Burnham

[Rusty Nails]

If you read my post above I'm not saying there should be no regs, just less. Please quote any righties who say all regs should be abolished.

There's also the misconception that ll benefits go to the deserving poor (of course there are a fair few of the genuinely deserving). However there are also those who are a bit lazy, or who game the system, or who are trapped in the benefits system because it's sufficiently generous to make work mot really wothwhile.

We already have unions allowed by law so not sure what your point is on that one. We just need to make sure that they can't exert undue influence as a lot of hard left union leaders would like to do.

I just use the term righties as a pejorative just as you use lefties. It means just as much or as little.

So we'll just use the benefits system less generously for everyone, including the genuinely "deserving" to warn those who want to abuse it because "life can be unfair like that". That's OK.

What is undue influence? Surely striking is just using your strength in negotiation of a good deal for their members, as you did with your employer. "Life can be unfair like that" works both ways.

 

[First Aspect]

Instead of lefties and righties, could we have lefties and numpties?

 

[Stevo 666]

I just use the term righties as a pejorative just as you use lefties. It means just as much or as little.

So we'll just use the benefits system less generously for everyone, including the genuinely "deserving" to warn those who want to abuse it because "life can be unfair like that". That's OK.

What is undue influence? Surely striking is just using your strength in negotiation of a good deal for their members, as you did with your employer. "Life can be unfair like that" works both ways.

Your idea that we need to be less generous to everyone is a flawed - benefits need to be selectively reduced. Although your use of the word generous is quite appropriate, because that what our benefit system is for many people. Too generous - and currently costs us £340 billion a year. It should not be a lifestyle choice and I don't want my hard earned going to pay for lazy fvuckers and people who game the system.

Strength of negotiation is one thing, screwing things up for people not involved in the dispute is another - for example the tube strikes cost businesses in London tens of millions every time it happens.

 

[C R]

If you say so. Define 'rich'.

I thought brits were particular to sarcasm.

 

[icowden]

There's also the misconception that ll benefits go to the deserving poor (of course there are a fair few of the genuinely deserving). However there are also those who are a bit lazy, or who game the system, or who are trapped in the benefits system because it's sufficiently generous to make work mot really wothwhile.

This is true. Benefit fraud cost the UK Govt around £6.5bn with an additional £1.9bn lost to misunderstandings by claimants and £1bn due to processing mistakes by DWP. In return the UK Govt spends £3.5bn per year to fund the counter fraud team. Only a tiny fraction of that £9.5bn is actual criminal fraud. Most of it is failure to declare changes in circumstance which result in over or underpayment.

Tax evasion cost the UK Govt £7.1bn in 2025 whilst the Tax Gap was £59.2bn.

Do you think we should spend out time chasing benefit frauds and achieving almost nothing in clawing back money as it's already been spent, or do you think we should be doing something about tax evasion and simplifying tax to get rid of the £30bn lost to error and failure to take reasonable care, the £3.6 billion tax lost to cash in hand etc etc.

Many would say that resources should be spent going after people with money, to get the money that they owe, rather than the people without money who aren't going to repay it anyway.

 

[Pblakeney]

This is true. Benefit fraud cost the UK Govt around £6.5bn with an additional £1.9bn lost to misunderstandings by claimants and £1bn due to processing mistakes by DWP. In return the UK Govt spends £3.5bn per year to fund the counter fraud team. Only a tiny fraction of that £9.5bn is actual criminal fraud. Most of it is failure to declare changes in circumstance which result in over or underpayment.

Tax evasion cost the UK Govt £7.1bn in 2025 whilst the Tax Gap was £59.2bn.

Do you think we should spend out time chasing benefit frauds and achieving almost nothing in clawing back money as it's already been spent, or do you think we should be doing something about tax evasion and simplifying tax to get rid of the £30bn lost to error and failure to take reasonable care, the £3.6 billion tax lost to cash in hand etc etc.

Many would say that resources should be spent going after people with money, to get the money that they owe, rather than the people without money who aren't going to repay it anyway.

Send them to jail. That’ll help.

 

[Pross]

This is true. Benefit fraud cost the UK Govt around £6.5bn with an additional £1.9bn lost to misunderstandings by claimants and £1bn due to processing mistakes by DWP. In return the UK Govt spends £3.5bn per year to fund the counter fraud team. Only a tiny fraction of that £9.5bn is actual criminal fraud. Most of it is failure to declare changes in circumstance which result in over or underpayment.

Tax evasion cost the UK Govt £7.1bn in 2025 whilst the Tax Gap was £59.2bn.

Do you think we should spend out time chasing benefit frauds and achieving almost nothing in clawing back money as it's already been spent, or do you think we should be doing something about tax evasion and simplifying tax to get rid of the £30bn lost to error and failure to take reasonable care, the £3.6 billion tax lost to cash in hand etc etc.

Many would say that resources should be spent going after people with money, to get the money that they owe, rather than the people without money who aren't going to repay it anyway.

But if we stopped benefits there would be no fraud. Likewise, if we had no tax no-one would evade it. You need to think bigger.

 

[Pblakeney]

But if we stopped benefits there would be no fraud. Likewise, if we had no tax no-one would evade it. You need to think bigger.

Want to think big? Remove all taxes with the exception of VAT and increase that to 50%, or what ever is required.
Also remove VAT from energy and healthy food to stop people freezing or starving. That's big! 😉

 

[Pross]

Want to think big? Remove all taxes with the exception of VAT and increase that to 50%, or what ever is required.
Also remove VAT from energy and healthy food to stop people freezing or starving. That's big! 😉

But it’s unfair on the rich who we should be grateful to for buying stuff and keeping the economy going whilst the benefit scroungers only spend it on cigarettes, booze, gambling and TV subscriptions apparently.

 

[icowden]

Send them to jail. That’ll help.

Hmmm... £60k per person per year to keep them in jail. It'd be cheaper for the Govt just to give them £50k per year given that new prisons would need to be built also.

 

[First Aspect]

I think VAT is widely understood to be a fairly regressive tax.

 

[Pblakeney]

Hmmm... £60k per person per year to keep them in jail. It'd be cheaper for the Govt just to give them £50k per year given that new prisons would need to be built also.

My sarcasm was obviously too subtle.

 

[Stevo 666]

I thought brits were particular to sarcasm.

I thought I'd give you chance.