IDS is misleading the public again!!!

[joeski]

no one believes a word he says because he can't help but mislead

 

 

is there anything this man hasn't been truthful about?! he can rant and and rave all he likes but at the end of the day no one is having any of it..he's just one big fake end off!

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291288/Welfare-minister-rages-bishops-Theres-moral-trapping-people-benefits-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html

Edited March 11, 2013 by citizenB

[dyfed]

no one believes a word he says because he can't help but mislead

 

 

is there anything this man hasn't been truthful about?! he can rant and and rave all he likes but at the end of the day no one is having any of it..he's just one big fake end off!

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291288/Welfare-minister-rages-bishops-Theres-moral-trapping-people-benefits-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html

 

I just find it unbelievable that nobody in the media are asking the obvious question;

 

"Mr Duncan Smith, a devout Roman Catholic, insisted it was neither fair nor moral to trap millions of families on welfare payments which made it not worth their while seeking work."-taken from the daily heil.

 

So why dont they increase the minium wage then?

 

If george duncan smith and his elite tory millionairs think that cutting benefits will help already poor and struggling families into work then they are wrong.

Surely it would make sense to increase the minium wage, or have a living wage as they call it.

 

Why?

Because it would make working worthwhile.

It would bring more families out of poverty.

People would not need so many working benefits to top up their income to be able to just about live.

This would save the tax payers millions and stop us tax payers from subsidising employers who pay rubbish wages.

Higher wages for peasents means more spending in britain as opposed to higher wages for millionairs who mainly invest or spend abroad.

[Guest]

there aren't even many jobs to go for with thousands going for a few jobs, same with this bedroom tax situation when there isn't available smaller accommodation for a lot of people to move into, so their stuck. as usual with the tories its to hell with the poor.

[osdset]

There is significant government thinking that the NMW actually increases unemployment because employers feel that the bar is set too high, £6.19 per hour is too much to pay out. Of course, employers are bound to state that, because anything above £0.00 per hour eats into profit. Hence workfare.

 

No government have ever set an official poverty line, they always refer to this index, that statistic, GDP, blah blah, and no government ever will because the NMW would have to be set above the line, and so would benefits.

[joeski]

IDS should remember the old saying 'empty vessels make the most noise', this sad pathetic little man shouts because he is frustrated as he knows no one believes a single word that comes out of his mouth!

Edited March 11, 2013 by joeski

[fletch70]

More importantly who believes a word the DM says.

[Guest]

But we still have to put up with it all and suffer....for how long methinks

[joeski]

But we still have to put up with it all and suffer....for how long methinks

 

well considering no one takes IDS seriously and we'll probably have more riots when UC is introduced maybe for much not longer (i hope so anyway)

[Surfer01]

There is significant government thinking that the NMW actually increases unemployment because employers feel that the bar is set too high, £6.19 per hour is too much to pay out. Of course, employers are bound to state that, because anything above £0.00 per hour eats into profit. Hence workfare.

 

No government have ever set an official poverty line, they always refer to this index, that statistic, GDP, blah blah, and no government ever will because the NMW would have to be set above the line, and so would benefits.

 

In order to pay the £6.19 per hour, the employer has to raise the cost of their goods to the buyer. The buyer in turn passes this onto the consumer who is the person being paid £6.19. However that consumer person can no longer afford the commodity due to the price increase. A wage increase happens again, price of goods go up further, the consumer person is no better off and so the cycle is repeated. When does it stop? When the employer is paying £100, £200 per hour and with the goods now priced even further out of reach?

[Crocdoc]

But we still have to put up with it all and suffer....for how long methinks

 

It's the old story with tories, they will do as much damage as possible to people at the lower end of the scale to support the wealthy in the knowledge that they will have a very short reign.

 

A perfect example is the fact that they will do anything to preserve the banking bonuses on the basis that if such payments stop it will create a so called brain drain. I can't get my head round this one bearing in mind that it was the banks that caused the financial problems in the past , so who cares if they disappear into the wilderness. In fact why not give them a free transfer to anywhere.

 

There again, how many tories will end up working in these financial institutons when they get kicked out of government.

[Guest]

well I hope so joeski......this lot need outing asap....but wonders who will be any good as a replacement.

[joeski]

well I hope so joeski......this lot need outing asap....but wonders who will be any good as a replacement.

 

i personally think they are all the same..we'd be better running the country ourselves without them

[san_d]

There is significant government thinking that the NMW actually increases unemployment because employers feel that the bar is set too high, £6.19 per hour is too much to pay out. Of course, employers are bound to state that, because anything above £0.00 per hour eats into profit. Hence workfare.

 

No government have ever set an official poverty line, they always refer to this index, that statistic, GDP, blah blah, and no government ever will because the NMW would have to be set above the line, and so would benefits.

 

I am a long term unemployed and I hate this and the previous govermnment but I'd like to see the NMW abolished. It has created a black market of people willing to work for less and cash in hand. At the moment most jobs in retail and service sectors go to foreign (non EU) students who nominally work part-time but get cash in hand to work full-time. How can you beat that?

 

I'd like to see NMW abolished but tax free income up to £20k a year. My opinion.

[fletch70]

Interesting points.

The Tories doing things because they know they won't last long? What a short memory you have. How many years of the Tories did we have last time?

 

Labour are just as much to blame as the Tories for the banking crisis if not more so.

 

The minimum wage argument saying that it will cause inflation,well since it has been introduced we have had low inflation. Who remembers the 70s, where was the minimum wage then. There are many costs that increase with no account for the labour costs,oil.steel.utilities.

 

The banks do pay huge bonuses but they get spent,sadly maybe on imports but also on local goods and services.

 

Most arguments have two sides.

[Guest]

I don't see Labour jumping to the defence of the welfare (as they call it) cuts, and even if they did, I don't trust them either, whoever is in feathers their own nest it would seem. It was a Labour govt in 2009 who sent me to Atossers and found me fit, almost 18 months later a tribunal found in my favour, by then the Tories were in. I don't think any of them have a clue what to do or what they are doing, nothing seems to be thought through properly, and see David Cameron not even knowing how his own bedroom tax changes worked just baffles me even more as to who the hell makes all these decisions and why they haven't been strung up. Its even worse that all these lies and stupid decisions across the whole board are just allowed to continue, too many influential people backing each other and in each others pockets is the only conclusion I can come to. But that's just me and my simple logic, my simple mind.

[Nystagmite]

We need a PM who knows what they're talking about and one who isn't intent on screwing up the country.

[Guest]

I will second that

[dpick]

While I do detest IDS he does say what he means even if totally wrong I believe that he is the only MP that will answer a question with his own opinion (even when total ****) the rest just spout the party line without answering the original question or as on one occasion when pushed for an answer walk off stage.

 

dpick

[estellyn]

What IDS is saying is basically akin to 'we can't give starving people more food because those with full bellies aren't being given any more and it's not fair that they contribute surplus food just because people are starving'

[estellyn]

In order to pay the £6.19 per hour, the employer has to raise the cost of their goods to the buyer. The buyer in turn passes this onto the consumer who is the person being paid £6.19. However that consumer person can no longer afford the commodity due to the price increase. A wage increase happens again, price of goods go up further, the consumer person is no better off and so the cycle is repeated. When does it stop? When the employer is paying £100, £200 per hour and with the goods now priced even further out of reach?

 

Capitalism is broken, so there is no answer.

[Nystagmite]

What IDS is saying is basically akin to 'we can't give starving people more food because those with full bellies aren't being given any more and it's not fair that they contribute surplus food just because people are starving'

 

but we can afford to give millionaires tax cuts and billions away to other countries.

[joeski]

so iain or george or whoever you are where exactly were you educated?

[estellyn]

but we can afford to give millionaires tax cuts

 

Indeed, you cold add to the analogy that 'people who we consider extra important will be given more food than they could ever need'.

 

 

and billions away to other countries.

 

Personally I don't differentiate between starving people based on where they live. I just wish that we could ensure that aid being given got to the people who need it - too often it doesn't.

[RaeUK]

i personally think they are all the same..we'd be better running the country ourselves without them

 

Now, that's a revolution I would join.

 

What IDS is saying is basically akin to 'we can't give starving people more food because those with full bellies aren't being given any more and it's not fair that they contribute surplus food just because people are starving'

 

Excellent analogy, estellyn. I'm going to try and remember that one.

[Guest]

I would join that revolution tooooooo and hell yeh estellyn you got it spot on.