George Osborne Gets Booed Handing Medals at the Paralympic Athletics Medal Ceremony

[ttosca]

The nation boos at the Tory scum:

Honestly, if you had experience of my social worker I think you would be shocked. I by no means think that all social workers are the same, I had a great one in previous county for example. But my experience of this county so far is that they are more interested in sticking to timescales than in providing appropriate services. I agree my statement was sweeping though but I am sick to the back teeth of them.

I've had very bad experiences with them as a child, as well as amazing ones. Trust me, nothing shocks me any more

I can't really comment as I'm not in your country, but I do understand the feeling, just thought it might help to know we're not all about getting the job done at the expense of the child/ren.

You will have more understanding than a lot of people though and understand the needs of the child v parent v service too. I think that makes hell of a difference.

Sadly it does seem some people go out of their way to get into certain professions when they clearly dislike children. (Another example being teaching.)

Really doesn't make sense does it? It's like all those horror stories you hear about what some evil people do to the elderly they're supposed to be caring for in homes. :(

Oh that's awful, yes :( there were two women charged last week after a family secretly filmed their mother with dementia and i thought how institutionalised is it when not one, but two people behave like that together. It's sickening

I tried to find the original article were I read this, but couldn't. Here is an article on a story I found particularly disturbing as the teacher wasn't even fired!!! It's about how a boy with Autism was abused by the aids and his teacher.

This article says she was 'later forced to resign from her position,' but it horrifies me she wasn't fired immediately.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/stuart-chaifetz-father-wire-son-records-teacher-abuse_n_1447330.html

Sorry, bit late in coming to thread (and that this is long) but YYY to Minx? post and others:

Some people have been disadvantaged in multiple ways throughout their own lives and genuinely struggle to cope and need time and support to change

This is very relevant. We mustn't forget those for whom the system has worked - the success stories which become the evidence on which all future good practice is based. (Which is what makes it so very hard to believe or understand why the DWP does not track or evidence the outcomes of those who leave the system to enter work ( Ttosca ?s post).)

Equally, as others are pointing out, we mustn't overlook those who have been systemically abused by the very people and services the state has provided to give support, or do a better job (in terms of parenting). In these cases the State has failed in its duty and the results are children and adults who are most vulnerable, since they are often incapacitated through a double whammy of trust issues. Both with their parents and society.

These issues manifest in ways not always easily discernible, and are often masked by other symptoms, such as alcoholism and addiction. Likely they are all too aware (and become victims) of misplaced stigma due to broad-scale ignorance/non-acceptance of the actual issues. These are people who might on the surface appear to lack determination, where others with differently disadvantaged backgrounds succeed.

It can be hard not to place judgement sometimes, from the outside, on the little information we have about peoples? lives as friends, neighbours and even relatives; but it is necessary if society is ever to be able to get through to those who eventually can and will change.

It is in everyone?s interests to tighten the systems to make them safe, well-resourced and properly accountable; be they welfare or state intervention. Both are the basic fundamentals of a civilised society and are equally important. In times of austerity we need to stop pointing the finger and cut back on luxuries, not basics. Invest only in growth, not exuberant lifestyles.

Many who are experiencing wealth and good fortune today are doing so, largely because of recent fortuitous times (homeowners and those who reaped dividends banking with high risk strategies in the last few decades before the crash particularly). Some might say benefitting from not-so-good policies for the state as a whole.

So I would like to think there might be other ways to reward higher income tax contributors today, in terms of acknowledgement and recognition perhaps, of their continued support to the society that helped to get/keep them where they are. Rather than in further monetary gain in the immediate future, until such times as society can show its appreciation financially again.

Perhaps in a similar vein, pity rather than resentment may be a more appropriate way in which to view the small minority who cheat the system, rather than risk penalising genuine claimants in a process to rid the cheats. People who cheat don't win. They lack capacity to live a fulfilling and meaningful life, with self-respect and public standing. There are more people who benefit than cheat.

These are the moral values of a civilised society, IMHO.

I agree Dontput although I don't understand the bit about "until such times as society can show its appreciation financially again" since the crash the higher rate tax payers have actually widened the gap and the inequality is greater than ever.

Going back to Sammy's point about higher rate tax payers contributing more "10% of earners pay 55%", mean the stats on income inequality make sense of this completely. "Now, the best off 10% receive 40% of total UK income" ref:classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

Should we be booing Osborne, well maybe booing is more polite than lynching, although most people found to be incapable of doing their job are sacked.Osborne should be sacked because UK plc is going down the pan. OECD predicts the economy will shrink by 0.7% next year.

The higher earners 1% of people pay 30% of the tax. Their upper tax and NI rate went form 41% to 52% and in fact it is more as they lost the single personal allowance so the effective tax rate is over 60%. I don't call that the rich not bearing their side of things. Upper rate stamp duty is now 7%. Not one penny want taken from the poor until the rich took these massive hits but that does not seem ever to get through to people. If I work hard most of this Saturday and Sunday as I shall so that over 60% of what I earn is handed back to the state to feed the poor etc that becomes almost not worth it as you keep so little of what is left.

As Dont said a bit of thanks woud be nice instead of thinking everyone is just resentful particularly for those of us who are full time working single mothers who don't have savings etc. People who might appear "rich" often aren't as rich as they seem although obviously have more than the real poor and even squeezed middle.

The thanks one is a really nice idea. Perhaps for each £20k people pay in tax a year they get certificates from the state and once they pay a certain amount an invitation to Downing St to thank them for all their hard work or reception paid on by HMRC to thank us for paying their salaries for another year or some kind of special vouchers in recognition. Instead we feel utterly villified at times, even branded fraudsters by the state for using gift aid to give money away to good causes.

Maybe a bit of mutual appreciation would help bridge the gap a little

A bit like secret millionaire, only not so secret!

I am actually a bit at the feelings of villification - of course it is going to make people resent paying taxes

MiniTheMinx thanks for your response to my post.

www.carers.org/key-facts-about-carers

Facts about carers. More women than men are carers. but the 42 % of men who are carers is a bit out of date now.

The 2001 Census shows that women are more likely to be carers than men. Across the UK there are 3,400,000 female carers (58% of carers) and 2,460,000 male carers (42%).
Women have a 50:50 chance of providing care by the time they are 59; compared with men who have the same chance by the time they are 75 years old. Women are more likely to give up work in order to care (Source: It could be you, Carers UK 2000).

Most carers (5.7 million) are aged over 18 and the peak age for caring is 50 to 59.

More than one in five people aged 50-59 (1.5 million across the UK) are providing some unpaid care. One in four women in this age group is providing some care compared with 18% of men. This compares with 6% of adults aged 18 to 34, 12.5% aged 35 to 44, and 11.5% aged 65 or over.
Caring varies between ethnic groups. Bangledeshi and Pakistani men and women are three times more likely to provide care compared with their white British counterparts (Source: Who cares wins, statistical analysis of the Census Carers UK, 2001).

Figures from the 2001 Census indicate that there are 174,995 young people under the age of 18 who provide care, 13,029 of these provide care for 50 hours or more per week. The vast majority (85%) of all children providing care are caring for 1 to 19 hours per week. This is a large category which masks some important issues. For example, there is a huge difference between providing a couple of hours support to a disabled brother or sister and a son or daughter providing the sole support for a lone parent with severe mental illness. The impact on the child could be very different.
Impacts of caring Financial

The financial costs of caring can be significant. Research by Carers UKiii found that 72% of carers were worse off financially as a result of becoming carers. The reasons cited for this include the additional costs of disability, giving up work to care, the inadequacy of disability benefits and the charges for services. Carers can face higher bills than the rest of the population (including extra heating, laundry and transport costs) and many do not get support from social services, meaning that they have to pay for care themselves. Carers UK?s most recent researchiv reveals that nearly two thirds are spending their own income or savings to pay for care for the person they look after. The same research also found carers reporting financial hardship in a number of areas. More than half (54%) were in debt as a result of caring. Three-quarters struggled to pay essential bills (74%) and could not afford repairs to their house (78%). Half of all carers are cutting back on food just to make ends meet (52%). 32% of those paying rent or a mortgage say they cannot afford to pay it.

Health
The impact of caring can be detrimental to the health of carers. Carers UK?s analysis of the 2001 Census findings, In poor healthv, found that those caring for 50 hours a week or more are twice as likely to be in poor health as those not caring (21% against 11%).
This difference is especially marked amongst younger people. In the 18-25 age group those providing 50 hours care or more per week are three times as likely to be in ?not good? health as people of that age group not providing care (8% against 2.5%). This backs up earlier research, including a 2002 study, which found that carers were over twice as likely to have mental health problems if they provided substantial care; 27% of those providing over 20 hours a week had mental health problems compared to 13% of those providing less than 20 hours of care.vi
Analysis of the Census also indicates that carers providing high levels of care are twice as likely to be ?permanently sick or disabled? as those not caring. Altogether 316,000 people in the UK who provide care describe themselves as ?permanently sick or disabled?, of these 124,900 care for 50 or more hours per week.
Those providing care over a long period of time are at particular risk of poor health and both mental and physical health are likely to deteriorate the longer the carer has been caring. Analysis of the British Household Panel Surveyvii has demonstrated that the health of carers is more likely to deteriorate over time than the health of non-carers and many of the detrimental changes can be attributed to the caring role. Research by Michael Hirstviii for the University of York indicates that the physical health of carers is more likely to decline after the first year of caring. The research also identifies spouse carers and mothers looking after a disabled child as being most at risk of psychological distress and the period immediately after caring ends as a period where ill health is likely to increase.
Other factors contributing to poor health amongst carers are low incomes and lack of breaks. Research by Carers UK found 62% worried about their finances and 53% believed this had an effect on their health.ix Other research has found that those not receiving a break were far more likely to suffer from mental health problems, 36% compared to 17% of those carers getting a break.x And many carers report that they are forced to ignore their own health because of a lack of alternative care and the absence of emergency planning. Research by Carers UK includes cases of carers discharging themselves from hospital because of an absence of alternative care.

The "value" of care provided by carers in the UK is £119bn a year versus an estimated benefit cheats amount of £3.2 bn

I'd always be worried about how normal economics would put a figure on such caring though...

I think this link has already been posted but it is always interesting how the govt loves to go on about benefits cheats but never compares them to say the level of money lost from say the banking crisis or the value of carers]]

Effective support for carers through respite and in other ways often means most will opt to work/study if they can, for a plethora of reasons; filling potential, sense of contribution and appreciation of the care received by a loved one, earning own money, to name but a few. Small/med size employers need to be better equipped to support carers.

Minx "until such times as society can show its appreciation financially again" means I am in favour of higher tax rates now for those who can survive without luxuries in order to protect those in need of benefits (majority I expect do so due to not-so-good policies I mentioned). I am not opposed to reducing tax rates in the future, once we are back on our feet again, but once (and only once) proper and effective welfare and intervention systems are in place, which I see as an investment in growth. Those who are able to contribute more towards this type of growth should rightly receive some form of acknowledgement, without which, resentment builds and is counter-productive.

That is before I have read your link, which I will do in time.

In any case our systems have to be progressive and move people (who are able) through at an achievable pace for them individually, not penalise those who can?t, or who take longer than others for justifiable reasons.

Not everyone can earn megabucks, which is usually only possible in the private sector in any case. I couldn?t. My skills are in a different area and I am compromised by my caring situation (for someone erm, shafted (no other word) by system failures spanning some 20 years). But I take my hat off to those who can and do.

Higher tax rates will not mean more tax revenue. Look at the July tax receipts - they are massively down because the upper rate is now 52% tax/NI (and more like 60%+ when you take account of total loss of single person allowance). So the more you put these taxes up the less money there is for the poor. Hollande in France is even backtracking on his proposed 75% new tax.

The thanks one is a really nice idea. Perhaps for each £20k people pay in tax a year they get certificates from the state and once they pay a certain amount an invitation to Downing St to thank them for all their hard work or reception paid on by HMRC to thank us for paying their salaries for another year or some kind of special vouchers in recognition. Instead we feel utterly villified at times, even branded fraudsters by the state for using gift aid to give money away to good causes.

Xenia you have got to be joking with this surely. You think what you do takes precedence over what MNers like 2oldtobeamum Glitterknicaz and Couthymow do. Really???!!!

As Dont said a bit of thanks woud be nice instead of thinking everyone is just resentful particularly for those of us who are full time working single mothers who don't have savings etc.

Xenia if it was a claimant saying this or someone on lower wages and/or tax credits youd be saying that they cant manage their money properly.

...Why should anyone be thanked for paying taxes? Eg: Following the law?

A better idea would be to issue certificates and Downing street invites to all the unpaid carers and thank them for their contribution to the economy and to society.

Thanks for the link sleep off to have a read.

Its weird to expect thanks for paying tax- as though paying more tax because you are paid more money makes you a better person doing more important, harder work.

High wages are your reward for you work - expecting thanks from the government for the tax you pay is a pretty repugnant form of self-importance. People on low incomes can only afford to pay less tax and it hurts too- and they don't expect gratitude!

As if high earners choose to be so so they can pay lots of tax out of altruism! They earn lots cos they want it, and pay tax cos they have to, nothing especially admirable about that.

TOSN- of course they do. After all, all somebody has to do is want it enough and they'll get a job in the city earning megabucks!

I'm not sure everybody would want an award for paying tax. Where would you display it? It's not polite to discuss your income in Britain - what if your colleague were paying more tax? Equally, what if you had forgotten to take advantage of some really obvious tax saving - wouldn't you feel a bit of a plum?

I?m not sure I was thinking along the lines of individual plaques and award ceremonies, more of a general appreciation of the equal importance of the different roles.

Is it really such a bizarre concept to acknowledge those who are not resentful at the prospect of paying significantly more in taxes, as well as those who contribute significantly in other ways? Because without either this country is stuffed?

I cannot actually comprehend what it must be like to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax, let alone millions. The thought that we are so dependent on such a relatively small number of people to do this, and then entertain the notion that all who do so would prefer to see people suffer real hardship and slow down growth, makes me want to roll over and give up.