campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[ViolentPanda]

Cockspur, I don't seem allergic and it's smooth enough to drink without all those nasty allergenic mixers.

Lovely stuff. Cockspur Old Gold and Havana Club 7 year old are my favourites. Both smooth and full of flavour. Can't stand rums that just taste of spirit (Bacardi) or burnt sugar (Lambs).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why would you banaid?

Because it goes to the damned fuzzy-wuzzies?

 

[Pickman's model]

Lovely stuff. Cockspur Old Gold and Havana Club 7 year old are my favourites. Both smooth and full of flavour. Can't stand rums that just taste of spirit (Bacardi) or burnt sugar (Lambs).

what about wray & nephew?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you going to engage with my first question?

I don't know either, if it wasn't late I'd do some research tonight to confirm my thoughts which is basically what stuff_it and VP have said - which is in the last few years the biggest rise has been in unemployment benefits (hardly surprising) but tha over the past couple or so decades it's been pensioners - who do claim 2/3rds of the benefits bill.
http://www.bevanfoundation.org/blog/five-things-for-cameron-to-remember/

So, are a group of people who have mostly worked and paid taxes all their lives addicted to state cash and in poverty for that reason?

If it were as simple as that, there wouldn't really be a problem, would there?
A problem, in my opinion, is that there is a significant minority of pensioners (about a 3rd, according to the JRF at the turn of the century) whose income is above the median national wage, and who effectively might be able to manage without their state pension, and a majority for whom the pension is inadequate, and who have no liquid assets. One might say "stop paying those with a high income their State Pension", but that begs the question "if you contributed to what was and is a universal scheme, why shouldn't you get paid out?".
I'm not particularly in favour of "those that have" getting more, but universality as a principle can't be abrogated without some very severe consequences, not least another breakage in the social compact and an increase in long-term admin costs for pensions.

As for addiction to state cash, that's far more an issue with business than it has ever been with "the people".

 

[ViolentPanda]

what about wray & nephew?

Lighter fuel!

 

[BigTom]

If it were as simple as that, there wouldn't really be a problem, would there?
A problem, in my opinion, is that there is a significant minority of pensioners (about a 3rd, according to the JRF at the turn of the century) whose income is above the median national wage, and who effectively might be able to manage without their state pension, and a majority for whom the pension is inadequate, and who have no liquid assets. One might say "stop paying those with a high income their State Pension", but that begs the question "if you contributed to what was and is a universal scheme, why shouldn't you get paid out?".
I'm not particularly in favour of "those that have" getting more, but universality as a principle can't be abrogated without some very severe consequences, not least another breakage in the social compact and an increase in long-term admin costs for pensions.

As for addiction to state cash, that's far more an issue with business than it has ever been with "the people".

Yeah, but I'm just trying to engage on principles here.. that it's more complicated than that is an issue to come onto afterwards I feel.

Anyway, I'm more interested in how a real-terms increasing spending on benefits automatically leads to the conclusion that it is unsustainable in our current system. I suspect there's a reason why Ash has dodged that question.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, but I'm just trying to engage on principles here.. that it's more complicated than that is an issue to come onto afterwards I feel.

Fair enough!

Anyway, I'm more interested in how a real-terms increasing spending on benefits automatically leads to the conclusion that it is unsustainable in our current system. I suspect there's a reason why Ash has dodged that question.

You mean beyond the fact what is "unsustainable" is a matter of conjecture even for those involved in policy formulation, and tends to vary depending on the particular data you work from?

I don't really see why Ash should be "dodging the question", because it's not a difficult one to answer if he has any faith in his opinion, or the evidence his opinion is based on, although I'd hope that the evidence extends beyond that table he posted a gif of.

 

[BigTom]

Fair enough!



You mean beyond the fact what is "unsustainable" is a matter of conjecture even for those involved in policy formulation, and tends to vary depending on the particular data you work from?

I don't really see why Ash should be "dodging the question", because it's not a difficult one to answer if he has any faith in his opinion, or the evidence his opinion is based on, although I'd hope that the evidence extends beyond that table he posted a gif of.

Well yeah kind of but I want Ash to explain why s/he appears to think the unsustainablity is a neccessary function of increasing spending over time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well yeah kind of but I want Ash to explain why s/he appears to think the unsustainablity is a neccessary function of increasing spending over time.

So do I, believe me!

 

[cesare]

So what's this Ash bloke/woman going on about then? In a nutshell?

 

[treelover]

Just one little rant before I go...
There is a despicable and virulent strain of immorality, going around, where the virus attacks your morality and you start to hallucinate and believe the sick and disabled can work and there's nothing really wrong with most of them - they are faking it. This toxic virus is almost always deadly and it affects the moral senses, turning them in to a quagmire of filth and irrational hatred
towards helpless innocents.You end up with delusions of moral outrage, and start idio-blithering.
The immoraility virus is resisted by being vaccinated, and vaccination consists of a subtle mix of total scepticism, loads of care and compassion and the facts. Being disabled or chronically sick offers immediate and total protection against this viral moral epidemic.
Be warned. The end, when it comes, from this virus, is very nasty indeed. It's hard not to puke right now, but they 've promised, worse is to come.

excellent satirical but incisive on CIF polemic from a well know campaigner...

 

[stuff_it]

So what's this Ash bloke/woman going on about then? In a nutshell?

Some sort or right-leaning ill conceived rant. Probably a troll, a politics student, or both.

 

[Ash Mahay]

So what's this Ash bloke/woman going on about then? In a nutshell?

For those who have paid attention what Ive said is a) welfare spending has increased over its history & b) there is a limit to how much it can increase to.

Both of those are actually facts (whatever a persons political persuassion).

The welfare system (as is) is basically floored, which isnt a criticism its just a simple case that it was designed to fit a world that doesnt exist any more (& probably never will again).

Its all very simple really.

 

[weepiper]

For those who have paid attention what Ive said is a) welfare spending has increased over its history & b) there is a limit to how much it can increase to.

Both of those are actually facts (whatever a persons political persuassion).

The welfare system (as is) is basically floored, which isnt a criticism its just a simple case that it was designed to fit a world that doesnt exist any more (& probably never will again).

Its all very simple really.

'Flawed.' And while I agree it's hardly perfect the alternative that they're currently bringing in is much, much worse.

 

[cesare]

A) there's nothing wrong per se, with welfare spending increasing throughout history.
B) I don't see that there is a limit to how much it can increase to. There might be a limit on funding as matters stand at present.

 

[BigTom]

For those who have paid attention what Ive said is a) welfare spending has increased over its history & b) there is a limit to how much it can increase to.

Both of those are actually facts (whatever a persons political persuassion).

The welfare system (as is) is basically floored, which isnt a criticism its just a simple case that it was designed to fit a world that doesnt exist any more (& probably never will again).

Its all very simple really.

ok, how does (a) relate to (b)?
Is it correct to say that there is a limit to how much real-terms spending can rise by? What is it that you think sets that limit?

You then propose that the welfare system is floored so I'm taking this to mean that you think that we have reached that limit, so having said what you think sets the limit, I'd like you to then show why you think we have reached that limit.

edit: just noticed weepipers post which in some ways makes more sense, especially if you are using a speak to text thing but in any case I think it's clear you reckon we've reached the limit so I'd like you to explain why that is the case.

 

[stuff_it]

ok, how does (a) relate to (b)?
Is it correct to say that there is a limit to how much real-terms spending can rise by? What is it that you think sets that limit?

You then propose that the welfare system is floored so I'm taking this to mean that you think that we have reached that limit, so having said what you think sets the limit, I'd like you to then show why you think we have reached that limit.

edit: just noticed weepipers post which in some ways makes more sense, especially if you are using a speak to text thing but in any case I think it's clear you reckon we've reached the limit so I'd like you to explain why that is the case.

I'm waiting for the bit about immigration tbf. I expect Ash will be trotting it out soon enough, that or population control.

 

[BigTom]

I'm waiting for the bit about immigration tbf. I expect Ash will be trotting it out soon enough, that or population control.

maybe, though s/he could be more of the libertarian bent and they are often as not free borders types.. population control though as in not letting/helping the feckless breed poor by paying them to have kids I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Although if s/he doesn't answer my first question (which I've asked again slightly rephrased in that post) I'm going with my original feeling that s/he is a troll anyway.

 

[Ash Mahay]

Sadly, urban does get a lot of spam and trolls, so regular posters do tend to be a little suspicious of new posters from time to time, especially if someone new is posting on a particularly emotive subject such as benefit cuts.

Its not just this site. It is something observed not just across the internet but offline too (its the same root as some racism).

& I actually have 2 PhDs, not one. I got the first in this country and the 2nd from Stanford.

Im actually prouder of the 2nd as I was courted by Stanford & given my history I felt that was an achievement.

I was abandoned by my parents at birth (& then by my foster parents) I then went through kids homes, Borstal, approved school, detention center & youth custody, before turning 18 in another detention center and finally being released to the freedom of homelessness on the streets.

Given the state of the system in those days (sexual and violent abuse of residents at kids homes and very violent abuse of residents in Borstal) it was a very harrowing experiance.

I had less than a total of 2 years formal education all told and wasnt diagnosed as dyslexic untill after I was 18 (it wasnt commonly recognized in those days).

From that start I had to basically self educate myself and even qualifications, under those circumstances, dont always bring you the sort of validation that you seek, which is why being courted by a university meant so much.

Its also why Im not bothered by hostiles on the internet. Ive got enough life experience to know theres a lot worse out there.

Being "bullied" as the "new guy" on the internets not really very intimidating to someone whos watched kids being bullied literally to death.

I guess its also the reason why Im aware that its the same root as racism, partly as Ive experienced both but also because, having experienced both its the sort of thing that interests a person. Your logical reaction is to ask "why?".

 

[weepiper]

Child Poverty Action Group report on the actual cost of bringing up children out today

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/new-cpag-report-cost-child

 

[stuff_it]

*sings*

Wheeeere have all the good trolls gone, we only get the rest...

 

[Ash Mahay]

Is it correct to say that there is a limit to how much real-terms spending can rise by?

Of course there is.

If Johnny has 5 apples there is a limit of 5 apples that he can give away.

Its pre even basic economics.

If resources are finite (which they are in this present world) then if one spends more & more then eventually they reach a limit.

I know thats an over simplistic answer but is there anyone who isnt aware of these facts?

 

[purenarcotic]

For those without the time to trawl through the whole report, here's a few key quotes for you:

There is broad consensus that children’s needs today comprise not
just an adequate diet and the physical necessities of life, but also
the ability to participate in society – for example, by going to
birthday parties, taking part in after-school activities and having a
modest annual holiday with their families.


Not being able to afford these things can have serious
consequences for children. Research evidence shows how material
hardship and social exclusion can be associated with damage to
children’s physical health, to their self-esteem and to their longterm development.

a decline in public transport
options has contributed to a consensus that it is untenable for
households with children to manage without a car. This introduces
a substantial additional expense to the costs of a child.

On average, the first child in a couple costs
£89 a week and the second child £81 a week, not including housing
and childcare costs. The basic cost of bringing up each child from birth
to age 18 is estimated at between £73,000 and £94,000, but for working
families who require childcare, the total cost is between £110,000 and
£160,000.

benefits overall provide only about 50 to 60 per cent of what a
whole family with children requires.

For those renting in the private sector, on the other hand, an
additional room even in modestly priced accommodation can add
approximately £25,000 to the lifetime cost of a child.

some parents in the Centre for Research in Social Policy’s study on
credit and debt admitted to favouring ‘junk’ food when under financial
pressure, even though they knew it was not healthy – one parent said
she had recently bought 40 sausages for 89p.

The risk for families with limited resources is that either children’s needs
are inadequately met or they are met only at serious cost to the
wellbeing of their parents.

having access to both the
physical and social norms of life in one’s own society are of equal
importance.

Not being able to afford to take
part in activities with one’s peers (for example, paying an entry charge
or buying refreshments) profoundly affects children’s ability to make
and sustain friendships, makes them feel different and results in
bullying and stigma.

It can also result in boredom and involvement
in crime/anti-social behaviour. Not being able to afford to participate
in various in- and after-school activities affects children’s relationships
with teachers and can damage their experience of formal schooling.

One significant cost is the school uniform. Many parents and social
commentators point out that a uniform can be a ‘social leveller’ by
disguising social difference through what children wear, and avoiding
undue pressures on low-income families to pay for expensive items
that are in fashion. However, Citizens Advice has noted that some
schools’ practices, such as restricting the supplier, can make it difficult
for parents to afford.

In some respects, the additional cost of each extra child in a family
should diminish. Economies of scale mean that it is not always necessary
to buy so much additionally for each successive child, particularly in
the case of items that only need to be bought once. For example, if a
family cannot cope adequately without a car once the first child
arrives (as the 2012 MIS research found), this will impose an additional
car purchase cost that will not recur when the second child arrives.
However, in some cases, having a large family creates new categories
of needs. For example, families consider that a tumble dryer becomes
essential once a family reaches a certain size. For this reason, the
additional cost of each successive child does not fall as systematically
as might otherwise be the case.

Sorry for the mega long post, but those are the most important bits of the report IMO.

 

[Ash Mahay]

I'm waiting for the bit about immigration tbf. I expect Ash will be trotting it out soon enough, that or population control.

Lol youre not a very good reader of people are you. Did you fail to notice my name?

I dont really think with my surname Im likely to be at the front of a national front march against immagration, do you?

lol

 

[ViolentPanda]

ok, how does (a) relate to (b)?
Is it correct to say that there is a limit to how much real-terms spending can rise by? What is it that you think sets that limit?

You then propose that the welfare system is floored so I'm taking this to mean that you think that we have reached that limit, so having said what you think sets the limit, I'd like you to then show why you think we have reached that limit.

edit: just noticed weepipers post which in some ways makes more sense, especially if you are using a speak to text thing but in any case I think it's clear you reckon we've reached the limit so I'd like you to explain why that is the case.

Oh you would, would you?

 

[audiotech]

Of course there is.

If Johnny has 5 apples there is a limit of 5 apples that he can give away.

Its pre even basic economics.

If resources are finite (which they are in this present world) then if one spends more & more then eventually they reach a limit.

I know thats an over simplistic answer but is there anyone who isnt aware of these facts?

Education isn't "finite", neither are rent controls, or other measures to deal with squalor and ignorance. Nothing "finate" in dealing with the spread of disease either.

For someone claiming two PhD's you don't half come out with a load of old trite and is clearly suckered into believing the neo-con school of thought.

 

[weepiper]

For those without the time to trawl through the whole report, here's a few key quotes for you:



Sorry for the mega long post, but those are the most important bits of the report IMO.

I'm working my way through it in bits, this bit stood out for me too

Having children leaves adults on benefits worse off. Additional state support for families with children is lower than a child’s minimum needs, so families face a growing shortfall with each child. Parents react by spending less money on themselves; in some cases parents will even skip meals so that their children don’t go without. If a single parent of three children used his/her adult benefit income to top up the child-related benefits so the minimum needs of the children are met, they would have just £12 a week to meet their own basic needs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Its not just this site. It is something observed not just across the internet but offline too (its the same root as some racism).

& I actually have 2 PhDs, not one. I got the first in this country and the 2nd from Stanford.

Im actually prouder of the 2nd as I was courted by Stanford & given my history I felt that was an achievement.

I was abandoned by my parents at birth (& then by my foster parents) I then went through kids homes, Borstal, approved school, detention center & youth custody, before turning 18 in another detention center and finally being released to the freedom of homelessness on the streets.

Given the state of the system in those days (sexual and violent abuse of residents at kids homes and very violent abuse of residents in Borstal) it was a very harrowing experiance.

I had less than a total of 2 years formal education all told and wasnt diagnosed as dyslexic untill after I was 18 (it wasnt commonly recognized in those days).

From that start I had to basically self educate myself and even qualifications, under those circumstances, dont always bring you the sort of validation that you seek, which is why being courted by a university meant so much.

Its also why Im not bothered by hostiles on the internet. Ive got enough life experience to know theres a lot worse out there.

Being "bullied" as the "new guy" on the internets not really very intimidating to someone whos watched kids being bullied literally to death.

I guess its also the reason why Im aware that its the same root as racism, partly as Ive experienced both but also because, having experienced both its the sort of thing that interests a person. Your logical reaction is to ask "why?".

So, you were most likely born some time between the late '50s and late '60s, otherwise you wouldn't have experienced the overlap between approved schools and Borstals, and later, DCs. You also wouldn't have been able to access higher ed in the UK anywhere near as simply, however brilliant you are, what with most people born in the '70s having had a partial grant at best, rather than a full one.

As for qualifications, in my opinion anyone (whatever their circumstances) who sees them as a validation kind of misses the point. All they are is a marker along the lines of "this person has a bit of a clue about X subject/half a clue about Y subject/a fair clue about Z subject" (unless we're talking MBAs, which just indicate "this person is an arse").

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course there is.

If Johnny has 5 apples there is a limit of 5 apples that he can give away.

Its pre even basic economics.

If resources are finite (which they are in this present world) then if one spends more & more then eventually they reach a limit.

I know thats an over simplistic answer but is there anyone who isnt aware of these facts?

Of course they are, but your point is too simplistic.
Budgets aren't apples, and apples are (for the purposes of defining them as a resource) a renewable resource. In other words, while some resources are definitively finite (minerals, ores etc), others aren't, so lumping everything together under the rubric of "If resources are finite (which they are in this present world)..." misses the point, unless you're some kind of ideologically-committed Malthusian.
Of course, if you were a Malthusian, one would expect you to have the courage of your convictions, and to have stated the most obvious solution to resource scarcity (which you haven't), so you're probably not a Malthusian.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm working my way through it in bits, this bit stood out for me too

Yep. I remember having to explain this to my sister when her husband first buggered off and left her in the lurch, and how, unless she wanted herself and her kids to become increasingly unhealthy, she had to get the bugger to cough up for his kids, because what the state would give her wouldn't cover it.
Just another shitty indication of how much of an afterthought children are in so much policy.