Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

We need the 3 Cs! watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    That is a good point except that even capitalists view the welfare state as being immoral and not of their making. In many ways capitalism has assailed the principle of compassion, and the ruthless businessman and the sociopaths who preside in high offices have been anything but compassionate.
    You mean some- there are always those who hold extreme views!

    Helping the genuinely needy is morally right

    But people like Mike on the news were immoral. It's a question of where was social services? There have been stories of them taking children being taken wrongly from good parents
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    You mean some- there are always those who hold extreme views!

    Helping the genuinely needy is morally right

    But people like Mike on the news were immoral. It's a question of where was social services? There have been stories of them taking children being taken wrongly from good parents
    Helping the genuinely needy is morally right, yes, but what would be (or so I believe) superior to even that are preventative measures that try and prevent as many people as possible from becoming 'genuinely needy'. In some cases this will be impossible, but in others there are steps, it would seem, that can be taken to bring this about.

    For example: the Mike Philpott case: an extreme, certainly, but useful in that it creates debate. I read an excellent letter in The Times suggesting that cases like Philpott's would be prevented from occurring so regularly if child benefit was only claimable for the first two children. This, the writer said, would prevent people from having multiple children in order to claim excess benefits. It's not a perfect solution, but hopefully it's an illustrative example of the sort of thing I mean.

    I know that you also may well have meant 'genuinely needy' to mean the seriously or terminally ill, the disabled, and suchlike, and obviously I don't disagree there - but 'genuinely needy' is also a dynamic situation that can be entered into by those who were not so to begin with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Helping the genuinely needy is morally right, yes, but what would be (or so I believe) superior to even that are preventative measures that try and prevent as many people as possible from becoming 'genuinely needy'. In some cases this will be impossible, but in others there are steps, it would seem, that can be taken to bring this about.

    For example: the Mike Philpott case: an extreme, certainly, but useful in that it creates debate. I read an excellent letter in The Times suggesting that cases like Philpott's would be prevented from occurring so regularly if child benefit was only claimable for the first two children. This, the writer said, would prevent people from having multiple children in order to claim excess benefits. It's not a perfect solution, but hopefully it's an illustrative example of the sort of thing I mean.

    I know that you also may well have meant 'genuinely needy' to mean the seriously or terminally ill, the disabled, and suchlike, and obviously I don't disagree there - but 'genuinely needy' is also a dynamic situation that can be entered into by those who were not so to begin with.
    That's a good idea

    I would also include the unemployed-the ones who want work unlike Philpott- as 'genuinely needy'.

    I think maybe increasing the minimum wage would help lower the welfare bill too!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    That's a good idea

    I would also include the unemployed-the ones who want work unlike Philpott- as 'genuinely needy'.

    I think maybe increasing the minimum wage would help lower the welfare bill too!
    It's not perfect, and people more economically and philosophically knowledgable will no doubt be able to point out flaws in that idea, but I do think there are measures that can be taken of that sort to prevent neediness where possible.

    Similarly, whilst I don't know a huge amount about economics, wouldn't one of the problems with increasing minimum wage be inflation? If the minimum wage increases, then people will have more money, yes - but is that not correlated with a concomitant increase in the cost of goods that just create the problem all over again? After all, businesses and institutions that are not especially rich will have to find the money for increased wages from somewhere, and to me the obvious place to start would be increasing the cost of the goods or services provided by an employer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Do you know what the scariest thing is? Those policies are probably now a days more in line with Labour than the Tories...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    It's not perfect, and people more economically and philosophically knowledgable will no doubt be able to point out flaws in that idea, but I do think there are measures that can be taken of that sort to prevent neediness where possible.

    Similarly, whilst I don't know a huge amount about economics, wouldn't one of the problems with increasing minimum wage be inflation? If the minimum wage increases, then people will have more money, yes - but is that not correlated with a concomitant increase in the cost of goods that just create the problem all over again? After all, businesses and institutions that are not especially rich will have to find the money for increased wages from somewhere, and to me the obvious place to start would be increasing the cost of the goods or services provided by an employer.
    But the government could offset the effects by lowering VAT and employers NI contributions.
    I was talking a small amount- in line with RPI at least. Plus it would shrink the welfare bill slightly
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Do you know what the scariest thing is? Those policies are probably now a days more in line with Labour than the Tories...
    The irony of you saying that!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But the government could offset the effects by lowering VAT and employers NI contributions.
    I was talking a small amount- in line with RPI at least. Plus it would shrink the welfare bill slightly
    Yes, they certainly could, and I would like to see that happen - but of course the Conservatives would argue that it is more important to cut the deficit by raising more money via VAT and other contributions and taxes. Irrespective of their beliefs, I think that you're completely right - wage increases have to be in line with RPI, it seems to me to be wildly illogical to have it otherwise.

    Perhaps a higher minimum wage would also motivate the indolent to search more earnestly for jobs - any situation whereby one can earn more from welfare than from a minimum wage job is just preposterous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Yes, they certainly could, and I would like to see that happen - but of course the Conservatives would argue that it is more important to cut the deficit by raising more money via VAT and other contributions and taxes. Irrespective of their beliefs, I think that you're completely right - wage increases have to be in line with RPI, it seems to me to be wildly illogical to have it otherwise.

    Perhaps a higher minimum wage would also motivate the indolent to search more earnestly for jobs - any situation whereby one can earn more from welfare than from a minimum wage job is just preposterous.
    Exactly!
    I made a thread about the welfare point and public opinion agreed with me but I got a lot of abuse from some people!
    Some conservatives like Boris are sympathetic to the living wage

    Especially in light of Philpott's story the welfare system is in desperate need of reform
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Also I add that leaving the EU would be a wise move too.Some of my reasons:

    Saving £48 million + a day in funding it

    We are in trade deficit with the EU so it's in the EU's interest to maintain trade and a good relationship with the UK regardless of our membership of the EU. After all they have more to lose if they try to sanction us or something.

    Plus we have the WTO that would cover trade with them.

    We would regain control of many areas from Brussels : from Human rights to EU immigration to the size/shape of the cucumbers that can be sold*

    We need a fair system- no special treatment for EU immigrants
    After all the UK has more in common with the commonwealth than some parts of the EU!

    The EU has a major democratic deficit.

    *Yes the EU did have regulations about the shape/size of cucumbers that could be sold. Of course this led to (slightly) higher prices for consumers and more waste.
    Couldn't agree with you more, I don't have any rep left so I thought I would just make a quote and tell you that I would give you rep if I had any left.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Exactly!
    I made a thread about the welfare point and public opinion agreed with me but I got a lot of abuse from some people!
    Some conservatives like Boris are sympathetic to the living wage

    Especially in light of Philpott's story the welfare system is in desperate need of reform
    Upon what grounds did you get abuse? I don't quite understand why you would do.

    It is a little worrying that the Conservatives as a body aren't sympathetic to the living wage. I can see why they might desire to aid the economy by making cuts to welfare - but there is something rather worrying about a system or political philosophy that doesn't lend their unequivocal support for a sufficient minimum wage.

    Yes. It shouldn't be done 'because' of Philpott; to do so would be reactionary. However, Philpott is an illustrative example and his case should act as one of many catalysts for a more logical, intelligent welfare system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Upon what grounds did you get abuse? I don't quite understand why you would do.

    It is a little worrying that the Conservatives as a body aren't sympathetic to the living wage. I can see why they might desire to aid the economy by making cuts to welfare - but there is something rather worrying about a system or political philosophy that doesn't lend their unequivocal support for a sufficient minimum wage.

    Yes. It shouldn't be done 'because' of Philpott; to do so would be reactionary. However, Philpott is an illustrative example and his case should act as one of many catalysts for a more logical, intelligent welfare system.
    Some people even t that we should increase welfare spending!
    Someone even said we should have more benefit fraud!

    I worry that the modern day conservative party has abandoned some of the true ethos of being a' conservative '

    Especially with slimy leaders like heath and Cameron
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KayleighG)
    Couldn't agree with you more, I don't have any rep left so I thought I would just make a quote and tell you that I would give you rep if I had any left.
    Thanks, I appreciate the support!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Some people even t that we should increase welfare spending!
    Someone even said we should have more benefit fraud!

    I worry that the modern day conservative party has abandoned some of the true ethos of being a' conservative '

    Especially with slimy leaders like heath and Cameron
    Well, I don't agree there. I think a redistribution of welfare spending is necessary, but a redistribution in no way implies an increase. Who was it that seriously desired more benefit fraud? People greatly confuse me at times.

    New Historicism suggests that every critical practice ends up adopting some of the practices it opposes, and perhaps the same principle can be applied to politics - the inevitable spurning of one's ethos and principles?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Well, I don't agree there. I think a redistribution of welfare spending is necessary, but a redistribution in no way implies an increase. Who was it that seriously desired more benefit fraud? People greatly confuse me at times.

    New Historicism suggests that every critical practice ends up adopting some of the practices it opposes, and perhaps the same principle can be applied to politics - the inevitable spurning of one's ethos and principles?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2290229

    That was my thread that generated a lot of debate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    I'm totally at a loss here! What do you mean?
    I was just kidding about. The 4 C's is a method of pricing diamonds.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Rubbish idea. It will cost a huge amount to re-implement and waste money. Increasing the personal allowance is a better option because your increasing the threshold by which the poorest pay no tax at all.

    Maybe - I guess the less tax bands the less admin


    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Where is this evidence? How much would the alternative contracts cost? Do you really think the government departments have not bothered renegotiating contracts during the budget cuts in the last few years?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...contracts.html


    (Original post by tsnake23)
    This would cost HUGE amounts of money to implement. Any saving you get out of not giving certain payments to rich people would be easily cancelled out.
    It's not a bad idea- a lot of benefits are already means tested as welfare for pensioners is around 47% of the total spent on welfare- the savings will outweigh any costs

    (Original post by tsnake23)
    So effectively your saying give tax breaks for large corporations who hire loads of people and not for smaller companies?
    It could be for all new employes for say a 2 month period- it could be focused on companies( of all sizes) outside London if necessary

    (Original post by tsnake23)
    Redundancy payments already go to the employees. Why would it make sense for the company to give payments to the government who will effectively just forward it back to the employee again if they end up on JSA?
    it would act as a disincentive to sack workers.

    Also not all workers get a (significant) redundancy payment- think lower-paid people like the people who lost their jobs when woolworths, hmv ,etc closed down.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toothfairy123)
    I was just kidding about. The 4 C's is a method of pricing diamonds.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh OK!

    Thanks- I learnt something new then!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Raising the minimum wage is a socialist solution and as such something I disagree with. Like the NHS and state funded education I'd like to see the NMW abolished. I agree low wages are a problem but this should be tackled with lower costs, not higher wages which feed yet more costs into the system. If the state reduced taxation on petrol for example so you could purchase a litre for 50p instead of £1.50 (yes it really is taxed that much) it's the same as giving someone on £6p/h a £12p/h wage increase because they can now purchase 3x as much fuel with their hourly wage! This is the model I use but lefties don't trust it because it's too free market.
    But I worry that if there was no minimum wage - there might be some unscrupulous people who might pay workers as low as £3/hour - and considering how the job market is in some areas- there are people who would work for that little!

    Plus a lot of welfare is already given to the lowest paid - if the was no NMW you could see even more people in need of more welfare! Sadly the lower costs to businesses would not be fully passed on to consumers.

    Though i guess a lot of jobs going abroad could be brought back to the UK- such as those sweatshops and stuff

    (Original post by chefdave)

    If we lowered costs throughout the economy (especially housing) the poor would no longer be poor because they'd be able to afford stuff.
    Wouldn't that somewhat undermine the free market-
    after all I'm sure the petrol companies would love to absorb some of the profits if the government cut fuel duty significantly.
    I do support a fuel duty cut by the way.
    Plus a lot of petrol stations refuse to lower prices when there is a (small) fuel duty cut
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    No I'm suggesting the introduction of a true free market with limited government regulation, a massive tax cut on productivity, a land value tax, an end to 'too big to fail/jail' banking cartels and a new age of enlightenment and liberty where each individual is valued as his own sovereign being.
    Ok sound like thatcher part 2!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.