[Musty_Elbow]

(Original post by Indievertigo)
May I just point out mattbroon isn't a member of the Conservative party, so his use of "we" is obviously regal.

Edit:

I'd like to also make clear that this bill does not aim to unfairly penalise the unemployed, indeed I believe that JSA is an important benefit, one of the reasons that set us apart as a modern economy.

Nowhere in the post do I claim to be a member of the Conservative Party, and when I say "we", I am referring to TSR UKIP and its members.

[Musty_Elbow]

(Original post by Melancholy)
Unemployment benefit will cease to exist? Even if they can't find a job? There are many reasons for why structural unemployment exists, and they're not necessarily because of the individual involved. The idea that if you're unemployed then you must be lazy is a far outdated and Victorian one which lacks much weight against the economic reasoning for different types of unemployment. Some people are just born with less intelligence or practical skills (or the skills which don't suit the region), yet that doesn't mean they shouldn't be entitled to some decent standard of living which we all enjoy on this earth. Why should the value of one's work entitle you to more of the earth which previously had no owner? Some people are born with illnesses and disabilities which mean they find it more difficult to work. Some people just simply cannot find a job despite searching for one. Are you saying that societies should just leave them to die in the streets with no food, despite the fact we gladly own property under the self-pleasing statement of "we've worked harder for it". Not only is that not always true (have you ever lived in their conditions?), but nothing entitles you to absolute ownership of anything on the earth because we were all born into it with nothing. And whilst the concept of private property ownership is a useful one, it is not self-justified all the time. Think about it: who was the first person to selfishly declare, "This is mine, because I've "worked" for it"? Whoever it was, it was an unfair gesture when you analyse it; and there's absolutely no logical argument for how the premise reaches its conclusion. That went slightly off-topic, and I'm not sure how well I articulated my point; but it was an important one. So yeah, getting rid of unemployment benefits would be the immoral move in the wrong direction.

I was waiting patiently for the neo-communist comment, and at last it arrived.

To your point about the ill and the disabled, I aknowledge that is a good point, however, nowhere in my statement did I mention the removal of incapacity benefit. But instead i mentioned the removal of unemployment benefit. With the exception of the ill and elderly, NOBODY should receive reward for nothing. I shall give an example: there is a doctor who works 3 nights a week on call on top of his five day a week schedule. He works tirelessly in A&E to save patients lives. You have another man, who is sitting at home watching Sky tv, smoking 60 a day. He does not work, and sees it as his right to receive money from the government. Is it fair that money is taken directly from the doctor's salary who works tirelessly, and given to the lazy man who does nothing? No it is not.
The doctor has earned teh ownership of that money and it should be his CHOICE whether or not he should give it to the poorer in soceity. The government should not be forcing people to give their hard earned money to the poorer members in soceity. But instead I think it should be down to choice. When people are forced to do something, they resent it, and this breeds hate (in this case class warfare). The government should let teh higher-earning members of soceity choose whether they want to engage in charity or not. In the USA rather than forced welfare, the high social circles use charity events, and anyone who is well-off but does not contribute to charity is rejected from teh social circle. Surely that is a more effective way to help teh poor - to let it be on the wealthier members conscience, and leave it up to them, when and how they spend their money.

As for the rest of your post, your proposed anarchistic form of soceity could never work. Now that we have ownership, it is impossible to remove, and whether it is morally justifiable or not, man always wants to be better than his fellow man.

[Metrobeans]

I think I should say, as if it wasn't already obvious enough, that it is the intention of TSR Labour to oppose the Conservative stimulus plan.

[paperclip]

(Original post by mattbroon)
Nowhere in the post do I claim to be a member of the Conservative Party, and when I say "we", I am referring to TSR UKIP and its members.

Wouldn't cutting JSA end up costing more though, in council tax to clear the dead bodies off the streets?

[Melancholy]

(Original post by mattbroon)
I was waiting patiently for the neo-communist comment, and at last it arrived.

To your point about the ill and the disabled, I aknowledge that is a good point, however, nowhere in my statement did I mention the removal of incapacity benefit. But instead i mentioned the removal of unemployment benefit. With the exception of the ill and elderly, NOBODY should receive reward for nothing. I shall give an example: there is a doctor who works 3 nights a week on call on top of his five day a week schedule. He works tirelessly in A&E to save patients lives. You have another man, who is sitting at home watching Sky tv, smoking 60 a day. He does not work, and sees it as his right to receive money from the government. Is it fair that money is taken directly from the doctor's salary who works tirelessly, and given to the lazy man who does nothing? No it is not.
The doctor has earned teh ownership of that money and it should be his CHOICE whether or not he should give it to the poorer in soceity. The government should not be forcing people to give their hard earned money to the poorer members in soceity. But instead I think it should be down to choice. When people are forced to do something, they resent it, and this breeds hate (in this case class warfare). The government should let teh higher-earning members of soceity choose whether they want to engage in charity or not. In the USA rather than forced welfare, the high social circles use charity events, and anyone who is well-off but does not contribute to charity is rejected from teh social circle. Surely that is a more effective way to help teh poor - to let it be on the wealthier members conscience, and leave it up to them, when and how they spend their money.

As for the rest of your post, your proposed anarchistic form of soceity could never work. Now that we have ownership, it is impossible to remove, and whether it is morally justifiable or not, man always wants to be better than his fellow man.

I reject your description of me as a neo-communist, and would ask that you retract that description or fully justify yourself on that front (). I'm glad that you accept the need for the government to aid citizens such as the disabled. Furthermore, if you think that wages are meritocratic, then you're entirely wrong and clearly lack a fundamental understanding of how wages are determined. Footballers are not paid more because they work harder, but merely because of the economic conditions surrounding the demand for their skills and the supply of their skills. A doctor who works very hard should be rewarded and praised, and their salary is, I'll inform you, much higher that that paid out to those on JSA. You have a fundamental misconception of unemployment which is tragically outdated, and a doctor's wage in the NHS is not even set by an truly free market. Now I can accept that if you wanted to say it jokingly as a stereotypical Tory then that would be fine - but you're not, you seem to be deadly serious. An unemployed person should not be punished purely because businesses lack the capacity to employ them. They may work extremely hard to support their family at the lower end of the scale (is a fruit and veg seller really as underworked as an accountant, or is it because of their unique skills?), but then find themselves unemployed and stressed and not being able to find a job in their region that requires their skills. They are not receiving an award for nothing. It's a very small award to help them keep their family alive whilst they search for a job.

Whilst I accept that we must watch the incentive gap (such that benefits are kept low so that they have an incentive to find a job with a higher payout; the replacement ratio), I don't accept that governments and societies should just let live without necessities.

Your example is merely one example. I could equally use the predictable 'footballer' example in contrast to a guy working tirelessly to support his kids. So you haven't actually demonstrated that my sentiments were indeed wrong, nor why it would be economically desirable at this time to cut benefit handouts. You have an romanticised view of the world if you think that more effort means more pay, it's largely based on how skilled you are (and even that isn't a perfect correlation).

I justified why people don't have absolute ownership and thus why every government across the world is justified in distributing money to the poorest within their infrastructure. I'm also not sure that people do resent paying taxes to the extent that you say.

I refuse to leave people's livelihoods in the hands of charities which do not provide stable incomes and would not, I predict, give the money needed. Furthermore, I never proposed the removal of ownership. I'm proposing the current situation which we have today! That's not absolute ownership, but mere ownership. And it works.

[Indievertigo]

(Original post by mattbroon)
Nowhere in the post do I claim to be a member of the Conservative Party, and when I say "we", I am referring to TSR UKIP and its members.

TSR UKIP? Non-existent.

Anyway, this petty discussion has nothing to do with the bill in hand.

(Original post by Metrobeans)
I think I should say, as if it wasn't already obvious enough, that it is the intention of TSR Labour to oppose the Conservative stimulus plan.

Is it TSR Labour's intention to oppose every Conservative stimulus plan, or is there room for negotiation. I think we've already shown some willingness to amend this bill, as we feel doing nothing is not in the interests of the UK.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by Indievertigo)
TSR UKIP? Non-existent.

Anyway, this petty discussion has nothing to do with the bill in hand.




Is it TSR Labour's intention to oppose every Conservative stimulus plan, or is there room for negotiation. I think we've already shown some willingness to amend this bill, as we feel doing nothing is not in the interests of the UK.

With regards to the Town Centre Bill, my main reservations are that the tax cut is too specific. I think it's unfair to penalise out of town businesses in a bid to revitalise our town centres. I am aware of the aims behind the bill, but I think the government should have more important priorities. I would be comfortable with a generic tax cut for small businesses right now.

As for this bill, unless you turn it upside down, I don't see how we can support it.

[Indievertigo]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
With regards to the Town Centre Bill, my main reservations are that the tax cut is too specific. I think it's unfair to penalise out of town businesses in a bid to revitalise our town centres. I am aware of the aims behind the bill, but I think the government should have more important priorities. I would be comfortable with a generic tax cut for small businesses right now.

As for this bill, unless you turn it upside down, I don't see how we can support it.

As requested by TSR Labour, we shall consider cutting all income tax for those earning above 32k per year. Not making any promises though.

[daniel_williams]

I'm sending this bill to cessation as I've not yet received word of what to do with it.