Redefinition of the word 'welfare' for the sake of propaganda

Watch this thread
Queen Cersei
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-9873127.html

"Who knows, it might even get people thinking, “Maybe I should vote Conservative after all, rather than Labour or Green who’d only increase spending on welfare.” Again, a coincidence that these pie charts come winging through our doors in the run up to the general election? Don’t be silly, this is all about transparency, right?"

Honesty isn't something often associated with politicians... but which political party do you think is the MOST dishonest?
0
reply
Hopple
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I don't think it's a good idea to try and work out if A is more trustworthy than B if you'd be a fool to trust either

Generally I'd say the party/ies in power is more dishonest, they have to try and pre-empt even suspicions of failure whereas other parties can just wait for small (or big) mistakes and blow them out of proportion.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Gideon knows

Image
1
reply
username33685
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
The taxpayer shouldn't be contributing a penny to public sector pensions anyway, it should come entirely out of their salaries.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by rich2606)
The taxpayer shouldn't be contributing a penny to public sector pensions anyway, it should come entirely out of their salaries.
Why? There's a range of options for salaries, but a standard one for both public and private is where the employee's contributions are matched by the employer. That's standard. Just because their employer is the State and not WH Smith, why should they be penalised?

Why demonise the public sector in this way?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by rich2606)
The taxpayer shouldn't be contributing a penny to public sector pensions anyway, it should come entirely out of their salaries.
And where do their salaries come from again?
2
reply
Puddles the Monkey
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Queen Cersei)

Honesty is something often associated with politicians... but which political party do you think is the MOST dishonest?
Did you mean isn't something often associated...?
0
reply
Queen Cersei
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
Did you mean isn't something often associated...?
Oh god. Of course I did! Nice spot
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by rich2606)
The taxpayer shouldn't be contributing a penny to public sector pensions anyway, it should come entirely out of their salaries.
The taxpayer shouldn't contribute a penny to private sector pensions too...?

If that were the case there would be pretty much no point in contributing to a pension.
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
Honesty is something often associated with politicians... but which political party do you think is the MOST dishonest?
It is?

I think there is an inherent dishonesty in politics and that's just the way it is. I was listening to a podcast earlier and a person called it being economical with the truth. There's certainly a lot of that, and people who don't do that never get the power to make change. We give politicians the wrong incentives if we want to fairly expect them to be honest.

I expect the parties which are the most dishonest are the ones who have to deal more regularly in more morally dubious areas, and bigger parties, being involved in more things in general, are probably more involved in these things as a matter of course.

Of the big parties, then, I expect the most dishonest are the ones who are least transparent about whom and what they represent. I would have to say then that it goes hats off to the Conservative Party, who even go so far as to have a green tree as their logo when they are antithetical to responsible environmental policy. They appeal to the values of the working class in order to represent the rich. I think they are a very underhanded party.
0
reply
Queen Cersei
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by miser)
It is?

I think there is an inherent dishonesty in politics and that's just the way it is. I was listening to a podcast earlier and a person called it being economical with the truth. There's certainly a lot of that, and people who don't do that never get the power to make change. We give politicians the wrong incentives if we want to fairly expect them to be honest.

I expect the parties which are the most dishonest are the ones who have to deal more regularly in more morally dubious areas, and bigger parties, being involved in more things in general, are probably more involved in these things as a matter of course.

Of the big parties, then, I expect the most dishonest are the ones who are least transparent about whom and what they represent. I would have to say then that it goes hats off to the Conservative Party, who even go so far as to have a green tree as their logo when they are antithetical to responsible environmental policy. They appeal to the values of the working class in order to represent the rich. I think they are a very underhanded party.
I meant isn't... Puddles just pointed it out for me! Either that or I have the most controversial view of politicians ever!

I agree that the way the system works now is never going to encourage honesty, I hate that term 'being economical with the truth' it reminds me of when someone says they haven't lied, just omitted parts of the story!

I just wonder how we are ever supposed to make well-informed, sensible decisions for our future when voting when we have no idea what each party really means or represents. Is the option to go for the lesser of the evils?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2...nt-you-to-see/

This is an actual professional breakdown of where tax money goes, highlighting the subsidies to BtL landlords, banks, pensions, tax lost due to avoidance etc.
0
reply
username33685
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Image

(Original post by gladders)
Why? There's a range of options for salaries, but a standard one for both public and private is where the employee's contributions are matched by the employer. That's standard. Just because their employer is the State and not WH Smith, why should they be penalised?

Why demonise the public sector in this way?

As Jammy Duel said, don't go full ******.

(Original post by Dez)
And where do their salaries come from again?
Alright then, I'll be clearer. public sector pensions are often Unfunded and Defined Benefit systems, which are completely unsustainable and the tax payer has to make up the huge shortfall in costs. http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/...set-to-double/ That is what I object to, and presumably this is the type spending that is now classed under welfare, and, as I tried to infer the first time, this isn't a cost that should be born by the tax payer.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by rich2606)
Alright then, I'll be clearer. public sector pensions are often Unfunded and Defined Benefit systems, which are completely unsustainable and the tax payer has to make up the huge shortfall in costs. http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/...set-to-double/ That is what I object to, and presumably this is the type spending that is now classed under welfare, and, as I tried to infer the first time, this isn't a cost that should be born by the tax payer.
Same as state pension then?

The shortfall isn't anywhere near the tax relief on private sector pensions.
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
I meant isn't... Puddles just pointed it out for me! Either that or I have the most controversial view of politicians ever!

I agree that the way the system works now is never going to encourage honesty, I hate that term 'being economical with the truth' it reminds me of when someone says they haven't lied, just omitted parts of the story!

I just wonder how we are ever supposed to make well-informed, sensible decisions for our future when voting when we have no idea what each party really means or represents. Is the option to go for the lesser of the evils?
I think what people expect and want of the system and what it actually encourages and delivers are two very different things, which might explain some of the disenchantment many people have towards politics today.

You know I had the opposite reaction to hearing that phrase - I thought it was a very good way to put it. I personally have quite an interest in honesty versus dishonesty. I think we can draw distinctions between lying and omitting truth, and philosophically dissect what makes a lie a lie and what it means to be honest, and how important that honesty is in respect to other moral priorities.
0
reply
Queen Cersei
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by miser)
I think what people expect and want of the system and what it actually encourages and delivers are two very different things, which might explain some of the disenchantment many people have towards politics today.

You know I had the opposite reaction to hearing that phrase - I thought it was a very good way to put it. I personally have quite an interest in honesty versus dishonesty. I think we can draw distinctions between lying and omitting truth, and philosophically dissect what makes a lie a lie and what it means to be honest, and how important that honesty is in respect to other moral priorities.
That sounds like a thread in itself! I've never really thought about it in depth before, we are brought up being told that lying is bad but encountering it everywhere and I've not thought deeply before about what it means to be honest. Lying to protect someone would technically be dishonest but it doesn't strike me as morally wrong...

I don't believe that citizens need to know everything that the government get up to, I think there are some things we might not be able to handle and perhaps that is where 'being economical with truth' comes in, however, I think some more transparency would help build trust in politics again and things like being fickle with the definition of the word welfare for the sake of stats feels manipulative but I'm a complete rookie to politics and I guess it's just the way campaigning will always work!
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by gladders)
Why? There's a range of options for salaries, but a standard one for both public and private is where the employee's contributions are matched by the employer. That's standard. Just because their employer is the State and not WH Smith, why should they be penalised?

Why demonise the public sector in this way?

As Jammy Duel said, don't go full ******.
Because the private sector doesn't get the taxpayer to make up any shortfalls in the pension pot. The public sector does.

If there's a shortage in the pension pot in the private sector, the pension page out is less. Not so with the public sector.

The recent economic turmoil has resulted in many pensioners receiving private pensions going short. Not so if you're the recipient of a public pension.
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Queen Cersei)
That sounds like a thread in itself! I've never really thought about it in depth before, we are brought up being told that lying is bad but encountering it everywhere and I've not thought deeply before about what it means to be honest. Lying to protect someone would technically be dishonest but it doesn't strike me as morally wrong...
I think everyone has this abstract idea that lying is wrong. But if we're judged by our behaviour, clearly we don't think it's that wrong as we lie all the time. Little lies everywhere just to smooth our day-to-day interactions.

Personally I think that lying is ethically suspect in all cases. The cases where it gets really tough and we might be able to grant some leniency are inevitably the extreme cases - not the type I'm likely to encounter in day-to-day life. As a result of that, I try not to lie at all (though I do catch myself sometimes). I probably wouldn't do very well in politics.

(Original post by Queen Cersei)
I don't believe that citizens need to know everything that the government get up to, I think there are some things we might not be able to handle and perhaps that is where 'being economical with truth' comes in, however, I think some more transparency would help build trust in politics again and things like being fickle with the definition of the word welfare for the sake of stats feels manipulative but I'm a complete rookie to politics and I guess it's just the way campaigning will always work!
I agree that government shouldn't be wholly transparent, but it should be transparent for the most-part. It can be important in wars to deceive the enemy for example, and sometimes in order to do that the government has to deceive its own citizens. If the citizens expect the government to be telling them the truth, then in my view the government would be guilty of lying, and that goes beyond being 'economical with the truth'.

One of the issues with more mundane politics is that your success as a politician depends almost not at all on how well you tell the truth. If anything it is a major disadvantage. Successful policies don't get put through because they're solid cover-to-cover and beneficial to the people - the people have no idea what's good policy and what isn't. They can't even distinguish between an expert in a field and a good orator. To push through the policy you want, you have to persuade people and appeal to their emotions. That's where maligning a word like 'welfare' comes in.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Because the private sector doesn't get the taxpayer to make up any shortfalls in the pension pot. The public sector does.

If there's a shortage in the pension pot in the private sector, the pension page out is less. Not so with the public sector.

The recent economic turmoil has resulted in many pensioners receiving private pensions going short. Not so if you're the recipient of a public pension.
http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.../homepage.aspx

Private sector employers make a contribution, as do public sector employers. What is the shortfall between the public sector employers contribution, the individuals contribution and the amount paid out?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by Quady)
http://www.pensionprotectionfund.org.../homepage.aspx

Private sector employers make a contribution, as do public sector employers. What is the shortfall between the public sector employers contribution, the individuals contribution and the amount paid out?
Your link is for mismanaged pension funds.

Pensions are payouts from investments. If the investments aren't paying out through low returns then the pension received is lower than anticipated.

In te public sector, the taxpayer makes up that shortfall. In the public sector they don't.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

How did The Student Room help you with your university application?

Talking to current university students (8)
23.53%
Talking to peers going through the same thing (11)
32.35%
Speaking to student ambassadors from the universities (2)
5.88%
Speaking to staff members from universities (0)
0%
Using the personal statement builder, library or helper service (3)
8.82%
Reading articles about what steps to take (6)
17.65%
Learning about/speaking to Student Finance England (2)
5.88%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (2)
5.88%

Watched Threads

View All