to Men of Harlech, we are booked on the Tunnel Wednesday. Service is interrupted again today, will have to travel anyway hoping we can cross. Once the dogs have been treated and their passports stamped we have 100'hours to clear pet travel.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/1..."Another idiot journalist who talkes a se..."
Quite the reverse. I talk to a lot of people in the US, and unless they are very well off they view our state system with envy. Insured systems do not work. My friend jeremy (a teacher)has a back issue: after his first surgery, the Insurance company withdrew all future back related cover from him and raised his premiums. His family premium, for himself, his wife (a GP) and their 2 kids was a quarter of their combined income - and that EXCLUDED all issues relating to his back.
That's not a health care system, it is a joke. Although I cannot find the link, I've read that hospital debt is the primary US cause of individual bankruptcy. You want that for the UK? Seriously?
I agree that we need a grown up debate, but Insured systems cannot be part of the solution.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "If you didn't like the last one, you'll hate this one.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/..."
Yes. It's poorly argued, with no evidence and no real logic other than prejudice.
I went to a public school (The Grammar School, Manchester, if you want to know - it's no secret I'm privately educated) and I remain opposed to the system) which I do not believe helps people from 'working class backgrounds' at all. Far from helping class mobility and the maintenance of a cohesive, I believe it stifles it and entrenches division by celebrating the differences.
I also went to a grammar school, the catchment area was entirely working class. Some of my friends and schoolmates were exceptionally talented and have achieved a lot, in life and in work. I must have been extremely dim or dippy but I honestly didn't see any 'class' distinction. Academic ability yes but no snobbery whatsoever. We were there by selection though not the ability of parents to pay.
I was also private school educated, as I'm sure I've mentioned before here. The problem with comprehensives is that they always want to create equality. To achieve this you have to hold back the best performers. With the best will in the world you can only increase achievement so far, whereas you can always stunt the high performers.
do you still think that's the case though now Lynne? Given that Grammars of old have gone & parents fight tooth & nail & sham piety to get their kids into the better state schools
Marc wrote: "do you still think that's the case though now Lynne? Given that Grammars of old have gone & parents fight tooth & nail & sham piety to get their kids into the better state schools"Once again, Marc, this is a symptom of a broken system. Game Theory wins out.
It is immediately apparent that there is enormous need for grammar schools, which is not currently been met. Equality, is not equality, it is stunting of the more gifted.
I'm not arguing the case either way. I'm agnostic on the issue
I haven't any personal experience of today's schools only a teacher friend who has just finished. Our system in Nottingham at the time worked well, we had separate Boys and Girls high schools, (Ed Balls went there) they also had a few scholarship places. I was offered one but I saw at the interview my parents were overawed to say the least. I was happy to go to the coed grammar instead. There also were Bi-lateral secondary moderns for failed 11+ pupils. They had a grammar stream and pupils sat O levels, my husband was one and got better results than I did. He came as a 6th former to my school. As a 'funny' my daughter went to a grammar school and it went comprehensive in the 1980's,, which I could never understand. The anomalies I've seen where parents have to fight to get siblings in the same school are unbelievable frankly.
Again Geoff, I don't agree that comprehensives serve only to stunt back growth. Friends of mine at 'The comp' went on to achieve degrees and quality jobs (one childhood friend is a pharmacist for example) whilst the class difference in the public school between those from rich and poor backgrounds was exaggerated; and it was pretty clear from the off that the lower achievers would be cut adrift rather than (as in a comp) allowed to drop a set or two to a manageable level. one lad I was friendly with was effectively forced out by the teachers, others had to leave when their parents circumstances changed and they couldn't afford the fees
As you well know, Will, there will always be outliers that affect the average, and we all can list these exceptions, I'm sure. My direct experience was when my daughter visited a school, she was told she was too advanced and would have to wait for the others to catch up.
I'm sure there are schools where there is streaming to encourage the high achievers, but isn't that selection by the back door? A grammar school within a comprehensive?
As for the private schools, yes fees will always be a factor, what else would one expect? I never ecountered any snobbery despite being from a very working class background.
As I see it Geoff, streaming within the comprehensive school isn't selection by the back door but a way of keeping that door properly open.Al children develop at different speeds, boys more slowly that girls (now an increasing factor I believe). Internal streaming allows slow starters to still achieve the highest results rather than being de selected at an early age. The 11 plus remains a terribly divisive thing.
Life is a divisive thing, Will, be it 11 plus or work interview. That's life.I really don't see anything different in streaming, it is still divisive. "Internal streaming allows slow starters to still achieve the highest results is a fudge. If you de-select at 11 you have the opportunity to point them into a direction where they can learn other skills that will carry them through life, albeit none academic.
The 11 plus is divisive, that is it's purpose. It allows the assessment of capabilities that bring the best out of those that pass. Without these, you get what we have now, political and other elites selected on dynastic and cronyist crieria.
Those bi lateral schools were just that Geoff and I see nothing wrong there. Our school grammar school ad streams and sets for the core subjects within those streams. Don't all comprehensives have some form of streaming?
Yes, but the point I'm making is that it's still selection, however you dress it up.
Streaming within a single school allows slow starters to achieve more potential though than selection at age 11. They can catch up and get better grades, better sets - which a different school stops. The target should be to get all schools to deliver the quality of education achieved by the selected grammar schools, should it not?
message 2199:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Oct 19, 2015 07:17AM)
(new)
No, by selection at 11 plus, you move those who pass it to a different education system. What should happen is that those that fail the 11 plus get special attention to their requirements. There is no distraction at trying serve multiple requirements.High school education should improve as it is more focussed and so it was until grammar schools were abolished. Now it is a free-for-all, with exam quality tanking.
Most kids are inacapable of passing 1950s exams, even those who get the highest of A levels. This is so broken that colleges are having to put students through pre-degree classes to bring their English and mathematics skills up to an acceptable standard. Such is the result of the destruction of the grammar school and educational system in the UK.
My view is that standards are still very high. I saw the A level questions for my daughter's exams, and frankly I would not have liked to do that paper !The issue I see is in fact too much regulation of the teachers, stupid curriculae and focus on grades and testing to the exclusion of actual teaching, and that's something both parties have been guilty of.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
As it happens I agree entirely that the idea - brilliant, frankly and not cynical, that's just silly I'm afraid - has been perverted and exploiuted in a very unintended fashion by large employers. The solution is to enforce a proper living wage, not the pathetic sum osborne thinks people should live on. This would obviate the need for the system in all but the poorest families whom, as a rich society, we should be supporting. Osborne however prefers to penalise them.
Osborne's cynical and callous adjustments to the system - a typical tory approach - will drive another 200,000 families below the poverty level. Probably why he closed down the taking of such statistics don't you think?