Welfare reform bill.

[Digit]

Well to be fair to Jacob, (I'm feeling in good mood this morning) he may be correct, but perhaps he could give us some examples to put against all the fraud cases that the Daily Express and Daily Mail make up to entertain all us grumpy old sods.
How about it Jacob?

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

.....but then If i was made redundant I would struggle if my income was instantly reduced to 25K without having any time to adjust to the new circumstances, and having paid taxes all my life I would then be resenting the states hard line.
There is no right answer but at least the conservatives are making a stab at redressing the balance.

But the thing is, you have been working and so deserve the support of the state.

What many of us are objecting to are the bone idle bas**rds who have never done a days' work in their life. Their chosen career is to get money from the dole. Dead easy to check their work record (non-existent) and so why they aren't penalised I'm not too sure. Certainly they deserve a damn sight less than the suggested max of £26k.

 

[Digit]

But the thing is, you have been working and so deserve the support of the state

Exactly! And as I suggested earlier, to the full extent that is needed by the individual involved. State aid, ie, tax payer aid, should not be a career choice!

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Roger, they are not penalised because it would spoil the GDP figures which the chancellor gives priority to. :wink:

 

[Digit]

DW, according to investopedia GDP is the value of a country's output fom manufacturing, agriculture, banking etc measured over a particular time period, thus i cannot see how non-productive individuals can be contributing to those figures.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Because those persons on benefit purchase those services and if they did not have large enough benefits there would be less purchasing and Gdp would be lower?

 

[Digit]

Sorry DW but no. If you were not taxed to support them you would have more to spend and thus the GDP would not be affected. Same amount of money, less people. Equally if they were working they would be both producing and spending.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Accepted, but a complete ban of all benefits would also be catastrophic even if taxes were reduced . I don't think taxes have actually paid all benefits some is borrowing (which has not or could not be repaid immediately etc.) The cash flow to industry and economy would be very very seriously endangered and that would cause problems.
And GDP would be lower, and that would trigger lower figures, which means loans could not be repaid on time.

In the long run of course no benefits, no taxes for benefits would be a new world and should balance if pollies also stopped unwise spending.
However pollies buy our votes with their dirty tricks, never met a completely honest one yet.

 

[Jacob]

Benefits are good for business GDP, society etc.
Simplistic and crude yes, but e.g. if high taxation takes the price of a ferrari from one rich man ((£170000 or more) this keeps 10 poor families in comfort for a year - they spend it locally and improve local businesses and GDP, it reduces social problems and crime, which benefits us all, it increases health, they are liberated from the stresses of being skint and may get their act together to improve their lot by other means, and so on. It's a no-brainer. Ferrariless man loses nothing much, just another big toy car, has to drive his Jag instead. :roll:

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is quoted as saying “Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.”
It also drives whole economies and associated businesses in a way that the free market simply could not do.

 

[Digit]

Benefits are good for business GDP,

How? Please explain how consumption without production aids GDP.
Please explain, again, your definition of poor.
Please explain how taking money from a producer and giving it to a non-producer, aids GDP?
If your argument was valid everyone could be on benefits, please explain that?

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Benefits are good for business GDP,

How? Please explain how consumption without production aids GDP.
Please explain, again, your definition of poor.
Please explain how taking money from a producer and giving it to a non-producer, aids GDP?
If your argument was valid everyone could be on benefits, please explain that?

Roy.

Well actually the working population of UK is around 50% so the other half are already on unearned incomes of one sort or another.
It's no mystery. We are well into the industrial revolution and our efficiency at producing goods has never been higher. Without consumers we'd have stockpiles. Taxation and redistribution keeps the productive cycle going.
Year by year the actual numbers needed for a working population to maintain the same standard of living diminishes. We could easily sustain higher unemployment, instead we go for higher consumption and "growth".
We all know and experience this. We all (as a rule) live better than our parents in every way.

 

[Digit]

Agreed, I actually understand that, but it does not answer what I asked.
Let me put it this way.
I am retired, non-productive, I receive a benefit of £16/wk. I save it then purchase a motorbike made in Japan to the price of £6000. Being petrol powered it will be fuelled on imports from the Gulf predominantly.
Now easy question. How does that benefit Britain's GDP?

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Agreed, I actually understand that, but it does not answer what I asked.
Let me put it this way.
I am retired, non-productive, I receive a benefit of £16/wk. I save it then purchase a motorbike made in Japan to the price of £6000. Being petrol powered it will be fuelled on imports from the Gulf predominantly.
Now easy question. How does that benefit Britain's GDP?

Roy.

It wouldn't unless either you bought British, or the Japs (and the Gulf) were buying an equivalent amount of British goods.

 

[Digit]

Even that is incorrect Jacob 'cos if the Japs or Saudis bought as you describe it would serve only 'balance' the books, not add to GDP. Agreed?
Same scenario as earlier. I obtain my £16/wk picking hot house tomatoes, which are then sold through Tesco's supermarket. Having earned my money I have contributed to the GDP. Correct?

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Even that is incorrect Jacob 'cos if the Japs or Saudis bought as you describe it would serve only 'balance' the books, not add to GDP. Agreed?...

No. the GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.

 

[Digit]

GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.

Yes! Then you must now deduct from that the loss accrued in the purchases from Japan and Saudi! Agreed? You have stated, or the Japs (and the Gulf) were buying an equivalent amount an equivalent amount balances the book. No gain and no loss in equivalent amounts Jacob.

GDP would have increased by the amount of extra production to meet the Japs or Saudis orders.

And the non-productive people will not have contributed to that will they? Thus paying benefits to them must come from that production. Agreed?

Roy.

Further checking reveals that I am incorrect on the import part, they are not included in GDP but are in the Balance of Payments. But I remain correct that the non-prod do not meet any of the criteria used in GDP calculation.

 

[devonwoody]

Sorry fella's there are no vacancies at the Treasury dept. at the moment, they are not recruiting at the present time.

I did hear yesterday however that the TD have the highest resigning figures of all the Civil Service, it challenges even Macdonalds. :wink:

P.S.

Roy didnt you go an buy that Japanese M/C from a dealer near you and increase his sales figures and profits for the year etc.etc.

 

[Jacob]

......
And the non-productive people will not have contributed to that will they? Thus paying benefits to them must come from that production. Agreed?.....

As far as GDP is concerned (depending on which measure is taken) it make absolutely no difference who actually spends the cash or how they got it.
Better that the "poor" spend it IMHO as it does them proportionately more good than the "rich". £50 per week is a huge benefit if you have nothing, but is worth nothing much to a banker (you can only eat one dinner at a time). And the poor spend it quickly (no surplus to save) and locally (not necessarily the offy and the betting shop) and it can radically improve their lives and their ability to change it.

 

[Digit]

Fair enough Jacob, you calculate GDP your way the rest of us will probably use the government's system.
But as you still steadfastly refuse to enlighten us with your views on poverty try this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

Is he 'poor?'

DW, profit, yes, but not GDP apparently as it is not a 'domestic' product, it's an import, which will show on the balance of payments for the period.

Roy.

 

[devonwoody]

Ah yes, but the local retailer had a higher income from which he had greater spending power on his own purchases. Which then generates higher GDP?