Brainless BBCer interviews London Man who witnessed riots

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

12 Aug 2011, 5:24 pm

91 wrote:
When one in three people need welfare during the boom times, you have a badly structured society.

How are you defining being on welfare? Am I on welfare? The federal government subsidizes my education with low-interest loans. Before that, the state and local governments funded my education entirely. The state provides innumerable services to me at no direct monetary cost.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

12 Aug 2011, 7:13 pm

Orwell wrote:
91 wrote:
When one in three people need welfare during the boom times, you have a badly structured society.

How are you defining being on welfare? Am I on welfare? The federal government subsidizes my education with low-interest loans. Before that, the state and local governments funded my education entirely. The state provides innumerable services to me at no direct monetary cost.


The figures are from the Department for Work and Pensions, as far as I can tell it includes incapacity benefits, unemployment, the housing benefit, the single parent pensions, the council tax benefit (which pays the council rates), the local housing allowance and income support, the state pensions, carers allowance, constant attendance allowance, the disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance, the mobility supplement and the income related employment support allowance. The full article published by Civitas is available on the guardian website.

I take your point though. In the UK student support is related to income, so welfare and student income are grouped together.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

12 Aug 2011, 11:57 pm

91 wrote:
The figures are from the Department for Work and Pensions, as far as I can tell it includes incapacity benefits, unemployment, the housing benefit, the single parent pensions, the council tax benefit (which pays the council rates), the local housing allowance and income support, the state pensions, carers allowance, constant attendance allowance, the disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance, the mobility supplement and the income related employment support allowance. The full article published by Civitas is available on the guardian website.

I take your point though. In the UK student support is related to income, so welfare and student income are grouped together.

State pensions- that definitely does not sound like what would traditionally be defined as "welfare" to me. Several of the other things sound like stuff the US probably handles as tax credits of various forms. Certainly tax breaks are not usually regarded as welfare.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Aug 2011, 12:17 am

Orwell wrote:
State pensions- that definitely does not sound like what would traditionally be defined as "welfare" to me. Several of the other things sound like stuff the US probably handles as tax credits of various forms. Certainly tax breaks are not usually regarded as welfare.


It is important to understand that the British Tax Credit system is not a tax cut. It is not related to the claimants tax bill. It is payed out in installments (monthly or weekly), based on how much the person earned the previous year. Tax credits have been a major part of the British welfare system since 2003. They are means tested and aimed at people with low incomes.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

13 Aug 2011, 12:21 am

91 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
State pensions- that definitely does not sound like what would traditionally be defined as "welfare" to me. Several of the other things sound like stuff the US probably handles as tax credits of various forms. Certainly tax breaks are not usually regarded as welfare.


It is important to understand that the British Tax Credit system is not a tax cut. It is not related to the claimants tax bill. It is payed out in installments (monthly or weekly), based on how much the person earned the previous year. Tax credits have been a major part of the British welfare system since 2003. They are means tested and aimed at people with low incomes.

In effect, it is not different from a tax credit. At one point in the Bush administration, if I recall correctly, a tax cut was administered by having the government mail out checks.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Aug 2011, 12:42 am

Orwell wrote:
In effect, it is not different from a tax credit. At one point in the Bush administration, if I recall correctly, a tax cut was administered by having the government mail out checks.


Are you trying to be tricky with terminology or do you have a point? Are you contending that the British Tax Credit system should not be considered welfare? Remember it comes under the Welfare Reform Bill, I also suggest you check out the Department of Work and Pensions 21st Century Welfare Consultations set up to reform benefits and tax credits. You have so far argued that student welfare is necessary and I certainly agree; as I think a good deal of welfare is. The British Tax Credit system is a welfare payment, poorly named and based off of the yearly income and handed out at regular intervals and is designed to support job seekers.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

13 Aug 2011, 12:47 am

91 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
In effect, it is not different from a tax credit. At one point in the Bush administration, if I recall correctly, a tax cut was administered by having the government mail out checks.


Are you trying to be tricky with terminology or do you have a point? Are you contending that the British Tax Credit system should not be considered welfare? Remember it comes under the Welfare Reform Bill, I also suggest you check out the Department of Work and Pensions 21st Century Welfare Consultations set up to reform benefits and tax credits. You have so far argued that student welfare is necessary and I certainly agree; as I think a good deal of welfare is. The British Tax Credit system is a welfare payment, poorly named and based off of the yearly income and handed out at regular intervals and is designed to support job seekers.

I just don't think what is being termed "welfare" is necessarily matching the mental associations people have with that word.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Aug 2011, 1:09 am

Orwell wrote:
I just don't think what is being termed "welfare" is necessarily matching the mental associations people have with that word.


Congratulations, you have discovered the interesting world of spin doctoring.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

13 Aug 2011, 2:07 am

91 wrote:
Firstly, let me clarify, are you saying that the UK is not overly dependent on welfare? It seems to me that you are being quite shady in what it is you yourself are claiming.

I am also not quite sure why you want to attack my post. It was not put forward in opposition to your own and you don't seem to have a fantastic grasp of what I am saying.


Because it puts forward a narrative I consider wrong - that we're seeing ther effects of the "excesses" of the British welfare state and a return "back to the basics" will fix the problem.

91 wrote:

I do not think that counts as a policy, nor am I necessarily in favor of it. I simply stated that when the money runs out, so do the options. If the state cannot afford the levels of welfare, then simply, they cannot be afforded. I certainly hope that there is an alternative to cuts, I just don't really see them.


There's two options I see.

  • Crackdown on tax evading corporations and start taxing the wealthy (the Uncut Movement's strategy) and use the funds to diretly hire thousands of jobless Britons for public works.
  • Print money and use it to hire jobless Britons for public works (shouldn't be that inflationary given the underutilized capacity).

91 wrote:
Image

I like this graph, because it shows what I am talking about. In 2007, one in three British households was dependent on state benefits for at least half of its income (in the 1960's the figure was around 5%). On your graph, unemployment was low but benefit dependence was still very high. This represents a massive problem for the UK, one that could not be hidden forever by maintaining the huge levels of government support and one that cannot be resolved by throwing more money at the situation:

"during the Blair years the strategy of big spending on health, education and welfare was tested to destruction.

"It has not produced the expected improvements in health and education, and benefit expenditure has created not a more empowered people but deeper welfare dependency."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/ ... n.politics


Also from the article

Quote:
The report, in the current issue of Civitas Review, states that although specific figures were not compiled until five years ago by the DWP, the level of households dependent on benefits was as low as 5% in the 1960s.

....

"The majority of the people referred to in the report are pensioners, most of whom have contributed towards their retirement throughout their working lives.

"Of the remaining households, all are on very low incomes and many are lone parents.

"These groups face greatly improved work incentives compared to 1997, and the fact is that that there are now two and a half million more people in work than there were in 1997."


The lower dependence on benefits, if "benefit dependence" is largely driven by an aging population (THAT PAID INTO THE PENSION SYSTEM), isn't surprising (less people had paid into the recently formed pension system, less people were eligible for pension benefits from that said system).

Also, given that full employment was a greater priority of governments than inflation control in the early post-war years may also explain less low-income households seeking benefits.

91 wrote:
I am not claiming that welfare dependence is going up. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Rather that it was unaffordably high to begin with. When one in three people need welfare during the boom times, you have a badly structured society.


Or a society with a lot of old people who were young and just starting to work at the beginning of the basic state pension system.

91 wrote:
As a general rule I support deficit spending in the short term. I am not saying the Conservatives have the right answer to this problem, in fact I don't think they do. Rather, as I stated in my last post, I would prefer to target inter-generational welfare dependence with large amounts of mutual obligation.


New Labour's tax credit system was based on the ideology of "mutual obligation" or tying assistance with incentives to work.

91 wrote:
The Tories however think that their economy has a better chance of recovery is people have confidence in their fiscal responsibility, I have some sympathy for this position.


I think investors will have little confidence in a country with persistently high unemployment, even if the government's running annual budget surpuses (and I really doubt that'd happen, a weak economy automatically hikes the deficit).

91 wrote:
No one is actually advocating this, not even the Tories. The Conservative Party is capping benefits at around the amount of a job. The British cap on benefits is still £26,000 (around 42k US) per year, around £500 per week. To the average US voter, this much welfare is astonishingly high (even given the cost of living difference).


I assume you're including basic state pensions in this, which really aren't "welfare" in the sense of a means tested program given to people who are unemployed just for the shake of survival so much as a program they paid into with the understanding that they'd be getting payments past a certain age. In that case, I'd be quite ambivalent on the cap.

91 wrote:
I think we can both agree that a cap is necessary, though we might differ on where to put it. If you remain against a cap on welfare benefits remember that last year there were 10 families in the UK receiving more than £1 Million per year in housing benefits alone.


Source and context, please.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

13 Aug 2011, 2:27 am

Orwell, Canada's Conservative Party has made prodigious usage of tax credits. While they're less effective at relieving the stress for various families than directly providing public services and complicate up the tax code, they're good at "eating away" traditional functions of the state, namely directly administering various programs.

91 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
In effect, it is not different from a tax credit. At one point in the Bush administration, if I recall correctly, a tax cut was administered by having the government mail out checks.


Are you trying to be tricky with terminology or do you have a point?


Uh, it's more you who is trying to be tricky with terminology. You're using the instance of a state pension driven increase in social program spending and the mailing out of conditional tax credits as evidence that there's a hereditary, blank-cheque no-strings attached, welfare mentality that's producing a culture prone to criminality.

British tax credits seem conditional on either being working poor (in which case, providing a tax credit incentivizes said person to be working poor rather than jobless, purely on assitance, poor) or having children. While people can abuse the latter, over all the system (especially the tax credit for working poor people) doesn't seem indicative of a "lazy, idleness while sucking off the state - I don't need a job", integenerational dependence problem you're characterizing the London riots as springing from. Conditional tax credits are not unconditional handouts.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start ... redits.htm

Regardless, the idea that cutting benefits or tying them to "mutual obligation" (whatever the hell that would mean, especially since the Working Tax Credit still counts as a welfare-dependence style "handout" to you) will solve the sociological problems is unreasonable. There will always be the jobless in an economy where monetary policy is based on NAIRU, whether the state, the Church, or family provides for them is of little difference.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

13 Aug 2011, 5:09 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
that we're seeing ther effects of the "excesses" of the British welfare state and a return "back to the basics" will fix the problem.


I agree, I am not sure the Tories do though.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Crackdown on tax evading corporations and start taxing the wealthy (the Uncut Movement's strategy) and use the funds to diretly hire thousands of jobless Britons for public works.
Print money and use it to hire jobless Britons for public works (shouldn't be that inflationary given the underutilized capacity).


Risky move, since I am not an economist I cannot evaluate it.

Master_Pedant wrote:
The lower dependence on benefits, if "benefit dependence" is largely driven by an aging population


I think cuts to welfare in the UK are necessary. It does not follow that I think the vast majority of people on welfare in the UK are not legitimate customers whose needs ought to be met. Orwell pointed to student support and I certainly do not think that this ought to go. Neither do I think that aged pensioners ought to have their benefits stopped. I am most likely in favor of the larger part of the UK welfare state. What I take issue with is that it has one of the highest levels of welfare dependence, an unaffordably high level and an unnecessarily high level of welfare dependence. It simply does not follow that because I state this, that it is fine to attempt to paint me as someone who is against welfare. Quite a shameless tactic on your part.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Or a society with a lot of old people who were young and just starting to work at the beginning of the basic state pension system.


The aging population cannot account for all of the increase... are you seriously claiming that it ought to?

Master_Pedant wrote:
New Labour's tax credit system was based on the ideology of "mutual obligation" or tying assistance with incentives to work.


Once again you seem to not recognize any difference in degree. The tax credit system often paid more money than a job. Further, it was paid out on how much you earned the year before, if you earned more the next year, you had to pay back the difference; hardly an incentivised system.

Master_Pedant wrote:
Source and context, please.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... douts.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eveal.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -home.html

Master_Pedant wrote:
hereditary, blank-cheque no-strings attached, welfare mentality that's producing a culture prone to criminality


Let me ask you the opposite. Do you think that they UK does not pay out too much in benefits? Or that welfare dependence cannot be linked to criminality?


From Iain Duncan Smith:

"A system that was originally designed to help support the poorest in society is now trapping them in the very condition it was supposed to alleviate. Instead of helping, a deeply unfair benefits system too often writes people off. The proportion of people parked on inactive benefits has almost tripled in the past 30 years to 41% of the inactive working age population. That is a tragedy. We must be here to help people improve their lives – not just park them on long-term benefits.

"We must not underestimate the challenge ahead. One of the biggest problems is that for too many people work simply does not pay. For some people, the move from welfare into work means they face losing more than 95 pence for every additional £1 they earn. As a result, the poor are being taxed at an effective tax rate that far exceeds the wealthy. We have in effect taken away the reward and left people with the risk. That must and will change.

Evidence of the scale of the challenge is set out in a report published today by the Government. State of the Nation: Poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency in the UK highlights some of the key problems facing the country including:

New analysis showing that 1.4 million people in the UK have been on an out-of-work benefit or nine or more of the last 10 years;

Income inequality in the UK is now at its highest level since comparable statistics began in 1961;

Social mobility in Britain is worse than in the USA, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Finland and Denmark;

A higher proportion of children grow up in workless households in the UK than in any other EU country.

A new Cabinet Committee will also be set up, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith with cabinet colleagues from across Government, including the Treasury, Home Office, Health and Communities and Local Government, to tackle the underlying causes of deep-rooted poverty in Britain.

From me:
Any sane response to these figures is going to require cuts to some people's welfare. If you think otherwise you are welcome to try and convince me of it.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,196
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Aug 2011, 6:04 am

Gotta wonder when American cities are going to go up in flames.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 805
Location: UK

29 Aug 2011, 2:53 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Honestly, it's amazing how dense or blind the media has been to the structural factors leading up to the riot. I mean, I know the Winnipeg Police Force has quite a few blackmarks on it's record (notably the J.J. Harper fiasco), but this pales in comparison to the London Police. Honestly, more evidence that race relations is 23 years behind that of Canada in London.


Lol, it's always White racism that's to blame, isn't it. As if the British police have never shot at a White person before.
Since you obviously know so much about policing in London, I wonder if you've ever heard of Harry Stanley? He was shot by the police in London in 1999. It later turned out that the object he was carrying was not a gun, as the police had thought, but a table leg. Oddly enough, his death did not then provoke three days of rioting.

By the way, perhaps the following reporter is politically correct enough for your liking:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyzbZrUdfEg[/youtube]



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 805
Location: UK

29 Aug 2011, 4:36 pm

Here's an interviewer treating Darcus Howe with the respect he deserves. :)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vou_Ani-lKE[/youtube]



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

29 Aug 2011, 11:26 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Because it puts forward a narrative I consider wrong - that we're seeing their effects of the "excesses" of the British welfare state and a return "back to the basics" will fix the problem.

I can't even find figures for the allowances of all the services and subsidies available. A standard American SSI or welfare check for a single individual is only worth about 50% more than just the British housing benefit for a single individual. That doesn't include food, transportation, clothing, kids, I can't even remember the whole list. It seems to be worth at least twice the maximum value of services available to an individual in California (which is higher than the rest of the nation) and that doesn't even include trying to compare healthcare services. The "poor oppressed minorities fighting their oppressors" have it far better than their American or even Canadian counterparts, and better than anywhere else for that matter. Since many of them are immigrants, perhaps they need to be made to reflect on what services they would have been given back home under a system of sharia law or under the rule of the local warlord or witch-doctor. The government seems to give them more than enough money for designer clothes, real bling-bling, Droids, Blackberries and iPhones that they use for malicious activities, when they rioted they didn't seem interested in bread and oranges and they seemed well-fed. Perhaps if there were markets with meat and produce stands picked clean rather than electronics stores with laptop and flat screen TV shelves picked clean, I might have been more sympathetic. They seem to have lots of time on their hands, so perhaps their benefits need to be made more basic and if they want more money, work crews can be made available for them. Those cracks in the pavement aren't going to patch themselves.

It will probably beyond my why the British government let in a flood of people from the third world that have nothing to offer the economy. It's like the government was begging them "Please, help us create crime waves and a level of government spending that will bankrupt us! We can't do it without you! We don't like having stability! Can you please help us?". So now, they are going to have to look at going back to the basics for restoring public order. Those communities will need to get used to armed gang members getting shot, getting their asses kicked if they attack someone unprovoked, give the police plenty of bean bags, rubber bullets (and keep real ones handy), and let them get their batting practice in if the "poor oppressed minorities" ever try to burn the place down again! If I was the Home Secretary, there would have been SAS troops in London PD uniforms if there was any legal loophole that allowed me to do so!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud