Ian Duncan Smith

[caminito]

Iain Duncan Smith today branded giving millions of jobs to foreigners while the benefits bill soared a 'sin' as he unveiled draconian sanctions to limit the handouts.

The Work and Pensions Secretary condemned the way so many posts created while Labour were in power went to immigrants rather than British workers..

But responding directly to the claim this morning, Mr Duncan Smith said: 'This is not about punishing people for trying.

'This is about saying to people: if you try, if you co-operate, if we work with you and work pays and you still can't get a job then our duty is to support you. It is the right duty and we will always stand by it.

'But we cannot, as a society, have nearly one in five households completely without work through a time when we have had the longest and greatest period of growth.

'We created over four million jobs in those 13 years and...70% of those net jobs were taken by people from overseas because people in this county weren't capable or able to take those jobs. Surely that's a sin.'

[Ivanhoe]

Under Thatcher we remained little Englanders wanting to keep the empire and Thatcher wanted to take us all back to the victorian work house mentaility and exploitation of the workers, which she did.

[caminito]

Once again The Labour Party are glad that the conservatives have the balls to do what that couldn't or were to frightened to do !


The biggest welfare shake-up since the 1940s will make going out to work pay and see benefit cuts for those who refuse to take jobs, ministers say.

Work Secretary Iain Duncan Smith plans to bring in a single Universal Credit to replace work-related benefits.

Claimants moving into work will keep more of their income than now, but face losing benefits if they refuse a job.

Labour said it backed moves to make work pay but warned about the possible lack of available jobs.   

[Ivanhoe]

LAND OF HOPE AND GLORYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYY

PUKE

[caminito]

Now you really are rambling.    
900+ posts of one liner rubbish !
  
The stark evidence of the growing imbalance between what the Government raises and what it spends is likely to intensify the political row over the public finances and may strengthen calls for cuts in spending.

Treasury figures show that welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion. Normally, income tax receipts comfortably cover the benefits bill.

In 2008/09, gross income tax receipts were £152.5 billion. In the same year, social security benefits cost the Exchequer £150.1 billion.

[Ivanhoe]

caminito, We had the Tories running this country for 18 years, they destroyed it while creating a mammoth rich and poor devide.

Ian Duncan Smith will have even more of this nation living on the streets if and when his proposals go through.

Only the hardest of hearts could agree with what he wants to do.

I was talking to an 85 years old man recently, a Conservative of the old school, he said to me that he fought against Hitler in World War 2, and in doing so helped to defeat the swiine, so that England could become free from Nazi Germany tyranny.

He then proceeded to say to me that the right of the Tory party since Thatcher ( whom he didnt vote for ), have managed to succeed where Hitler failed.

[caminito]

THE FACTS >>

How the rich got richer under Labour
This is Money
9 April 2010, 10:11am

The gap between the rich and poor has grown steadily during Labour's years in power, official figures have revealed.

The latest comprehensive snapshot of the nation's finances from the Office of National Statistics reveals that the richest people in the country have grown their share of Britain's total wealth, despite pledges to tackle inequality.

Suprisingly, the rich getting richer under a supposedly egalitarian Labour government came after the poor had got richer under Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives.

[Ivanhoe]

The rich got richer under New Labour, because New Labour continued Thatcher's policies.

[caminito]

Not quite true 

The answer really isn’t difficult – Labour didn't take from the rich, but from middle-class Middle England. It is those on reasonable but not huge incomes that have felt the chill wind. Brown caned those that have worked hard to better themselves, that have saved for a rainy day, and now find themselves being punished for their thrift and prudence

[Papaumau]

An then there was the REAL truth.....

During the time of Harold Macmillan, ( yes, a Tory ), he copied the American phrase "You've never had it so good" to illustrate how well Britain had recovered during the war afteryears.

It was true that at that time, ( NOT all of the recovery could be attributed to any one political philosophy as there HAD been a mixture of philosophies running since the war ).

What was the case at that time was that the rich/poor divide had been reduced to it's smallest  level since before the two wars and right back to the times of the Victorian excesses during the days of the rampant British Empire,

Since then ALL political persuasions that have been in power have presided over the widening of this gap and today it is wider than it has ever been before.

Those of us that are not TOTALLY partisan over our political choices should be able to see and measure this and should fight tooth and nail to turn around this process.

The individual blame-game might make some people feel good about themselves but it does NOTHING to fix this infected and widening sore.

[Ivanhoe]

Not quite true  

The answer really isn’t difficult – Labour didn't take from the rich, but from middle-class Middle England. It is those on reasonable but not huge incomes that have felt the chill wind. Brown caned those that have worked hard to better themselves, that have saved for a rainy day, and now find themselves being punished for their thrift and prudence

Rubbish.

The people who really got clobbered by the Thatcher / Major, Blair, and Brown years were the elderly regarding their contributary basic State pension having the link to earnings broke, which reduced millions to poverty.

[Papaumau]

One financier's view of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer:

The views of Michael Press:

I'm sure that you have heard the old saying that goes, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Well, there's a reason why the saying exists, and that's because it is 100% true. The rich do get richer, and the poor do get poorer. But why is that?

First lets take a look at why the rich get richer. The rich have their money working for them. So, they don't need to work in order to make money. Their investments provide them with capital gains or passive income. The rich focus primarily on "capital gains" and "passive income" instead of "earned income". The rich are constantly creating and building assets with the money they have. They create or build more assets to provide them with more sources of passive income. The rich don't need to worry about layoffs or taking days off because they don't work for their money. Remember, passive income is the key to becoming wealthy.

The poor on the other hand focus too much on "earned income". The main source of income for the poor is "earned income", and it usually remains the same amount for a long period of time. In the meantime, the expenses of the poor generally increase over time. A new child comes along, medical bills need to be paid, gasoline prices keep going up, taxes go up, etc. And while all this is happening, the amount of money from a poor person's earned income remains the same. That's why the poor get poorer. The make barely enough in earned income to cover their expenses. The rich on the other hand make well more than enough in passive income to cover their expenses.

If you focus too much on "earned income", you can start making the transition to financial freedom by learning to invest for capital gains and passive income. The poor just keep getting poorer because most of them are afraid to make the leap from earned income to passive income. They are addicted to their earned income, and jump for joy whenever a raise or promotion comes about.

------------------------------------------

So, if what Mr Press says is the truth then it is up to governments to ensure that this syndrome is not allowed to run away so fast that the differentials are eroded so badly that there is, as a result, produced a very rich overclass and a very poor underclass in what SHOULD BE a fair society.

This situation can only be attentuated by the correct application of fiscal powers.

[caminito]

'Negative income tax' should be introduced to tackle welfare says IEA
Britain's welfare state may be facing the biggest shake-up since Sir William Beveridge but the Coalition has not gone far enough, says The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
Britain's welfare state may be facing the biggest shake-up since Sir William Beveridge but the Coalition has not gone far enough, according to The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
The think-tank has called for Iain Duncan-Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, to scrap large swathes of the social benefits system.

Louise Armitstead, the Telegraph's chief City correspondent
By Louise Armitstead, Chief Business Correspondent 7:30AM GMT 13 Nov 2010


The influential think-tank has called for Iain Duncan-Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, to scrap large swathes of the social benefits system and goad people into work with a radical "negative income tax".

The author of the paper, Kristian Neimietz, the IEA's Poverty Research Fellow, has argued for the level of basic income support to be lowered, and for benefits including child tax benefits, the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes to be abolished for the middle classes.

Instead, the paper suggests setting an income tax level for households based on the number of family members. Under the system, if the earnings were less that the set level, the Government would pay a credit on the difference – a negative income tax. If the income were higher, the household would pay tax.

In the paper Mr Neimietz writes: "Access to benefits should be restricted in ways... that make work the very condition of entitlement. In particular the negative income tax should be contingent on full-time employment, limiting receipt to low earners who do their best to improved their situation."

He adds: "The rationale is simple: topping up the income of low-paid full-time workers is much cheaper than replacing the pay of several work days."

Mr Neimietz's model would see the end of the current system that has people paying tax and receiving benefits. Instead households would either be tax payers or transfer recipients, which he argues would improve transparency and simplicity.

The academic, who has modelled some parts of his arguments on systems tested in the US, says the system could save billions of pounds in welfare.

[Hugh]

Suprisingly, the rich getting richer under a supposedly egalitarian Labour government came after the poor had got richer under Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives.

I didn't get rich, but I certainly got better off under Margaret Thatcher Conservative Party.

[Hugh]

I wonder how many jobs were lost to British workers when Blair allow thousands of eastern block workers in uncontrolled numbers were allow to enter the country.