Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    01 Dec '11 22:39
    http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2011/12/01/on-being-demonized-a-disabled-38-degrees-members-perspective/

    This angry blog sets out a bleak account of the way the Coalition government has attacked disabled people in Britain and the Tory media has endorsed their behaviour by demonising the most vulnerable in our community.

    Meanwhile the Goverment deals with the collapse in tax revenues by losing 2,500 staff - from the Tax Collection role! It maintains costly tax breaks for the rich and condones a culture of avoidance.
  2. 01 Dec '11 22:48
    I have a question for you:

    Is there ever a point where a government gives too much money to people who don't have a job? Is there ever a point where the government can't afford to give money away?

    I'm sure that point is different in different countries, but would you complain about cutting back benefits if the government had actually promised more than it could afford to pay?

    We'd all love to see everyone with enough money to live good lives, but there is a limit to the amount of money a government can spend. It is impossible to perpetually kick the can down the road.
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    01 Dec '11 23:14
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have a question for you:

    Is there ever a point where a government gives too much money to people who don't have a job? Is there ever a point where the government can't afford to give money away?

    I'm sure that point is different in different countries, but would you complain about cutting back benefits if the government had actually promised more than ...[text shortened]... f money a government can spend. It is impossible to perpetually kick the can down the road.
    Cutbacks require a process of reappraising priorities. Do you think disabled people should be a higher priority in terms of government support than other groups? Or lower?
  4. 02 Dec '11 14:25
    Originally posted by FMF
    Cutbacks require a process of reappraising priorities. Do you think disabled people should be a higher priority in terms of government support than other groups? Or lower?
    Is it priorities or managing an economy? As today's world clearly points out, you can't do much if the economy tanks. The main priority is to fix the economy, then we can prioritize the groups.

    Does this mean we can't tax the rich? Of course not. What it does mean is that we can't over tax the rich and we need to set up conditions under which the private sector can thrive.
  5. 02 Dec '11 15:34
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Is it priorities or managing an economy? As today's world clearly points out, you can't do much if the economy tanks. The main priority is to fix the economy, then we can prioritize the groups.

    Does this mean we can't tax the rich? Of course not. What it does mean is that we can't over tax the rich and we need to set up conditions under which the private sector can thrive.
    Since the top income tax rate in the UK is a mere 40%, the UK can easily afford heavy tax increases in the top brackets. Indeed, this is the single best method to kickstart an economic recovery.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Dec '11 16:15
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Is it priorities or managing an economy? As today's world clearly points out, you can't do much if the economy tanks. The main priority is to fix the economy, then we can prioritize the groups.

    Does this mean we can't tax the rich? Of course not. What it does mean is that we can't over tax the rich and we need to set up conditions under which the private sector can thrive.
    By all means, don't answer my question. It's ok.
  7. 02 Dec '11 16:49
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Since the top income tax rate in the UK is a mere 40%, the UK can easily afford heavy tax increases in the top brackets. Indeed, this is the single best method to kickstart an economic recovery.
    Yeah, I know that you believe in very heavy taxation. I have doubts that taking money out of the economy to pump back a smaller portion of that money is the most efficient way of doing things.

    You have to pay for all the government hoops that bring taxed money back into the economy.
  8. 02 Dec '11 16:51
    Originally posted by FMF
    By all means, don't answer my question. It's ok.
    I answered your question by pointing out that your question is a bit simplistic.

    I also answered your question by telling you that economic considerations out weigh social programs.
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    02 Dec '11 17:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Is it priorities or managing an economy? As today's world clearly points out, you can't do much if the economy tanks. The main priority is to fix the economy, then we can prioritize the groups.

    Does this mean we can't tax the rich? Of course not. What it does mean is that we can't over tax the rich and we need to set up conditions under which the private sector can thrive.
    Ahhhh, that's really objective of you.
  10. Standard member skipper2666
    Why so serious ????
    02 Dec '11 18:11 / 1 edit
    If we can afford to keep bailing out and keep an ongoing supply of billions to banks and keep subsidising private companies on both sides of the atlantic then surely we can at least give disabled citizens eough to have a decent life.

    Of course there will be a minority of healthy who try to claim falsely but they can easily be detected.
  11. 02 Dec '11 20:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by skipper2666
    If we can afford to keep bailing out and keep an ongoing supply of billions to banks and keep subsidising private companies on both sides of the atlantic then surely we can at least give disabled citizens eough to have a decent life.

    Of course there will be a minority of healthy who try to claim falsely but they can easily be detected.
    We can't afford it. That's the point. The big crash is going to happen, it is just being put off and being made worse.

    Same thing when it comes to Social Programs we can't afford.

    It doesn't matter what causes it, the result is still the same. Either form of irresponsibility brings terrible consequences.
  12. 02 Dec '11 21:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yeah, I know that you believe in very heavy taxation. I have doubts that taking money out of the economy to pump back a smaller portion of that money is the most efficient way of doing things.

    You have to pay for all the government hoops that bring taxed money back into the economy.
    Redistribution requires very few "hoops".
  13. 02 Dec '11 21:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    We can't afford it. That's the point. The big crash is going to happen, it is just being put off and being made worse.

    Same thing when it comes to Social Programs we can't afford.

    It doesn't matter what causes it, the result is still the same. Either form of irresponsibility brings terrible consequences.
    Norway.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Dec '11 00:27
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I answered your question by pointing out that your question is a bit simplistic.
    I'll try again. Cutbacks require a process of reappraising priorities. Do you think disabled people should be a higher or lower priority in terms of government support than other groups? This is not "simplistic". This is exactly the kind of real world decision one has to make when prioritizing what must be cut and what must not be cut. This thread is about people with disabilities. You have posted five times already on this thread without using the word disability or disabilities. It seems you don't want to address the issue.
  15. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    03 Dec '11 02:23
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yeah, I know that you believe in very heavy taxation. I have doubts that taking money out of the economy to pump back a smaller portion of that money is the most efficient way of doing things.

    You have to pay for all the government hoops that bring taxed money back into the economy.
    Is heavy taxation "taking money out of the economy"?

    Surely its just redistributing it?