MP defends cuts to benefit payments (From Banbury Cake)

Sir Tony

Do you not think it is difficult to jusitify why so much money is lost in taxes, and given to banks?

Please explain why only those earning above a certain amount will now be able to live in Oxfordshire and top those that is ahs been home to for ever are being told that they must move....move to where exactly?

Someone who has worked all their life and has only just lost their job through redundancy is being treated as if they have been 'sleeping half the day' and nothing else for all their life and just to make things even better, they have to move out of their overpriced rented home......to the streets presumably. Councils may be getting extra money to help 'with the transitions' but that does not mean they are using it to help.. those in the above situation. The discretionary housing fund should help with this but instead...........on
e gets a letter saying that helping you pay your rent will not help you in the long term, you have to move! But of course there is no actual help in finding anywhere to live.....so hey how great you lose your job, can't pay your rent, get kicked out, and can't find anywhere to live because you don't have a job....

It said the changes could “push more people into poverty and homelessness”

Ahh, the Tory manifesto I see.

Why is it OK for this government to fund tax cuts for the rich, illegal wars, HS2 (that we do not need) and support their rich banking and journalist friends while persecuting the average man ?

When will Toffy Cameron and Osborne be moving out of Downing Street then???
They are in houses to big for them.
Where are all these people about to lose their benefits suppossed to move to??? I know of someone in a three bedroom house with two kids that are about to lose benefit, but like she says, there are no two bedroom homes for her to move into!! so she is being punished for something that is not her fault!! Typical tory toffs, how about cutting the taxes on the rich, not giving them a 5p cut in income tax.

The sooner this Government goes the better, everything they do is for the benefit of themselves, and their wealthy chums.
They're grinding the NHS into the ground, so that it can be sold off, to companies that the majority of the front bench have financial interests in.
They're avoiding doing anything that will boost the economy, they're attacking the disabled and those in need, Germany had similar policies in the first half of the last century, the only thing this bunch of toffs haven't implemented yet, is genocide, they're relying on suicides at the moment.
They are, by far, the worst Government this country has ever had.

Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

If the Government did something about corporate and personal tax dodging, sorted the banks out, reduced fuel tax etc., they'd only have to borrow a fraction of what they have been/are borrowing, and the economy would actually start to recover, instead of slipping into a triple dip recession, or is it quadruple now, I've lost track.

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

If the Government did something about corporate and personal tax dodging, sorted the banks out, reduced fuel tax etc., they'd only have to borrow a fraction of what they have been/are borrowing, and the economy would actually start to recover, instead of slipping into a triple dip recession, or is it quadruple now, I've lost track.

Dilly, also how about building enough council houses so the we are not paying £billions in housing benefit to a few slum landlords that are now Billionairs and sending the money 5,000 miles away. That would be a start.

Grunden Skip wrote:

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

If the Government did something about corporate and personal tax dodging, sorted the banks out, reduced fuel tax etc., they'd only have to borrow a fraction of what they have been/are borrowing, and the economy would actually start to recover, instead of slipping into a triple dip recession, or is it quadruple now, I've lost track.

Dilly, also how about building enough council houses so the we are not paying £billions in housing benefit to a few slum landlords that are now Billionairs and sending the money 5,000 miles away. That would be a start.

Too right!

We were moved to a 3 bed house 6 years ago because our son has disabilities, and the daughter i have joint custody over can not share due to his dangerous behavior, we have had nearly £20,000 worth of adaptions that have been paid for by grants and ourselves we are now being told that we have to downsize to a 2 bed house. the adaptions cant be moved so we would have to fund again, i will also not be keeping to my side of the custody ruling due to not having a room for my daughter when we have her 6 months a year.
I had to stop working due to a botched operation on the NHS that im now waiting to be corrected.
I feel the way this is being done is very wrong

Yes it would be great if Starbucks was forced to pay zillions of tax, so it could fold and lay off all its staff. And of course you always arrange your affairs to pay the most tax you possibly can and it would be wonderful if all banks were burnt down and we hid our pennies in a hole in the ground but the fact is the present benefit system is unaffordable. The OAP is a Ponzi scheme.The Roumanians and Bulgars are entitled to dip their cup in what is a dribble of brackish water in the sands, all that remains to sustain welfare. We all wish it were better, we all know Blairbrown had as much chance as a chocolate teapot of repairing the damage if the populace had been stupid enough to re elect them. Time to get real I'm afraid. We CANNOT afford it.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Yes it would be great if Starbucks was forced to pay zillions of tax, so it could fold and lay off all its staff. And of course you always arrange your affairs to pay the most tax you possibly can and it would be wonderful if all banks were burnt down and we hid our pennies in a hole in the ground but the fact is the present benefit system is unaffordable. The OAP is a Ponzi scheme.The Roumanians and Bulgars are entitled to dip their cup in what is a dribble of brackish water in the sands, all that remains to sustain welfare. We all wish it were better, we all know Blairbrown had as much chance as a chocolate teapot of repairing the damage if the populace had been stupid enough to re elect them. Time to get real I'm afraid. We CANNOT afford it.

we cannot afford to fight other countries
wars but we do. africa here we come

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

So explain then despite the cuts to this that and the other Government borrowing is UP yet again. It is not purely welfare spending that has caused this.

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

So explain then despite the cuts to this that and the other Government borrowing is UP yet again. It is not purely welfare spending that has caused this.

No, it's not. I agree. It is I suppose the whole concept that the state must do everything and is best at everything. It can't, and it isn't. And send troops to Mali? You must be joking. The French response to Cameron's speech was good enough for me. Merde sur votre choufleur Monsieur Hollande.

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Whilst I fully agree that we should not be giving money to people in foreign countries to buy Mercedes (no not even to buy Sunderland Nissans or Swindon Hondas) you may not have noticed that so much is being borrowed to fund welfare that our grandchildrens' future is being mortgaged. If you want to pay more welfare-then you voluntarily pay more income tax. Put your money where your mouths are.

So explain then despite the cuts to this that and the other Government borrowing is UP yet again. It is not purely welfare spending that has caused this.

Nope, it's all down to a chancellor that has a degree in Modern History, not economics, and a Government made up of toffs that have never done a proper day's work in their lives, so haven't got a clue about the real world.

Sadly, Sandy WS, the previous Labour government was also riddled with drippingly-rich and well-off toffs, and it was also Labour's 'Brown-the-Ditherer' who bailed-out the banks. It was also Labour (including the Millibands and Balls) who failed to address the recession, after it kicked-in, about two and a half years before Labour lost the 2010 General Election to Cavalier Cameron and his LibDem cronies. It was also the former Labour government which had started looking at dramatic changes to the creaking Benefits System, and launched the £billions investment in two new aircraft carriers, and changes to the NHS. Nor, over the past 50/so years, has Labour ever really enjoyed a viable working relationship with its 'roots' and main financial backers - the trade unions. As for it being 'acceptable' for companies like Starbucks to be allowed to avoid paying tax because they are 'important job-creators and employers for the UK economy' I don't think even Cameron or Osborne seem to agree with such fantasy!

Myron Blatz wrote:
Sadly, Sandy WS, the previous Labour government was also riddled with drippingly-rich and well-off toffs, and it was also Labour's 'Brown-the-Ditherer' who bailed-out the banks. It was also Labour (including the Millibands and Balls) who failed to address the recession, after it kicked-in, about two and a half years before Labour lost the 2010 General Election to Cavalier Cameron and his LibDem cronies. It was also the former Labour government which had started looking at dramatic changes to the creaking Benefits System, and launched the £billions investment in two new aircraft carriers, and changes to the NHS. Nor, over the past 50/so years, has Labour ever really enjoyed a viable working relationship with its 'roots' and main financial backers - the trade unions. As for it being 'acceptable' for companies like Starbucks to be allowed to avoid paying tax because they are 'important job-creators and employers for the UK economy' I don't think even Cameron or Osborne seem to agree with such fantasy!

Starbucks et al pay dividends. Dividends pay pensions. You want a pension? Well stop joining Cameron in his inane drivel about companies handing everything over to the State. Unless you're a very old person, believe me the state is not going to be able to keep you in your desired lifestyle in old age. Please stop fantasising people!

As usual, Lord Palmerstone, you're the only one with their head firmly out of the sand. I'm afraid we're living on a Rothschild credit card and we need to curtail this excess. We live in this bloody bubble, from generation X to the present, we have not known hard times, not really. You think it's bad now, wait until the dollar crashes. Ever seen Mad Max?