The UK slides into the economic abyss...

Ok, we have a new goverment, Tory propped up with Liberals, theres a marriage made in hell.

Mr Cameron is now starting to add up the real numbers of the countries overdraft, and the fighting has already strated as the Unions start digging in, and people start defending their budgets.

Everyone appreciates we need to get this huge millstone round the countries neck payed off, and its going to involve alot of pain, but the scariest stat I picked up on was if we do nothing:

If no action was taken he said the UK would be paying a "staggering" £70bn a year interest on its debt by 2015.

BBC News - Cameron: 'Difficult decisions' on pay and benefits

Imagine letting a politician run your business... or even trying to balance your current account

__________________
cheers
Steve

Online Marketing | Free USA Business Directory | My Local Blog | Jobs Vitae

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban Copy & Paste monkeys - we're watching you!

What struck me when all the banks where going down the pan is how easily the "billion" was used, when I was younger that seemed to be a massive number, but now people always talk in billions when revering to cuts etc.

I also do not understand how we can give the banks say £20 billion at the swipe of a pen which represents around 11% of this debt and that's only to one bank!

When northern rock went done the crapper the bbc reported the following:

"Northern Rock has loans and other assets on its balance sheet of £113bn. The value of deposits placed with it by retail customers is £24bn."

So this means in asset value Northern Rock was 66% size of our national debt - something does not add up with this debt for me.

Someone pointed out to me many years ago - something is worth what someone will pay for it, and I think that whilst the debt is massive in everyday money sense, I think we need to focus on how much money we produce.

Like everything in life it comes down a lot to confidence.

__________________
PDF Software | K Rend | Plasterer London |Fast Drying Screeds

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

Obviously I've been reading a load of the proposals for the personal side of my life... they're absolutely full of misinformation and stupidity.

Here is a more detailed analysis, but for now, one really simple example. There's a benefit called Disability Living Allowance, or DLA. This is not an "out of work" benefit. It is simply the money that is supposed to help cover disability-related expenditure, from wheelchairs and incontinence pads and screen-reading software, to less obvious things like the extra cost of having milk delivered because you cannot get to the shop, or the higher water/power bills because it takes you twice as long to manage a shower.

Yet the Coalition's "State of the Nation" report not only wrongly describes it as an out of work benefit, they also complain about how people are "persistently" claiming it for five years or longer.

Well, yes. A disabled person tends to remain disabled until (a) they are cured or (b) they are dead. We continue to have the additional needs, therefore we continue to have the additional expenses, therefore we continue to claim the money that helps to cover (but rarely fully covers) those expenses. Speaking only for myself, I'm 28, still less than halfway through my life expectancy, and I've no intention of booking a one-way to Switzerland just yet.

__________________
Virtually Mary - Virtual Assistant Services
Follow VirtuallyMary on Twitter

Good!!

Now, in the spirit of this section of the forum, as it states above Ok, good old fashioned debate. Not for the faint hearted, but keep it non offensive, clean and tempers in check... I shall continue.

It's an interesting article and right to raise the concerns. However, it too chooses the statistics it uses to support it's view point. To be fair - the article does state...

We all know that statistics can be used to make a specific point and often the same statistic can be used to prove 2 different points depending on how it is used. I would assume most people would agree with the next two statements:-

Is it in the governments interest to make cuts that effect people with genuine claims? No.
Is it in the governments interest to make cuts that effect people with fraudulent claims? Yes.

The government needs to get a grips with the debt we're in otherwise it will just get worse and we don't want to be in a position to cutting benefits to those who need it most as the article states....

Like the Canadian approach BBC News - What can the UK learn from Canada's budget cuts? I believe that no section of spending should be ring-fenced though it seems that some areas are going to be. Some areas may not have to be hit so hard such as healthcare but to ring-fence is crazy as I bet there's plenty of money being wasted.

The article finishes to state, the report's treatment leads you to one conclusion only: that DLA is under threat.
Under threat as an allowance or to be cut? Yes, I do believe there is scope to reduce the expenditure on DLA. How to do it is another, yet challenging, question because we must not affect those that genuinely need it.

I presume that things have improved in reducing DLA fraud since 2007, but this Daily Telegraph article shows what a serious problem it is, stating, Criminals are estimated to defraud the DLA, which is intended to help the handicapped pay for care and remain mobile, of £1 billion a year - more than a third of all benefit fraud.

People with all sorts of disabilities could be affected not just those on DLA. People who deaf, blind etc may not be on DLA but could have services that could be cut and effect them. This must not happen and hopefully the coalition government will ensure that those that genuinely need these allowances/services are not affected.

To sum up, no area should be allowed to be ring-fenced. All areas of spending should be looked at and then hopefully we can get this country back out of debt without affecting those that have genuine needs.

Now remind me.... how much do you have to earn not to get Child Tax Credits - don't get me started

__________________
Web: mrb design
Twitter: mrbdesign

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

Economic meltdown, to euthanasia, now thats what I call a proper rant!!

For me, nothing short of total dismantling the welfare state and rebuilding fresh from the ashes will do.

We will heamorrage money as long as this outdated non means tested, handout culture continues. In the short term, there will be no doubt more expense, as a new system is designed, brought in and run in parallel, but long term can only be good news, especially as the population demographic gets older, with people living older, and the reality of a major increase in required resourses in 15 - 20 years time.

Heres my current doom day scenario, we will be virtually bankrupt by 2020, with welfare state collasping around 2025, anarchy by 2030 and a Chinese run colony by 2040

__________________
cheers
Steve

Online Marketing | Free USA Business Directory | My Local Blog | Jobs Vitae

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban Copy & Paste monkeys - we're watching you!

Right *rubs hands, flexes, cackles with glee*

Disagreed. It is absolutely in the government's interest to make cuts that affect genuine claims as well. It is in the government's interest to make whatever cuts it can get away with.

The convenient thing about cutting disability benefits is that often, the people affected don't have much of a voice. They and those who care for them are running on empty as it is - there is rarely the time, energy, money, or practical resources available to start mounting campaigns and appeals. We have already seen this happen within the social care system. Care is only made available to people with "severe" or "critical" needs. If someone presents with "moderate" needs then although their need is acknowledged, it is not met because the budgetary constraints do not allow for it and policy is that the most severely disabled are the priority. Which is fair enough from one angle... however from another, it means that the people who only need a very little amount of care to be able to participate in life (including holding down taxpaying jobs) get no care at all and are thus unable to participate.

I agree entirely that the government needs to "get a grip" on debt but it needs to be done from a properly informed viewpoint. Manifestos with such fundamental errors such as calling DLA an 'out of work' benefit can only do harm. I don't mind admitting that without my DLA, I would not have been able to manage paid employment when I was PAYE - I earned enough for a person to live off, but not enough to fund my disability-related necessities as well.

Regrettably it already is affecting those that genuinely need it. The mind and body are not separate - anyone who's felt miserable when they have a cold knows that, as well as anyone who has had the squits before a job interview! Stress levels in the disability community are rising fast and for many of us, particularly along the lines of heart conditions or gastrointestinal problems, that has a knock-on effect to our ability to manage our conditions. I'm sure I needn't labour the point on what it's doing to people with actual pre-existing mental health issues. There's no way to gauge the impact in statistical terms (no news stories reporting "the number of suicide notes citing government misinformation as a major factor is up 6%...") so I can't offer evidence beyond my personal feeling as someone affected. I'm sh!t scared.

As for fraud and error...

If you're VERY bored, then here's the DWP figures and estimates for 2008/09. DLA fraud and error clocks in at £200m, of which £50m is fraud, £70m is customer cockups (which you might expect when severely ill people having trouble with their conditions and not yet receiving support are filling out a 50+ page form) and £80m is "official error" (which you might expect as the majority of DWP employees could not find their backsides with both hands, a map and a pocket torch). Yes, it's high, but nothing like £1bn. Not even close.

In contrast, £16 billion goes unclaimed each year (Source: Citizens' Advice press release).

They should look at it, definitely, but they must draw their information from the real sources (like the DWP and HMRC figures used by the CAB) rather than "estimates" by people looking for a headline.

__________________
Virtually Mary - Virtual Assistant Services
Follow VirtuallyMary on Twitter

Yikes!

I see your point but to be a devils advocate, they are voted in by the people and if the people don't like it then they can change their votes. People do have a voice, relatives and friends also hear what the issues are and can vote too.

I agree it is needed. I guess it's a questions of whether the people who genuinely need it will be affected. As an extra point do you believe the benefit should be means tested? It may not be many and I have no idea but I'm sure there are some people who are well off and do not need the funds (likewise for child tax credits).

Thinking about it I think I would be too. Now how did you win me round

Though after all that I do like Steve's approach, nothing short of total dismantling the welfare state and rebuilding fresh from the ashes will do..... now yes, we've plenty of funds for that initiative.

__________________
Web: mrb design
Twitter: mrbdesign

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

What can I say, specialist subject!

Means testing is a tricky one.

The pragmatist in me acknowledges that we are in a financial quagmire, therefore a line must be drawn, and it doesn't make sense to throw money at millionaires.

However I would prefer it to be an individual means-test rather than the current more usual household one.

When one partner loses their earning potential and becomes financially dependent on the other, with little or no choice or chance of regaining financial independence, there is a lot of potential for abuse and power games. Even if these are successfully avoided, the dependent partner will likely feel guilty about asking for money for their individual needs and the non-dependent partner may sometimes feel quite grudging about giving it, especially when they already give so much in terms of covering the shared costs of living, providing practical care and support, and so on.

Having DLA paid directly to the disabled person to meet certain specified needs helps this.

For example in my case, I get the Mobility component, so if I need to get a taxi somewhere or pay for my wheelchair insurance, I don't need to go cap in hand to my partner asking for the money, or try to justify to him exactly why I think I need to go wherever I'm going. Nor do I have to examine the household finances to try and work out where the money will come from - there is a certain amount paid into my bank account each month explicitly to help me with mobility costs. When it's gone, it's gone, but I have the control to spend it in the best way for me.

Taking that away from me and expecting my partner to cover the cost just because he earns above minimum wage would mean that I would no longer have the power to decide if and when I leave the house. If we had a row, I could easily end up stranded! Having the autonomy and resources to go and visit a friend, post a letter, or access public services, is quite important. Like I said in my previous post, DLA by definition is not a short-term benefit. We've got to live like this.

__________________
Virtually Mary - Virtual Assistant Services
Follow VirtuallyMary on Twitter

Completley disagree, you've just painted a picture of Dickens England, and has nothing to do with disability.

This is the 21st century, times have moved on, working class weekly wage packets with the little ladies housekeeping is hopefully becoming a thing of the past.

Means testing needs to be done by household. Any couple that have kids could technically fall into your example, where typically the woman gives up a career or puts it on hold. Wealth is joint, marriage is a union. Looking after a partner goes without saying. There are things other than money that people bring into relationships, and most relationships are a 2 way thing. Your scenario sounds like a carer, not a partner in life.

Powergames, abuse, both mental or physical have no place in a relationship regardless of the cause. If a partner is using percived financial superiority as a stick to beat the other, then thats not a viable relationship and its doomed to failure.

I think looking around, times have moved on significantly. Men take a more active role in raising children, than say 40 years ago. Marriages and longterm realtionships are more equal in terms of responsibility, both financial and decision making. Society is different than it was in the 60's, and the 30's and 20's before that. A lot of things have changed for the better, the 21st century is a nicer more civilised place than the 20th, even if we have built up a culture of dependance.

But when it comes to policy, and drawing lines, the household is the eaisest and most logical unit to base assesment on.

There will always be people and circumstances that fall outside this, be it single parents, poor relationships or fraud, and this is where the policy makers need to get smart, without burying them and us in deeper and more expensive beaurocracy.

__________________
cheers
Steve

Online Marketing | Free USA Business Directory | My Local Blog | Jobs Vitae

Forum Rules FAQ's & Help

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban Copy & Paste monkeys - we're watching you!

I can't accept that. This is the 21st century and the things I describe might not fit with the popular ideals of what "should" be happening, but I am qualified to know what life I am living.

A couple of years ago I spent 9 months without DLA while waiting for the appeals process to grind through (thankfully it took about 9 seconds for the appeal panel to reinstate my award) and it was horrible. I was lucky, my partner never refused to hand over money I needed, but because he could have refused I felt very trapped and vulnerable. If we'd had a row, could I have afforded to argue with a person I was dependent on in so many ways? And it felt so demeaning and 'needy' to ask him for handouts, particularly if it was one of those months where money was tight. We did have an extremely hairy moment where we weren't sure if we could afford the costs of attending the appeal.

I'm not against support for kids, either, but it is a completely different ball game. For starters there are at least two people with equal responsibility for a child. We buy a buggy or a cot or a car seat for "our" child, joint responsibility, joint benefit. We buy a wheelchair for, well, me. It's never going to be "our" wheelchair. It's thousands of pounds from the household budget to benefit one person.

A couple who have kids, have chosen to have kids. It might have been a hard decision, it might have been an unplanned decision, but there is a choice involved at several stages:
- they chose to have sex, a well-documented effect of which is the conception of a child, no method of contraception 100% safe, etc.
- they were probably offered the choice of termination.
- they were probably made aware of the choice of adoption. I don't pretend either of these are easy choices or simple choices but they are choices.

If you really don't feel that you can cope with a child, you don't have to, and you have several months to make your decisions.
If you really don't feel that you can cope with lifelong disability, tough tootsies. It's often instantaneous and you have no say in the matter.

A couple with kids can also choose how best to manage it. They can choose how to share the responsibilities of childcare. They can talk to their bosses about part-time or flexible hours. They can weigh up the pros and cons of putting the career on hold and staying home with the baby against continuing to work and paying for childcare.

Conversely there is no option, when faced with disability, to decide which partner puts their career on hold (the impairment won't be going to school in five years!), or to share the symptoms equally between the two of you, or to hand over the impaired part of your mind or body to a creche and head off to work unencumbered.

I think maybe I don't entirely disagree with you. I agree that the scenario I described "sounds like a carer, not a partner in life." That's sort of my point. It's the personal independence that DLA affords me, that allows me to have relationships that are truly two-way rather than feeling like me just take, take, taking.

__________________
Virtually Mary - Virtual Assistant Services
Follow VirtuallyMary on Twitter