Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

PS: if we want to get productivity growth (that's the growth that gets us richer, GDP growth doesn't by itself), we have to somehow 'force' the many people in part time work with tax credits to want to work full-time ... when a lot of them are quite comfortable with their set-up, and don't wish to swap half their week for not a lot more money (and much less tax credit).

That's the only place where some real meaningful growth can come from. Everything else is tinkering round the edges for minimal (if any at all) benefit.

[feral chile]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: if we want to get productivity growth (that's the growth that gets us richer, GDP growth doesn't by itself), we have to somehow 'force' the many people in part time work with tax credits to want to work full-time ... when a lot of them are quite comfortable with their set-up, and don't wish to swap half their week for not a lot more money (and much less tax credit).

That's the only place where some real meaningful growth can come from. Everything else is tinkering round the edges for minimal (if any at all) benefit.

And also 'force' employers to be able to afford the associated wage increase.

I always hesitate to say this, because it's such a harsh thing to say. Small employers are the ones who really get subsidised by tax credits, in effect the government are paying people to work (or paying for part of it at least).

Logically, then, employers can't or won't take over the full burden of that employee they have working for them. In some cases, without government help, the business would probably go under, if it's not making enough to cover its (full) costs.

If employees are bound by reward and effort, what about employers? Should they fold if they are in effect unable to meet their operating costs?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

And also 'force' employers to be able to afford the associated wage increase.

The employer would be buying more hours from the worker for the same hourly wage, surely? Which would be covered by the value to the employer of the extra production.

There may or may not be arguments in favour of wage increases, but that's a separate issue to increasing productivity via extra work from people who are currently paid* to do nothing.

(* I'm not claiming the money is equal, only that the swap isn't currently considered good enough)

 

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I always hesitate to say this, because it's such a harsh thing to say. Small employers are the ones who really get subsidised by tax credits, in effect the government are paying people to work (or paying for part of it at least).

It's not only small employers taking the piss around the tax credits thing, i assure you.

And it's precisely for the reason you've identified there that I welcomed Osborne's announcement of trying to cut tax credits down to nothing while increasing the NMW to compensate. There might have been (was) devil in the detail, but it's part of what's necessary to kill-off the under-cutters that help cause a race to the bottom.

 

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Logically, then, employers can't or won't take over the full burden of that employee they have working for them. In some cases, without government help, the business would probably go under, if it's not making enough to cover its (full) costs.

Yup, but govt supporting businesses in that way isn't sustainable long term because everyone will want the same.

But the problem (in the main) right now isn't anything to do with employers, it's about lots of people not wanting to swap part time work plus tax credits for full time work (if that opportunity if open to them, of course) - because the financial benefit to that individual from the swap isn't very much. They'd rather be a bit poorer but with more time.

 

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

If employees are bound by reward and effort, what about employers? Should they fold if they are in effect unable to meet their operating costs?

They should.

But to get there you've got to agree to cut tax credits. Will you?

[feral chile]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The employer would be buying more hours from the worker for the same hourly wage, surely? Which would be covered by the value to the employer of the extra production.

There may or may not be arguments in favour of wage increases, but that's a separate issue to increasing productivity via extra work from people who are currently paid* to do nothing.

(* I'm not claiming the money is equal, only that the swap isn't currently considered good enough)

 

It's not only small employers taking the piss around the tax credits thing, i assure you.

And it's precisely for the reason you've identified there that I welcomed Osborne's announcement of trying to cut tax credits down to nothing while increasing the NMW to compensate. There might have been (was) devil in the detail, but it's part of what's necessary to kill-off the under-cutters that help cause a race to the bottom.

 

Yup, but govt supporting businesses in that way isn't sustainable long term because everyone will want the same.

But the problem (in the main) right now isn't anything to do with employers, it's about lots of people not wanting to swap part time work plus tax credits for full time work (if that opportunity if open to them, of course) - because the financial benefit to that individual from the swap isn't very much. They'd rather be a bit poorer but with more time.

 

They should.

But to get there you've got to agree to cut tax credits. Will you?

I don't like tax credits, though I supported lifting the profile for homeworkers (aka housewives/husbands) back in the day.

It's depressing when you look how little we've achieved since the 80's. We still devalue all work that's not paid, so for me, we're all ideological slaves to capitalism.

Of course people would be reluctant to work more hours for the same money. I might have some experience of explaining to people that the tax credits income taper does mean they would be better off by working/getting paid more, however.

Personally, I'm not sure I'm happier in full time work than when we were up shit creek without a paddle. we had nothing bringing up our 3 oldest kids, but they had our time. My youngest had things, but much less time with us, I'm not convinced he had the better deal, as we had no time to go anywhere with him.

This of course relies on employees having a choice. if tax credits were withdrawn,  even with NMW increases, what happens if they can't make their money up to what they've lost? Employer5s could cut staff, cut hours, or at least be unable to offer enough hours to make up the shortfall.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

we're all ideological slaves to capitalism.

that's still less than it was as hunter-gatherers.

And no one has worked out how to get stuff without putting the effort in yet, so i reckon that effort/reward thing is going to be hard to break.

 

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's still less than it was as hunter-gatherers.

And no one has worked out how to get stuff without putting the effort in yet, so i reckon that effort/reward thing is going to be hard to break.

 

Jovies have

When they inherit the earth, they'll all pitch in to provide their services free for everyone, teach the unskilled new skills, and share everything out.

So builders will build, teachers will teach, etc. I presume everyone will do what they can, and will be taught, maybe those who are unfit will mind the kids or look after the sick. And of course, there'll be no bleating about who deserves the most, and who's working the hardest, etc.

EDIT: hasn't this system already been tried????? Jeremy.......?

Edited November 14, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Jovies have

When they inherit the earth, they'll all pitch in to provide their services free for everyone, teach the unskilled new skills, and share everything out.

So builders will build, teachers will teach, etc. I presume everyone will do what they can, and will be taught, maybe those who are unfit will mind the kids or look after the sick. And of course, there'll be no bleating about who deserves the most, and who's working the hardest, etc.

EDIT: hasn't this system already been tried????? Jeremy.......?

"they'll all pitch in".

The geezer working half-time and not wanting a full time job. How does he fit with that?

 

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"they'll all pitch in".

The geezer working half-time and not wanting a full time job. How does he fit with that?

 

What, all of us you mean?

[zahidf]

Good

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

What, all of us you mean?

Like those part time workers, who think full time work is OK, but for other people, not them.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Good

yeah, cos giving the tories the votes they need to make brexit happen is something jez would never do. :lol:

(in case it's passed you by, he's already got a habit for it).

[feral chile]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like those part time workers, who think full time work is OK, but for other people, not them.

A lot of the reason that tax credits claimants are resented is because we'd ALL like to work less. There are reasons why some of us don't, and I doubt they're altruistic ones.

For me, I prefer the status of being in work (more correctly, the loss of status from being out of work), feeling in control (even if an illusion), independence, autonomy, etc. just like free will, these are probably illusory rather than reality.

I also happen to like my workmates, am not self disciplined enough to have a routine if work didn't provide one, so would miss the social contact (as I'm currently on sick leave, AM missing the routine and social contact, though they're a great bunch and are keeping in contact).

So while I might envy part time workers from afar, I don't envy them enough to become one. I don't judge them though, I can see why they value their time, particularly if they have young families.

but yes, in this heavenly commune, I presume the chosen ones would all be conscientious and work hard, for altruistic reasons. 

[feral chile]

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/public-opinion-towards-welfare/?utm_content=bufferfb737&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

don't know if this is the right place for this, interesting that this article claims that Labour led the anti benefits sentiment, rather than politicians (who I'd have assumed to be Tory) reacting to it.

Wondered if it correlates to when they were actually holding the purse strings.
 

Quote

 

In the 1980s and early 1990s, benefits recipients were depicted mostly as deserving, and the system itself was talked about as a highly legitimate means of poverty alleviation. That began to change from the mid-1990s. Users of the system became stigmatised, and benefits were depicted as ineffectual or even wasteful. This is summarised in Figure 3, which uses a technique known as topic modelling to break down parliamentary speech about the welfare state into sets of topics. It shows that from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s – in a very sharp break from the 1980s – Labour devoted substantially less time to talking about the benefits system and its users in positive terms than it did to problems with the system and the need for reforms. Positive mentions of welfare plummeted, and were drowned out by more negative discourse.

Explaining why Labour changed its tune on the welfare system would require a whole new article. But for now, what matters is that the shifts in rhetoric did not occur after public opinion changed. Politicians were not responding to public opinion; they were leading it. Shifts in discourse actually took place slightly before the public was changing its mind about benefits. In fact, I argue that the large reversal in public support for benefits can only be explained as a reaction to the discourse of politicians, filtered through the media. Modern theories of public opinion emphasise that people react strongly to how issues are framed by political elites. Importantly, this is a phenomenon that could affect all voters, rich and poor alike.

I have uncovered several key facts about the British experience that bolster this idea of a top-down change in opinion. For one, young people changed their views more than older people. Younger cohorts who were socialised in an environment of much harsher criticism of the benefits system began their lives more opposed to benefits than previous cohorts did at the same age. Those altered views have tended to stay that way over the past 20 years. Labour supporters, too, were more likely than those of other parties to shift toward opposition to benefits, which is consistent with a ‘follow-my-leader’ dynamic.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

double post

Edited November 14, 2017 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, feral chile said:

Labour led the anti benefits sentiment

nope, people did.

It was dead easy to take the piss with the benefits system in the 1980s, and a LOT of people were, and a lot of people knew that a lot of people were.

It's really that simple. There was no tory plot, just the truth of what was happening.

And 25 years later that problem still isn't dealt with, because there's still plenty of the same people collecting undeserved cash.

Unfortunately, there's also been the deserving that have become collateral damage in trying to sort out what a too-lax system caused.

Edited November 15, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

nope, people did.

It was dead easy to take the piss with the benefits system in the 1980s, and a LOT of people were, and a lot of people knew that a lot of people were.

Oh dear, Neil, sounding like the Daily Mail....

...again.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's really that simple. There was no tory plot, just the truth of what was happening.

And 25 years later that problem still isn't dealt with, because there's still plenty of the same people collecting undeserved cash.

Jesus, you really are demonstrating the truth of the getting more right wing as you get older thing.

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Unfortunately, there's also been the deserving that have become collateral damage in trying to sort out what a too-lax system caused.

Collateral damage!

What a nice way to put it!

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

Oh dear, Neil, sounding like the Daily Mail....

...again.

Sorry, I hadn't realised the truth had to get pre-approval and only lies could be told.

I'll say it again: it was a piece of piss to make fraudulent benefit claims in the 80s, and shit loads of people did.

 

Just now, LJS said:

Jesus, you really are demonstrating the truth of the getting more right wing as you get older thing.

No one took the piss with benefits?? Really?

I know whole groups of people who just wandered in with a made-up names and got paid for years. Some of those people even got new national insurance numbers in those made-up names, and from that completely new (and 'legit') identities.

And with more than one identity, want to take a guess what they were doing with every identity?

It couldn't continue being that lax, and it's no surprise that those paying in didn't want it to be that lax.

 

Just now, LJS said:

Collateral damage!

What a nice way to put it!

I didn't say nice things happened off the back of it. It's precisely why I used the words 'collateral damage'. :rolleyes:

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sorry, I hadn't realised the truth had to get pre-approval and only lies could be told.

I'll say it again: it was a piece of piss to make fraudulent benefit claims in the 80s, and shit loads of people did.

 

No one took the piss with benefits?? Really?

I know whole groups of people who just wandered in with a made-up names and got paid for years. Some of those people even got new national insurance numbers in those made-up names, and from that completely new (and 'legit') identities.

And with more than one identity, want to take a guess what they were doing with every identity?

It couldn't continue being that lax, and it's no surprise that those paying in didn't want it to be that lax.

 

I didn't say nice things happened off the back of it. It's precisely why I used the words 'collateral damage'.

I think it might have been more accurate to say tens of thousands of innocent folk got shafted in the witch-hunt of largely fictitious benefit scroungers. 

Please note I am not claiming that no one committed benefit fraud. 

I am saying that the extent of it was wildly exaggerated by those with an agenda of cutting welfare spending and not giving much of a shit about any "collateral damage"

It's sad that so many otherwise intelligent folk fell for the benefit scrounger bullshit.

[eFestivals]

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

I am saying that the extent of it was wildly exaggerated by those with an agenda of cutting welfare spending and not giving much of a shit about any "collateral damage"

The extent wasn't wildly exaggerated. It sits pretty well alongside the sorts of numbers quoted today for benefit fraud (lesser fraud under a tighter system).

The problem was endemic, and needed to be tackled. For most folk the "shafting" consisted of a bigger paperwork burden (not ideal, but nor is giving away money with too-lax checks).

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's sad that so many otherwise intelligent folk fell for the benefit scrounger bullshit.

There's a sound narrative which says the refusal of those such as you to recognise the need for and allow meaningful reform has caused the issues to continue for longer and harder than they might have otherwise done.

If we want a social system that taxpayers are happy to fund, then those taxpayers need to have trust that the system is working in a way they're happy to support - and when some people are obstructive to clearly-needed reforms that trust starts to break down.

I'd like to hear why you think it's sad for me to feel that abuses I saw with my own eyes were wrong, and how it's better to allow that abuse than to (for example) better fund the NHS with any 'recovered' money.

 

[lost]

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

right wing

I find this really interesting that the founders of the welfare state in this country.. Beveridge, Bevan etc..  would be seen as very right wing by today's standards. Upto the 1970's the social contract between the individual and the state was much stricter than today for everything from benefits to council houses. For example if you had no history of continuous NI payments you got fuck all.

you only have to look at the original Beveridge report which detailed:

Quote

five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. 

There was a change in culture of the labour party in the 1970's which alot of people blame as the cause  of many of these systems to start or appear to be starting to fail such as the idle getting unemployment benefits or council housing becoming sink estates which then Thatcher was able to take advantage of in the 80's.

There was an interesting bbc doc on the council housing side a few years ago. I think this was it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, lost said:

There was a change in culture of the labour party in the 1970's which alot of people blame as the cause  of many of these systems to start or appear to be starting to fail such as the idle getting unemployment benefits or council housing becoming sink estates which then Thatcher was able to take advantage of in the 80's.

to be fair, that change in culture came against rising unemployment, and in those circumstances it was perhaps right to have a different culture of some kind.

It think it's probably the case that Labour (and the tories too, to some extent) preferred to have people being reasonably happy to sit around, rather than being angry at no work and no benefits. They had more than enough to deal with from the people who were working with strikes and collapsing industries, and against recent history unemployment was high (which is how come the tories could work that 'Labour isn't working' poster in 1979, when unemployment was still around 1m).

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

to be fair, that change in culture came against rising unemployment, and in those circumstances it was perhaps right to have a different culture of some kind.

It think it's probably the case that Labour (and the tories too, to some extent) preferred to have people being reasonably happy to sit around, rather than being angry at no work and no benefits. They had more than enough to deal with from the people who were working with strikes and collapsing industries, and against recent history unemployment was high (which is how come the tories could work that 'Labour isn't working' poster in 1979, when unemployment was still around 1m).

I agree with this, no government wants to incite people, so they have to keep people just about content. Or only attack minorities, or people too ill to become activists.

As for benefits scams, what do you think of?

probably not tax credits helping pay for children to attend private school nurseries:

Quote

If you use childcare provided by a school If your child is 3 or 4 years old, both the following must apply for this type of care to count as approved for tax credits, the childcare: •  is provided under the direction of the school’s governing body or the person responsible for managing the school •  takes place on school premises or on other premises that may be inspected as part of an inspection of the whole school by Ofsted or an equivalent inspection body appointed to inspect certain independent schools, for example, the Independent Schools Inspectorate, Bridge Schools Inspectorate or the Schools Inspection Service

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602211/WTC5_2017_.pdf

Scam is the wrong word, as it's perfectly legal as long as the independent school qualifies.

This is what irritates me. a single mum not declaring a few hours work, or a partner who may or may not be contributing financially, is a fraudster. They still might not have a pot to piss in.

but middle class parents can send their kids to expensive private nurseries, with financial help from the state.

This seems to only apply in England now - Scotland and Wales have different rules.

Edited November 15, 2017 by feral chile

[zahidf]

Nope Grimsby, you cant have the money if u still want to leave the EU

[eFestivals]

Soooo ......

The EU are saying the best free trade agreement on offer to the UK will basically be a similar deal to the Canada one .

Which is a long long long way from what the more-rational tories have been hoping for (and the more irrational hopes of Labour), and ...

Basically puts us on a course for a hard brexit because the headbangers will demand we don't pay our bills if the EU don't give everything those headbangers might demand.

Shit's going to hit the fan sometime very soon, I reckon no later than the end of January.

Where the shit flies when it hits is anyone's guess at the moment i reckon.

[zahidf]

I dont know whether to laugh or cry