I have no idea about the reset your password process but I'm sure that in the scheme of the whole policy it's a pretty insignificant factor.
Well, as I understand it, the idea of the digital system is that everything apart from meetings with your jobcoach is supposed to go through the system rather than them sending letters out, so if you can't log in to the damn thing in the first place, you're screwed.
Yes the conditionality regime is a potential catastrophe but there are a retract rules about when a section can be applied and when it can't. And it has to be agreed by 2 people so it can't just be applied case of them 'not liking what you are doing'. A sanction for missing applied reread meeting only occurs on the second time it happens and only if there is no warning of such. I.e. a phone call to say you can't make it can we rearrange would suffice. Simple communication, the 'relationship' goes both ways.
I believe the plan was to have 2 parts to the same test to allow for one appointment, and one visit to the doctor rather than having 2 separate ones for the benefits. A thoroughly sensible idea of you ask me.
But it's not just a question of the appointment (which isn't necessarily with a doctor btw), it's also the other processes surrounding administration of the claim before and after the assessment that are different, because they serve different purposes. It will also make it more difficult for claimants who need to dispute the outcome of an assessment, as it'll potentially mean entitlement to two benefits is in the balance, not just one.
I said I wasn't going to comment any more on this. But I promise this week be my last comment on the topic.
The rest aspect is just a small part of UC. It is one of the bits that I have criticised heavily in my thesis. I like the idea of paying benefits monthly in the same way that you would be paid for a job. In theory it encouraged personal responsibility of finances and prepares people for the working world. And for those most likely to get a job this will be the case. However for many other the reality is that they simply don't have the ability to manage their own finances. Or even if they do they will need support and aren't being given this. People now have the ability to blow their entire monthly income in a couple of days buying 'stuff' and so don't pay their rent.
It's an area that I would revise and will continue to be a problem of not resolved.
I will say there are measures in place to help this. If someone gets refused a house on this basis a special arrangements can be made to pay rent straight to the landlord.
If they are to persist with it there need to be better support and training for it.
However as I said it is just one part of UC and overall I think it is a good policy and has been a success so far.
What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in) yet millions of working class indigenous people somehow are stuck in their current lifestyles.
What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in)
What generally happens in poorer parts of the country is that those hardworking or ambitious enough to get a few 'ologies leave and unsurprisingly move to places where there are jobs and opportunities for betterment.
However I know from my own family's experience (and continue to believe) that it only takes one generation to break the vicious cycle of poverty/low expectations and then once broken it typically isn't reversed.
So...given infinite time, everyone will be rich!!!
Funny how virtually 100% of say Jewish or Indian immigrants (who generally arrived here with nothing) are middle class or rich within a generation or two (regardless of which part of the country they landed in)
Ridiculous statement.
Unfortunately it's an inconvenient truth - emphasis on education, family values and hard work goes a long way.
Too, few doctors, too few nurses, not enough beds, not enough car parking. Housing shortage, close the pubs - build flats, close down the race courses - build housing estates. Congested roads - build more, widen, rip up the country side. Poor quality of life, over eating, obesity, drugs, alcoholism, depression. When is someone going to wake up to the real problem in this country, too many f'ing people.
Too, few doctors, too few nurses, not enough beds, not enough car parking. Housing shortage, close the pubs - build flats, close down the race courses - build housing estates. Congested roads - build more, widen, rip up the country side. Poor quality of life, over eating, obesity, drugs, alcoholism, depression. When is someone going to wake up to the real problem in this country, too many f'ing people.
When you fly over the country it always looks serene and sparsely populated!
It is embarrassing that the numbers 1 and 5 economies in the world have any group of people who live in poverty at a 1/5 rate, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, or religion. have Jews who live in poverty when we're all doctors, lawyers, bankers, and Hollywood moguls. We must raise our people up, as we're going to need all of us to continue our Illuminati control over all world banks and media because that shit takes a lot of time and work and frankly, I'm not very good at maths.
Thirty years ago a friend was a nurse manager and was involved in setting up a community mental health multi dislinary team which included nurses and social services staff to help people in the community. The Thatcher government introduced health cuts and the team was disbanded.
The current government is now trying to introduce similar community teams, pity that they disbanded them 30ish years ago.
Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning £10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
Seen much of the UK outside of central London lately?
Have you ever been to an actual 3rd world country?
Also, those greedy f**kers paying no tax, living on as much as 10k pa! They should be f**king grateful to the wealthy for subsidising the country for them!
Well if the entire country comprised people with the average skills, education, work ethic and enterprise as those earning £10k then I can't help thinking we'd resemble a Third World country rather than the rich one we are. So yes, I think they ought to be a little bit grateful that they don't have Third World quality of life....
Seen much of the UK outside of central London lately?
Have you ever been to an actual 3rd world country?
Corbyn led on this stuff in PMQ's. By his standards it was all guns blazing, Theresa May came back with we need a strong economy to pay for things, Labour love spending and Corbyn is useless. May struggled on the particulars, and Corbyn was rousing enough to play to a wider audience. I thought it was a narrow Corbyn win today.
I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.
NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.
SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.
So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.
I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.
NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.
SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.
So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.
I've got a lot of reading to do here, and generally need to better educate myself surrounding UC and UK tax rates thanks to @cantersaddick dumping his bloody dissertation on us (love ya fella, you are very bright and very, very well spoken).
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed. ). That you all seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to improve care and improve the NHS, and that there is a strong desire to talk about policy, reform, taxation and everything above. In our increasingly partizan world (or at least my partizan country) where the level of dialogue can be so low, I can't begin to to tell you how refreshing it is.
NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.
SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.
So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.
Kind words SDADDICK!
I'm an economist and policy is my thing... people think it's weird but I love it. There is a problem, what are the possible solutions and how do we evaluate those solutions? Which criteria are we trying to meet.
Ah the politics of tax thread has migrated here. Right then...
@cantersaddick I am surprised at you. Let me tell the problem with Google, Facebook, Amazon and Starbucks, and I think Apple, to name just the most well known ones. They are not paying corporation tax because they are on the fiddle As I've explained many times, they have persuaded the useless, underfunded HMRC of a preposterous fairy tale that they are 'concluding their business' in Ireland (or Luxembourg in Amazon's case.) Everyone in advertising knows this is ridiculous. Google and Facebook need all these people in the UK because that is where their clients are. They already have too many people in Ireland because they need to keep up the fantasy that their Euro head offices are there. Did you not see the TV doc where independent shopkeepers in a Welsh village banded together funds to "do a Google" with their tax arrangements?
As for corporation tax not being important, well it was important enough for Dave Harkness, then head of HMRC to go to dinner with the boss of Vodafone to discuss the £8bn tax bill HMRC had landed them with, and after a very fine dinner, Mr Harkness let them off with about £1.5 bn, and Osborne called this a great deal. I think the NHS could use that missing £6,5bn, don't you?
It's not about soaking the rich. It's about getting them, and rich corporations to pay the tax that Parliament intended when they passed the relevant legislation.
Question for you, i am sure you both have the answers easily available. Could you please set out the top marginal tax rate including taxes which fund healthcare, for the following countries, please:
UK Germany Sweden.
And in the case of the latter two, could you present the evidence that the very rich in those countries have upped sticks en masse, or indulged in massive tax avoidance, per your rhetoric (other than the Swedish founder of Tetra-Pak, lurking in Sussex somewhere, and claiming his right to free entrance to UK museums)?.
I argue that the British management class caught the US disease in the 80s of thinking private good, public bad, therefore I must avoid giving money to the government, they will only waste it. That attitude isn't so prevalent in Continental Europe. Maybe that's why many of them have higher marginal tax rates, and higher performing healthcare systems.
I have no idea about the reset your password process but I'm sure that in the scheme of the whole policy it's a pretty insignificant factor.
Well, as I understand it, the idea of the digital system is that everything apart from meetings with your jobcoach is supposed to go through the system rather than them sending letters out, so if you can't log in to the damn thing in the first place, you're screwed.
Yes the conditionality regime is a potential catastrophe but there are a retract rules about when a section can be applied and when it can't. And it has to be agreed by 2 people so it can't just be applied case of them 'not liking what you are doing'. A sanction for missing applied reread meeting only occurs on the second time it happens and only if there is no warning of such. I.e. a phone call to say you can't make it can we rearrange would suffice. Simple communication, the 'relationship' goes both ways.
I believe the plan was to have 2 parts to the same test to allow for one appointment, and one visit to the doctor rather than having 2 separate ones for the benefits. A thoroughly sensible idea of you ask me.
But it's not just a question of the appointment (which isn't necessarily with a doctor btw), it's also the other processes surrounding administration of the claim before and after the assessment that are different, because they serve different purposes. It will also make it more difficult for claimants who need to dispute the outcome of an assessment, as it'll potentially mean entitlement to two benefits is in the balance, not just one.
I said I wasn't going to comment any more on this. But I promise this week be my last comment on the topic.
The rest aspect is just a small part of UC. It is one of the bits that I have criticised heavily in my thesis. I like the idea of paying benefits monthly in the same way that you would be paid for a job. In theory it encouraged personal responsibility of finances and prepares people for the working world. And for those most likely to get a job this will be the case. However for many other the reality is that they simply don't have the ability to manage their own finances. Or even if they do they will need support and aren't being given this. People now have the ability to blow their entire monthly income in a couple of days buying 'stuff' and so don't pay their rent.
It's an area that I would revise and will continue to be a problem of not resolved.
I will say there are measures in place to help this. If someone gets refused a house on this basis a special arrangements can be made to pay rent straight to the landlord.
If they are to persist with it there need to be better support and training for it.
However as I said it is just one part of UC and overall I think it is a good policy and has been a success so far.
TBH I think this whole "make tenants responsible for their rent out of UC" thing has two main purposes that are different to the purported one of encouraging people to be responsible. These are to force consolidation in the housing association sector/finish off what council housing there is (a long term aim of the Tories) and save the state money long term by abolishing housing benefit and getting people used to the idea that they'll have to pay rent out of their state pension when they retire.
I don't disagree with anything that simplifies the arcane and cruel benefits system, but the driving force for this reform has always been about saving money, at least in the long term.
It was David Hartnett at HMRC who did the handshake deals with his old mate Connors at Vodaphone as well as signing off lump sum payments for Goldman Sachs without consulting lawyers and costing about £10m in lost interest payments.
My old mate Hislop has some fascinating stories about his off the record deals at HMRC.
It was David Hartnett at HMRC who did the handshake deals with his old mate Connors at Vodaphone as well as signing off lump sum payments for Goldman Sachs without consulting lawyers and costing about £10m in lost interest payments.
My old mate Hislop has some fascinating stories about his off the record deals at HMRC.
Comments
The rest aspect is just a small part of UC. It is one of the bits that I have criticised heavily in my thesis. I like the idea of paying benefits monthly in the same way that you would be paid for a job. In theory it encouraged personal responsibility of finances and prepares people for the working world. And for those most likely to get a job this will be the case. However for many other the reality is that they simply don't have the ability to manage their own finances. Or even if they do they will need support and aren't being given this. People now have the ability to blow their entire monthly income in a couple of days buying 'stuff' and so don't pay their rent.
It's an area that I would revise and will continue to be a problem of not resolved.
I will say there are measures in place to help this. If someone gets refused a house on this basis a special arrangements can be made to pay rent straight to the landlord.
If they are to persist with it there need to be better support and training for it.
However as I said it is just one part of UC and overall I think it is a good policy and has been a success so far.
Perhaps you were looking the wrong way in New York with one in five NY Jews living in poverty.
http://www.metcouncil.org/site/PageServer
Poor quality of life, over eating, obesity, drugs, alcoholism, depression. When is someone going to wake up to the real problem in this country, too many f'ing people.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml
It is embarrassing that the numbers 1 and 5 economies
in the world have any group of people who live in poverty at a 1/5 rate, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, or religion.have Jews who live in poverty when we're all doctors, lawyers, bankers, and Hollywood moguls. We must raise our people up, as we're going to need all of us to continue our Illuminati control over all world banks and media because that shit takes a lot of time and work and frankly, I'm not very good at maths.I admit both communities do pretty well living and working (hard) in the UK and generally intergrate well.
However to say 100% do is a ridiculous statement.
The current government is now trying to introduce similar community teams, pity that they disbanded them 30ish years ago.
By his standards it was all guns blazing, Theresa May came back with we need a strong economy to pay for things, Labour love spending and Corbyn is useless. May struggled on the particulars, and Corbyn was rousing enough to play to a wider audience. I thought it was a narrow Corbyn win today.
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the dialogue that has gone on in this thread (some early forays by yours truly excluded). I appreciate that this conversation has remained mature and detailed (so. bloody. detailed.
NYAddick, I appreciate your articulation of the private sector being preferable to the public one, even if I don't agree with it. You are absolutely right that there is no such thing as "free" health care, it's more about the point of payment. And I also appreciate that you understand that, to work, the private sector must be regulated, because that's something that a lot of people, in the States anyway, just don't believe in.
SHG I appreciate your insight from having been inside for 30 years. Likewise various others. Prague, we agree on many things, but beyond that you are always thoughtful and incredible articulate.
So yeah, just, thank you for being smart and decent people.
Get a room SD.
American parlance I believe.
I'm an economist and policy is my thing... people think it's weird but I love it. There is a problem, what are the possible solutions and how do we evaluate those solutions? Which criteria are we trying to meet.
@cantersaddick I am surprised at you. Let me tell the problem with Google, Facebook, Amazon and Starbucks, and I think Apple, to name just the most well known ones. They are not paying corporation tax because they are on the fiddle As I've explained many times, they have persuaded the useless, underfunded HMRC of a preposterous fairy tale that they are 'concluding their business' in Ireland (or Luxembourg in Amazon's case.) Everyone in advertising knows this is ridiculous. Google and Facebook need all these people in the UK because that is where their clients are. They already have too many people in Ireland because they need to keep up the fantasy that their Euro head offices are there. Did you not see the TV doc where independent shopkeepers in a Welsh village banded together funds to "do a Google" with their tax arrangements?
As for corporation tax not being important, well it was important enough for Dave Harkness, then head of HMRC to go to dinner with the boss of Vodafone to discuss the £8bn tax bill HMRC had landed them with, and after a very fine dinner, Mr Harkness let them off with about £1.5 bn, and Osborne called this a great deal. I think the NHS could use that missing £6,5bn, don't you?
It's not about soaking the rich. It's about getting them, and rich corporations to pay the tax that Parliament intended when they passed the relevant legislation.
@newyorkaddick , @cafcfan .
Question for you, i am sure you both have the answers easily available. Could you please set out the top marginal tax rate including taxes which fund healthcare, for the following countries, please:
UK
Germany
Sweden.
And in the case of the latter two, could you present the evidence that the very rich in those countries have upped sticks en masse, or indulged in massive tax avoidance, per your rhetoric (other than the Swedish founder of Tetra-Pak, lurking in Sussex somewhere, and claiming his right to free entrance to UK museums)?.
I argue that the British management class caught the US disease in the 80s of thinking private good, public bad, therefore I must avoid giving money to the government, they will only waste it. That attitude isn't so prevalent in Continental Europe. Maybe that's why many of them have higher marginal tax rates, and higher performing healthcare systems.
I don't disagree with anything that simplifies the arcane and cruel benefits system, but the driving force for this reform has always been about saving money, at least in the long term.
It was David Hartnett at HMRC who did the handshake deals with his old mate Connors at Vodaphone as well as signing off lump sum payments for Goldman Sachs without consulting lawyers and costing about £10m in lost interest payments.
My old mate Hislop has some fascinating stories about his off the record deals at HMRC.