Tories are considering reducing ESA disability benefit by 30% Watch

Poll: Should disabled people bare more austerity?
Yes (13)
30.23%
No (30)
69.77%
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I can. As you're always out and take worst case scenarios
As I said to you once already, worst-case scenarios are what most need to be covered.

I'm sorry that it costs you a couple of hundred quid extra a year, but it is essential that the worst-case scenarios be covered, even if it is well past the point of diminishing returns. It has to be done, because the alternative is penury, spiralling debt, misery, mental illness and starvation for the most vulnerable.

And you're obviously not the type to pay £223 a year, or 61p a day, to them voluntarily, so it has to be taken from you.

Oh and by the way it's not like the government will be refunding you the money after it's crushed the poor. In fact, you'll get poorer because of it, because of all the capital that will have been sucked up out of the economy which would otherwise have gone to the poor and been circulated in the real economy.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
(Original post by scrotgrot)
As I said to you once already, worst-case scenarios are what most need to be covered.

I'm sorry that it costs you a couple of hundred quid extra a year, but it is essential that the worst-case scenarios be covered, even if it is well past the point of diminishing returns. It has to be done, because the alternative is penury, spiralling debt, misery, mental illness and starvation for the most vulnerable.

And you're obviously not the type to pay £223 a year, or 61p a day, to them voluntarily, so it has to be taken from you.

Oh and by the way it's not like the government will be refunding you the money after it's crushed the poor. In fact, you'll get poorer because of it, because of all the capital that will have been sucked up out of the economy which would otherwise have gone to the poor and been circulated in the real economy.
Worst cases so need to be covered and are covered. The flaw in the system though is to find everything at worst case scenario level means additional and unnecessary cost.

I could have a hale art attack at any time for example of a worst case scenario. But I don't go around all of the time with a paramedic in toe.

Using wurst case scenarios as justification normally indicates using the most vulnerable for personal gain. The majority don't need worst case scenario to get by. So you've just given them additional funding.

youre right that I'm unlikely to pay voluntarily, a so are you. It's always easier for somebody who doesn't pay in to spend other people's money.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Worst cases so need to be covered and are covered. The flaw in the system though is to find everything at worst case scenario level means additional and unnecessary cost.

I could have a hale art attack at any time for example of a worst case scenario. But I don't go around all of the time with a paramedic in toe.
That's very ironic, because in fact you do go around all the time with a paramedic, if not in tow, then on call. He is an NHS paramedic, funded by yourself and your fellow citizens so that you don't have to search for your bank statements or try to remember your credit card PIN, or indeed pay at all for the privilege of having your life saved, while you're busy having a heart attack.

Using wurst case scenarios as justification normally indicates using the most vulnerable for personal gain. The majority don't need worst case scenario to get by. So you've just given them additional funding.
Yes we have. The huge sum of 223 quid. I don't care if I'm overpaying or giving some people more than they need as long as it helps the most vulnerable.

youre right that I'm unlikely to pay voluntarily, a so are you. It's always easier for somebody who doesn't pay in to spend other people's money.
That's a total non-sequitur for starters. If you wouldn't pay voluntarily, that strengthens the argument for a robust tax system. Oh, and most people on benefits are in work, so they certainly are paying in - and the vast majority of the unemployed or incapacitated have paid in during previous periods of employment. Even those who haven't yet paid in are highly likely to do so in the future - unless, of course, they starve, freeze, are driven insane or kill themselves due to benefit reforms which are as costly as they are cruel.

Not that contributions should ever be a factor in extending state aid to the needy.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#84
(Original post by Observatory)
I wouldn't be surprised if, taken on its own, data entry paid more than being a Haskell programmer.
Haskell programmer with Maths Degree earns 160,000 per anum. Dont think so!

High frequency trading ftw!
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
Haskell programmer with Maths Degree earns 160,000 per anum. Dont think so!

High frequency trading ftw!
My impression was that C++ dominates almost all banking applications. Of course there are always exceptions.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Why not get angry at where the real money is being stolen from you: that is, your employer stealing your labour.
Only when everyone gets a citizen's income by default, as neo-liberal economists have always prescribed, will any worker receive a fair wage for their labour.[/QUOTE]

If somebody's only skills are breathing- why should I pay them generously for their skills?

How come Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers never have to whinge about their pay?

Clue: qualifications
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by billydisco)
You sound like an idiot who thinks people who have no valuable qualifications and skills should be paid more than they are worth.

If somebody's only skills are breathing- why should I pay them generously for their skills?

How come Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers never have to whinge about their pay?

Clue: qualifications
People should be paid for breathing because that allows them to exercise their basic human rights in a broadly market-driven economy. People should most assuredly NOT be paid for their capacity to work; it is immoral to incentivise people to work for the elite's profit.

People should also be paid for breathing because it circulates money in the real economy rather than allowing it to be sucked up into some lazy rich rentier's illiquid investments and offshore bank accounts. This is why austerity doesn't work.

Most qualifications are intrinsically worthless, devalued or simply a barrier to entry. The qualification routes into the professions are mainly there to shore up wages within those professions by artificially restricting the supply of workers.

You do realise a citizen's income is a flat rate for everyone, don't you, so doctors, lawyers (who are not in fact well paid) and engineers would get it too. To make the idea of a citizen's income more palatable to the likes of you, it's often called a negative income tax: this was what Friedman called it.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by Observatory)
My impression was that C++ dominates almost all banking applications. Of course there are always exceptions.
I can write 5 times faster in Haskell than C++.

Haskell is a programming language written by clever people for clever people. Haskell is just a way for a programmer to maximize efficiency.

C is still a good language. I am seeing a change to C# though in a lot of job demands. But I prefer Java over C#.

Your like this.

0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by billydisco)

How come Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers never have to whinge about their pay?

Clue: qualifications
Lawyers have been complaining about pay for a while now...
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
Yay, let's make the lives of the most vulnerable in society even more miserable, putting all of the blame on the minority of poor people who cheat the system whilst completely ignoring the swathes of corporations, millionaires and billionaires who squander billions more on tax avoidance schemes. Why put the blame on the wealthy when we can crack down on the poor and vulnerable instead? Got to love the Tories.
1
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by scrotgrot)
People should be paid for breathing because that allows them to exercise their basic human rights in a broadly market-driven economy. People should most assuredly NOT be paid for their capacity to work; it is immoral to incentivise people to work for the elite's profit.

People should also be paid for breathing because it circulates money in the real economy rather than allowing it to be sucked up into some lazy rich rentier's illiquid investments and offshore bank accounts. This is why austerity doesn't work.

Most qualifications are intrinsically worthless, devalued or simply a barrier to entry. The qualification routes into the professions are mainly there to shore up wages within those professions by artificially restricting the supply of workers.

You do realise a citizen's income is a flat rate for everyone, don't you, so doctors, lawyers (who are not in fact well paid) and engineers would get it too. To make the idea of a citizen's income more palatable to the likes of you, it's often called a negative income tax: this was what Friedman called it.
Do you even realise the **** you come out with?

So you think civil engineers who build buildings don't actually need qualifications? They dont need to actually know what they are doing to stick a 110 floor structure up? Any old idiot can do that job?

You sound like one of those bitter losers who has to turn life in to "the elite" vs "rest of us" to justify your failings. Here's a reality check: there is no "elite"- you could have been successful, but you blew it!
0
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 years ago
#92
(Original post by billydisco)
Do you even realise the **** you come out with?

So you think civil engineers who build buildings don't actually need qualifications? They dont need to actually know what they are doing to stick a 110 floor structure up? Any old idiot can do that job?

You sound like one of those bitter losers who has to turn life in to "the elite" vs "rest of us" to justify your failings. Here's a reality check: there is no "elite"- you could have been successful, but you blew it!
I'll second that. Why I believe in little government intervention, meaning people only have themselves to blame and not the governments. Grammar schools would help massively in social mobility too.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by Chlorophile)
Yay, let's make the lives of the most vulnerable in society even more miserable, putting all of the blame on the minority of poor people who cheat the system whilst completely ignoring the swathes of corporations, millionaires and billionaires who squander billions more on tax avoidance schemes. Why put the blame on the wealthy when we can crack down on the poor and vulnerable instead? Got to love the Tories.
How can you compare people who require other people's money to survive, with people who have to pay extortionate amounts of money because 30% of our population are just plain stupid/useless?

If we werent so generous with the sheer scale of benefits and other public services crap, we wouldnt need to tax people so much.

ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by billydisco)
How can you compare people who require other people's money to survive, with people who have to pay extortionate amounts of money because 30% of our population are just plain stupid/useless?

ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?
...What? Are you seriously using the 19th Century belief that people are poor because they're stupid/lazy/useless?

And my solution is to stand up to these corporations. Improve corporate regulation and prevent them from bullying the population. If they leave, fine. It's not going to be pleasant but at least it'll be one less source of corruption. I can't believe you seriously think we should allow them to do whatever they hell they want?
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#95
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#95
(Original post by billydisco)
How can you compare people who require other people's money to survive, with people who have to pay extortionate amounts of money because 30% of our population are just plain stupid/useless?

If we werent so generous with the sheer scale of benefits and other public services crap, we wouldnt need to tax people so much.

ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?
Billy would you mind telling us what you do for a living?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by billydisco)
Do you even realise the **** you come out with?

So you think civil engineers who build buildings don't actually need qualifications? They dont need to actually know what they are doing to stick a 110 floor structure up? Any old idiot can do that job?

You sound like one of those bitter losers who has to turn life in to "the elite" vs "rest of us" to justify your failings. Here's a reality check: there is no "elite"- you could have been successful, but you blew it!
The key was in the words most qualifications and mainly to shore up wages. I somehow suspect English is not one of your qualifications...

Anyway, yes, qualifications have distinct advantages over on-the-job learning. (And I would agree that engineering is one of those areas which requires a lot of technical knowledge and thus the qualification has more intrinsic merit than most other professions.) However, that doesn't change the fact that qualifications are also, and in the main, used by the professions to erect barriers to entry.

Law would be the worst offender, I think, where you have to do a degree (3 years), possibly a GDL (0-1 year), LPC (1 year), and then you need a couple of years' experience as a paralegal to be competitive in training contract applications, which are themselves usually recruited for two years in advance. (And then even in the training contracts the previous solicitors' minimum wage has been scrapped, so pay can now be low for three further years; though to be charitable I shan't include this in my assessment below.)

Unless you have the connections or the luck to intern at a major law firm during university, you are likely to incur a time cost of at least six years training to be a lawyer, plus £11-16000 of your own money, plus student loan repayments.

Excepting the de facto minimum 1-2 years of paid paralegal work (deduction from the opportunity cost), I would put that at

Lower bound
27000 (principal student loan)
11000 (LPC)
44000 (opportunity cost of education based on 4 years' minimum wage work)
------
79000

Upper bound
The above, plus:
29000 (30 years' student loan interest likely at 2-3%)
5000 (GDL)
-------
114000

This is without even considering the pensions and mortgage implications of starting your professional career six years minimum after leaving school. You simply can't tell me that some £90,000 worth of financial and time investment is necessary to train a lawyer for any reason other than erecting a barrier to entry, particularly when more than a tenth of that has to be paid up front. And I have been careful in my analysis to err on the side of understatement.

Your statement that there is no elite is simply, and increasingly, wrong. Wealth inequality is ever higher as light-touch regulation allows wealth to be sucked out of the economy by rentiers. Your perception of what the elite is is probably very much skewed. The professional middle classes are not, and never have been, the elite, because they don't have rentiership over the lucrative and productive parts of the economy - that's why they have to work for a living. They can gain some control over lucrative and productive parts of the economy, like housing, investments and by setting up their own consultancies, usually at the end of a decades-long period of work, whereupon they have the option to retire, but that doesn't make them the elite.

The elite, by definition, is a class which you don't need to work to get into. Marginal cases (i.e. those where you don't need to work long) involve the tiny minority of entrepreneurs who get lucky with their businesses, the tiny minority of educated professionals whose jobs have the potential to make them very rich, like financiers, and those who get lucky with bubbles artificially inflated by political concerns, like property developers.

Furthermore, you say "you could have been successful, but you blew it". Even if I were successful, that would only prevent someone else from being successful. It is therefore trivial to conclude that not everyone can be successful through hard work. And on the other side of the coin, since me "blowing it" means a candidate that would not have been good enough to succeed had I not blown it is now successful despite being the exact same ability, it shows that not everyone who is successful can have worked appreciably hard.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by billydisco)
How can you compare people who require other people's money to survive, with people who have to pay extortionate amounts of money because 30% of our population are just plain stupid/useless?

If we werent so generous with the sheer scale of benefits and other public services crap, we wouldnt need to tax people so much.

ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?
"People who require other people's money to survive"
Corporations. Landlords. Rentiers.

"People who have to pay extortionate amounts of money..."
The working and non-working poor, the middle classes.

"...because 30% 1% of our population are just plain stupid/useless"
Corporations. Landlords. Rentiers.

"If we werent so generous with the sheer scale of benefits corporate welfare/corporate tax avoidance and other public services crony capitalism/socialism for the rich crap, we wouldnt need to tax people so much."

"ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?"

Let the parasites **** off back to their little islands. The British people don't need them. If there is a need, our entrepreneurs will build dynamic, modern businesses to fill it. Or do you not believe in the invisible hand of the market? Megacorporations are zombie companies that hold back growth and development, just like governments. They represent the dead hand of monopoly - and all natural monopolies incompatible with the free market should be accountable to the people, and therefore run by government.

It's an insult to the people of Britain and the world to suggest that we can't get by without these lazy, feckless parasites.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
Billy would you mind telling us what you do for a living?
He's a professional Daily Mail reader. It's not a pleasant job.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Lawyers have been complaining about pay for a while now...
Lawyers have been complaining about the tap of tax payers money being restricted.

I've yet to meet a poor lawyer.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
(Original post by scrotgrot)
"People who require other people's money to survive"
Corporations. Landlords. Rentiers.

"People who have to pay extortionate amounts of money..."
The working and non-working poor, the middle classes.

"...because 30% 1% of our population are just plain stupid/useless"
Corporations. Landlords. Rentiers.

"If we werent so generous with the sheer scale of benefits corporate welfare/corporate tax avoidance and other public services crony capitalism/socialism for the rich crap, we wouldnt need to tax people so much."

"ps Corporations will get away with tax because if you dont like it they can sack all their UK employees and relocate. Then what are you going to do?"

Let the parasites **** off back to their little islands. The British people don't need them. If there is a need, our entrepreneurs will build dynamic, modern businesses to fill it. Or do you not believe in the invisible hand of the market? Megacorporations are zombie companies that hold back growth and development, just like governments. They represent the dead hand of monopoly - and all natural monopolies incompatible with the free market should be accountable to the people, and therefore run by government.

It's an insult to the people of Britain and the world to suggest that we can't get by without these lazy, feckless parasites.
Oh gawd, sounds like we have another anti-capitalist here
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (273)
38.18%
No - but I will (51)
7.13%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.13%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (340)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed