It shows how the policies of the Chainsaw Maniac will impact on the poor.
If Wilkinson & Pickett are right, this will increase social problems, so No 11 with its chainsaw fetish will in theory be at loggerheads with No 10, with his Big Society fetish.
Will the ghostly feud between Blair and Brown infect the present occupants of Nos 10 and 11?
No, because they are both rich enough to be certain that if UK plc goes into receivership as a result of their policies and becomes uninhabitable, they can just retire to Monaco or somewhere.
Graph 3 shows that countries with the most savage deficit reductions will see the largest increases in inequality. This forces us to one of two conclusions:
1 The Cleggeron cares not a jot or tittle about inequality
2 Osborne has a learning difficulty
9 comments:
I'm being thick here, but I didn't notice the poor any better off before the cuts, those on benefits are still on benefits. It's the better off few who lost their jobs who are now worse off; surely only communism would eradicate inequality? Can you legislate for equality? I work in the public sector and masses of money is spent on the 'poor' who are no better off for it; they are still poor (in comparison) due in part to their own lack of ability, drive and determination. Those with some drive get up and leave Cornwall and go and find a job somewhere else. I'm no fan of the current government (or the last!) but what is the answer?
Frugal,
You are not thick. You are an economic genius. It is the economic system that is thick.
We ain't seen nothing yet. The cuts are just a topic for the chatterati at the moment, but in the next 12 months, we will see a huge rise in unemployed peeps, first those ex-public sector workers thrown on the scrap heap by the Cleggeron, and second those who lose their jobs from the double dip recession brought on by Osborne's policies.
Perfect equality is not on the agenda. What we need is a trend away from inequality and towards equality.
What policies would bring this about? Just paying people more on condition that they nothing, as you imply, is not a good idea.
Here is a suggested list of policies designed to approach equality: http://bit.ly/dcjvz0
Regards
Richard
Hmmmm? let me think. Abolish different rates of taxation, therefore encouraging those who can only get part time work to get several part time jobs.
No one earning under 20K is year can buy a home or even rent a decent one, so no tax to be paid on the first 20K you earn.
Interest free/gov paid relocation grants for those who lose their jobs but are willing to move.
Referendum on a lot more issues, e.g how much money we give to the EU, whether we go to war or not, laws etc..........get people involved.
Make voting a legal requirement - like Australia - get people involved.
Social mobility is very difficult - you have to be intelligent to get out of a rut, you can't legislate against inbred fools! (sorry but I can find you hundreds of them!)
Teenage pregnancy - make adoption easier!!! Take away incentives - don't house but offer shelter to the children/fostering/adoption. Women would not have babies if they thought they would have them taken off them! (No idea about an age threshold) P.S - I think parents have a moral responsibility to provide for their children and shouldn't have them without the means to do so.
I know I must sound like an extremist, but you can't change this without the mass will of the people. I will not give up what I own,(communism)and I resent working really hard so some lazy oik can stay home and watch the Jeremy Kyle show! I would actually make social provision, slowly more difficult to get to the point that it's unpleasant and anything would be better. e.g food stamps/clothes coupons. To be honest as the social divide is difficult to cross (I know _ I crossed it!) and unless the country makes it awful people are just going to stay poor because they have no personal incentive to make their life better. Individuals have to do this for themselves; they have to want it. Now - how do you change people?
Drugs? - I would legalise them all - p.s I would also bring in some kind of 'workable' healthcare insurance, if you haven't paid in, then you can't have healthcare. Like the children argument - you should be responsible for yourself. So, if I get drunk and bash my head in falling down I would have to pay to get it fixed! If I was ill and needed antibiotics through no fault of my own, my healthcare insurance would pay. I know the cancer argument, but if it was lifestyle related then I shouldn't have drunk/eaten fat blah blah if I wanted my insurer to pay.
Oh I could go on, but it would be very draconian and it is not a popular view.
Hi Frugal
You've written a manifesto there!
I will just concentrate on the social security provision.
Yes, there are some lazy and feckless drones about, but most on the Dole are like you and me, but had the misfortune of being put out of their job. Unemployment is miserable and bad for health of society and individual.
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/BillsofHealth.ue.htm
The problem is that you get trapped in unemployment, because once you have housing benefit &c, they stope when you find work, which makes it difficult to profit from going to work. To their credit, the Govt is trying to address this prob. My solution is the green wage subsidy.
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/BillsofHealth.ue.htm
It has the dual effect of helping people into work and also greening the economy.
:)
Richard
I like it Doc xx that's almost welfare to work, but someone is still cajoling them, 'they' need to do it for themselves or else you work against individual will/mass will. Dearly beloved is in the benefits industry and there is not a 'turn over' but a hard core who've been unemployed all their lives and so have their children, in most areas of high unemployment they are third generation. I'm biased as I have always worked, had the most terrible jobs, had three jobs at one stage to make sure my children had a warm house and food. I moved on because I had the will to do so, if individuals do not have the will, then instead of staying on benefits they would stay dependent in one way or another; I'm not sure if this can change.............p.s I loooooooooooove it when you're cleverer than me!
and there is not a 'turn over' but a hard core who've been unemployed all their lives and so have their children, in most areas of high unemployment they are third generation. I'm biased as I have always worked, had the most terrible jobs, had three jobs at one stage to make sure my children had a warm house and food. I moved on because I had the will to do so, if individuals do not have the will, then instead of staying on benefits they would stay dependent in one way or another; I'm not sure if this can change.............p.s I loooooooooooove it when you're cleverer than me!
Frugal
Exactly. It doesn't work to force people to work. "one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men". Which is why the GWS is voluntary, and guarantees that you will be better off in work.
The "hard core" unemployed need special education and help to get themselves together. I know the ones from my practice - daft as brushes, but still lovable, still with character strengths that need to be drawn out. I'd be interested in knowing what solutions your dearly beloved has in mind.
But the major thing is the availability of work. It's no good nagging people to get a job if there are no jobs to be got. In a green economy there is enough work for everyone. Green work is usually pretty labour intensive.
We need to tweak the economy so that it is more expensive to use a machine (eg for digging trenches) than to use people.
I'm looking at my apple tree. I have done about 6 bottles of apple gloop so far, but the tree is promising another 600. Last year the deer ate a lot of them, but this year the deer scarer seems to have worked.
Regards
Richard
As Redwood explains, there are no cuts, overall. Spending is rising.
You don't mention rvenues anywhere. Are you aware they have fallen from over £600 billion to under £450 billion in two years. If there's a double dip, as there is in most recessions, revenues could be £350 billion, as they were last in 1997.
Even with the Coalition's plans the annual deficit will be £250 billion or 20% of GDP. I don't think you are even close to understanding where we are on the financial map.
Tapestry
Thank you for reminding me of revenues. I am sure there are many other relevant factors that I have not mentioned, but at least I am mentioning more than George O, who only mentions the Budget Deficit.
Sure, revenues will fall with the incoming recession, and the Keynesian prescription if for government to cover this shortfall to keep the country going through the rough patch. Instead, the Tories will take the same line as they took in the Great Depression, which made things worse.
Your gratuitous rudeness is noted.
I see you are UKIP. Please support Lord monckton for leader of UKIP.
Oh no, I see you have left UKIP. Well, if you rejoin, please support Monckton.
Post a Comment