Disability Benefits in UK

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is heavy taxation "taking money out of the economy"?

Surely its just redistributing it?

Well it depends how and what the government spend it on - Taxation to pay deficits or overseas aid then it is taking money out of the economy.

If it is given out (redistributed) in unemployment benefit is is likely to re-spent pdq

i think the main problem is that 75% are fakes so that means they all are tarnished. and the reason they get more money free car/bus pass free parking almost any where.

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 f money a government can spend. It is impossible to perpetually kick the can down the road.

Sorry - I've not been online much.

There is a limit to what Government can spend and a limit to its ability to borrow. I favour responsible government. The previous Labour Government under Brown was engaged in very large scale reductions in spending over a number of years and would certainly have required greater savings if re-elected. The current crisis is not a crisis of spending, it is a crisis of plumeting revenues. It is the loss of jobs and the crash in consumer spending that is driving that collapse.

Cameron's slogan and that of the Coalition was "we are all in this together." Sadly we are not.

This government can afford very significant spending even after cutting and within its reduced spending plans. The UK remains one of the most powerful economies on the planet, albeit no longer comparable to a giant like the US. The budget is not zero! So the question becomes one of how it allocates spending priorities.

Under the cover of the financial crisis, this Government is engaged in a totally ideological assault on the poor and the most needy. It supports this programme with a campaign of vilification of - for example - the disabled.

Its reorganisation of the Health Service is not saving money - it is costing money. One of the best and probably the very least expensive health services in the world is being dissected to benefit private sector (often American) speculators with quite a few Tory politicians having evident financial interests in the outcome.

At a time when some £70bn of tax revenue is known to be avoided, £25 evaded, it is sacking an additional 12,000 tax collectors. A tax of 5% is levied as "stamp duty" on sales of property over £1m, but 2/3 of sales evade that tax by using offshore companies to channel the transactions. The figures are eye watering. The fraud is blatant. There are no measures to address this despite the desperate need of this governemnt (and every government presently) to secure its revenue stream. The ordinary worker and middle class carry the tax burden which the rich evade. Taxation of the rich was sharply reduced under the last Tory government and the rich have not been asked to make up that reduction.

In this context the way disabled people are being bullied and mistreated is a national scandal. In addition to depriving disabled people of the means to lead a decent life, they are actively depriving disabled people of benefits to which they are in fact demonstrably entitled. I agree with the blog when he says that, amazingly, the popular media have been successful in building a campaign ot abuse and hatered towards the disabled which is disgraceful.

Disability is not a product of anything but chance and bad luck. It can happen to anybody. One study suggests that people are uncomfortable with the knowledge that they are all vulnerable and protect themselves against that worry by blaming the victims. That makes me sick.

Tell me - how many nuclear missiles does Britain or America actually need and what is being spent on their modernisation and renewal during this time of stringency?
"As well as developing nuclear states, both Russia and the US have committed to maintaining the 'nuclear triad' of land, sea and air-launched weapons for the long term, and the US has committed an estimated $700bn to upgrading and maintaining nuclear weapons and missile defence systems in the next decade, the report said." Taken from:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17882

Short of cash? Not so. Just sick priorities.