To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

@TheRicht ,

Who wouldn’t?!

Capitalise your winnings, socialise your losses, and get rich.

Not all the firms were bailed out. People were made to repay..even though there are bail in rules that make it so the bond holders of the bank lose out.

My dc will be starting a degree apprenticeship soon at a major investment bank. They'll be earning lots.

@TheRicht ,

‘Not every firm was bailed out.
Lloyds fully repaid. RBS didn't fully repay and northern rock was nationalised. And people who worked for other institutions?’

Every firm was de facto bailed out. The whole system would have collapsed ex the bailout.

The BOE bought corporate bonds which would have been unsaleable otherwise, and have to be marked to close to zero. And the government effectively guaranteed the banks. In the real world, those guarantees would have cost a ton of money.

I’d have liked my mortgage (when I had I one) to be guaranteed by the government, rate would have been so much better.

Barclays wasn't as well.

@TheRicht ,

‘My dc will be starting a degree apprenticeship soon at a major investment bank. They'll be earning lots.’

Good for him! And I am not being sarcastic. Why not take advantage of opportunities when they are there.

But he is a benefit recipient (admittedly deferred from nearly two decades ago), so he (and you) shouldn’t look down on others who need also to be helped by the state.

Anyway it's been 18 years since 2008. Industry has moved on. Also mortgage rates massively fell.

I don't look down on those who are truly disabled. Need extra support for their costs or genuinely can't work or care for disabled kids.

But for those of sound body and bind, is to too much to ask to be responsible for themselves in the long run?

I'm not sure there's such a distinct binary as your post seems to suggest.

In terms of left-wing Tory stuff @ClarkeandNewman I was thinking particularly of the “fuck business” approach memorably espoused by Boris, Covid 19 lockdowns, health and social care levy, early net zero and spectacularly failing to get migration down (albeit while paying lip service to the public’s desire for a points-based system).

I don’t really understand what you mean by “different worlds” though. I was raised by a single mother on a council estate - absent father and a sink school. I saw a lot of benefit dependency that became more entrenched the more that “help” was available. I also got to grammar school (Tory policy) and went on to get a full university grant to live on (abolished by Labour) and tuition fees paid (before the Labour government determined otherwise). I’m grateful for that, and also that neoliberal economic policies (if you want to call them that) allowed me to buy DM a house.

COVID protection was pragmatic. Even a Reform or Restore government would have done the same. Net zero again is something that all governments will have to consider and ultimately will not be a party political issue. High levels of migration are not a left wing policy.

Is there anything specific that leads you to believe that the Tory administrations of 2010-24 were left wing? Particularly when it's widely accepted that politics during that period relied heavily on a right wing populist model and moved sharply to the right, not just in the Conservative party but also within Labour, post- Corbyn? I'm not necessarily talking about necessary responses to crises or policies that are often described as left wing without any real evidence to back that up (eg your point about migration), rather evidence based policy or direction of travel that could persuade us that the Overton window moved leftwards!

Simply because I referenced means testing to prove @ClarkeandNewman factually wrong about how benefits were calculated. Not because I wanted this thread to become about whether specific benefits should or shouldn't be means tested.

Out of interest, what wild controversial opinion do you think I've shared on this thread? I would love to know. Makes me feel positively edgy.

I'm not working myself up at all. I am bemused by posters like you. The poll is against you, you are persuading nobody and it's the same few posters agreeing with the ridiculous stuff you are posting. There is never any substance or statistics. Never anything other than vague ideology and sweeping statements.

I am very content that my point has been made on this thread and the vast majority of people agree with me.

It's quite incredible that you seem consistently unable to comprehend the argument being made and always want to reduce everything back to a debate about why disabled people should be entitled to non means tested benefits. That isn't what is being debated here. It's about how benefits levels are set and who decides whether someone is entities to benefits.

Yes, having children is mostly a choice and being disabled isn't, but that doesn't automatically mean that one should be means tested and one shouldn't be. It's a subjective and often political decision. Some disabled people aren't entitled to PIP whilst some parents can claim CB for their children. It's not even black and white in our current system. What if you choose to have a child and they are disabled? Should we means test because having the child was a choice or not means test because the disability wasn't chosen? It's all subjective. No doubt you will have your views that you insist are correct but there is no objective definitive 'right' answer to all of this like some are implying on this thread.

I can assure you it's not 'vague ideology" on my part, it comes from being at the sharp end of the growing resentment and hostility directed towards people who have the misfortune to be sick and didabled and trying to push back against that.

I don’t think you have, I think you’ve avoided doing so.

You seem to want to discuss benefits without discussing your views on welfare reform, means testing, or the ever increasing cost of disability - all of which you have acknowledged but haven’t said what you’d like the solutions to be/what you think is wrong with them.

There’s a lot of “I’m just saying..” and it seems very generalist for a person who obviously wanted to discuss benefits, because they made a whole thread about it.

I wanted to discuss specifically how I was sick of politicians like Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer talking about people paying their 'fair' share which always means tax rises for the same groups of people. Meanwhile we have people absolutely not paying their fair share or contributing anything at all and yet politicians are generally silent on them.

I don't need to discuss my views on welfare reform or how we need to tackle the spiralling cost of disability on this thread. This thread is first about politicians acknowledging there are very obvious and serious issues around lack of contribution from some within our society and this needs to be brought into the fairness conversation before we start insinuating that people who are already paying an awful lot aren't paying enough to cover their 'fair' share. Call a spade a spade. Some are paying a lot and need to pay more to cover those who can't but also those that won't contribute much at all but want to take an awful lot.

You have neither proved anything nor made any good points. You got annoyed when someone else said I'd made my points well, claimed everyone agreed with you (a statement I see you are, for some reason, reinforcing!) and essentially had a protracted temper tantrum ever since.

Nail on the head. Small businesses already employ the majority of the workforce. We'd eliminate unemployment at a stroke if even half of sole traders were "encouraged" to employ someone. Yet, politicians for the last few decades have been obsessed with "big" business and have continued to screw small businesses with taxes, bureaucracy, regulation and cost.

And let's not forget that 3 MILLION sole traders, freelancers and casual workers were excluded from the covid support schemes for purely random and spurious reasons, yet the biggest businesses was given "tailored" support on a case by case business. Funny how it was "too hard" to help sole traders, yet the govt had time to set up tailored packages for big businesses!

The poll speaks for itself but I know you hate facts and statistics. Better to focus on that one poster that said you had made your points well.

It's funny that you read my posts as being fueled by anger or annoyance when I am simply bemused by your replies and responses. You seem unable to address the substance of arguments and retreat back to vague ideology and a bizarre notion of intellectual superiority when challenged. Suggesting I am having a tantrum when my responses have been polite and measured if a little robust? Well that says more about you than it does me.

Well as long as you feel you've made pertinent points and expressed them well, that's all that matters I suppose.

No one is entitled to steal from me and live off my money.

.

I don’t think the poll holds much weight statistically.

This is such a terrible analogy. It's a thread I started and have been active on throughout , I have been quoted often by the poster who has been unbelievably goady.