Crimewave?, We ain't seen nothing yet but Theresa May is very relaxed! Options

[Sherlock]

There have been numerous assaults in twon recently and Saturday saw 11 year olds being chased out of Victoria Park by knife wielding youths. Homelessness in Newbury is visible for all to see and with a tsunami of migrants flooding the EU, tens if not hundreds of thousands more will, legally or not, end up in the UK. With the government cutting support for migrants and asylum seekers crime will be their only option and London based drugs syndicates are already very active in the area.

But good news! There's no need to worry! The Home Secretary is very comfortable with the huge cuts in Thames Valley Police's budget and says they'll cope easily. Phew!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-32286027

Back in the real world crime has been falling for a number of years but a perfect storm of huge cuts, collapsing council run and funded services and massive pressures on population will soon reverse all that. I think we can already see boughs beginning to bend.

[Andy Capp]

Back in the real world crime has been falling for a number of years but a perfect storm of huge cuts, collapsing council run and funded services and massive pressures on population will soon reverse all that. I think we can already see boughs beginning to bend.

Yes I think that hides a problem that will manifest itself in the future.

[On the edge]

Ironic that established thinking has it that crime was at record low levels during the depression in the 1930s. Don't tell George Os. or he'll tighten the belt even more.

[Andy Capp]

Ironic that established thinking has it that crime was at record low levels during the depression in the 1930s. Don't tell George Os. or he'll tighten the belt even more.

I think that was because no-one had anything to steal or worth fighting for; however, poverty is only one element in the reason for crime.

[On the edge]

Quite so, but today, unless its self inflicted, no one in the UK suffers from real poverty. I mean the original definition of poverty and not today's Social Service definition. In other words, not having sufficient resource or income to sustain life. The State safety net for job loss was harsh and minimal which consequently mirrored criminal penalty - thus for the majority in work, or indeed actually looking, the consequences of crime were a significant deterrent.


We are told crime is falling but having casually followed these numbers for a fair few years, I'm not convinced. The continued level of error and redefinition makes comparison meaningless.

In a society which apparently believes that someone is in 'poverty' because they can't afford designer shoes for their kids to go to school, that feels its acceptable that someone who steals from shops should just be given a warning, or accepts that the cheating a railway company of a few pounds by not purchasing a ticket is a far more heinous crime in penalty terms than serially duffing up your girlfriend is, as Sherlock suggests, storing up big trouble.

[spartacus]

I'd agree with that. Some people’s definition of what it is to be ‘poor’ in 2015 [EDIT] defies [/EDIT]belief.

Mobile phone? A MUST have. (and none of this old technology rubbish either. It has to be iPhone)
Flat screen TV? Obviously. Not less than 37”
Overseas holiday? Everyone's entitled to one... a week in Morecambe isn't going to get me a lush tan, and I need a break from the kids
Fags? I'm cutting down, but I need them to get me through the day
Some booze? Only the odd tipple but it's a release mechanism


Oh.... food? That’s what food banks are for.....

"No-one gives me nuffink..."

[Andy Capp]

I have a spooky feeling we might be neighbours!

[Simon Kirby]

I'd agree with that. Some people’s definition of what it is to be ‘poor’ in 2015 describes belief.

Mobile phone? A MUST have. (and none of this old technology rubbish either. It has to be iPhone)
Flat screen TV? Obviously. Not less than 37”
Overseas holiday? Everyone's entitled to one... a week in Morecambe isn't going to get me a lush tan, and I need a break from the kids
Fags? I'm cutting down, but I need them to get me through the day
Some booze? Only the odd tipple but it's a release mechanism


Oh.... food? That’s what food banks are for.....

"No-one gives me nuffink..."

That's a grotesque caricature then dehumanises the poor - the kind of skewed Daily Mail reality that helps middle-income middle English Conservatives square their morality with the cutting of tax-credits from families on low-pay so that they themselves don't have to feel the squeeze.

[Andy Capp]

My view is would anyone swap environments. I think what the Tories were trying to do was obscene, although I understand the reason.

[spartacus]

That's a grotesque caricature then dehumanises the poor - the kind of skewed Daily Mail reality that helps middle-income middle English Conservatives square their morality with the cutting of tax-credits from families on low-pay so that they themselves don't have to feel the squeeze.

pffft...
Have you never scrolled through the TV channels and happened upon "Benefits Street" and stared in open mouthed amazement at the 'destitute' of Winson Green in Birmingham? It may be a caricature but some people are living this life. I don't think it was all staged for Channel 4. Fag permanently hanging from slack jaw, large flat screen TV on in the background, Wayne and Waynetta playing on their XBox, mobile stuck to their ear......yet they still have to use the food bank otherwise they'd 'starve'. Some of it's exaggerated for the Daily Mail set but some of it's real. And I agree, it's grotesque that these oxygen thieves think the world owes them a living.

[Andy Capp]

Just thank the Lord they don't grow-up in an environment that equipped them with the wherewithal to take your job.

[Simon Kirby]

pffft...
Have you never scrolled through the TV channels and happened upon "Benefits Street" and stared in open mouthed amazement at the 'destitute' of Winson Green in Birmingham? It may be a caricature but some people are living this life. I don't think it was all staged for Channel 4. Fag permanently hanging from slack jaw, large flat screen TV on in the background, Wayne and Waynetta playing on their XBox, mobile stuck to their ear......yet they still have to use the food bank otherwise they'd 'starve'. Some of it's exaggerated for the Daily Mail set but some of it's real. And I agree, it's grotesque that these oxygen thieves think the world owes them a living.

No, I didn't watch Benefit Street and I don't read the Daily Mail, but I think this supports my point that dehumanising people (as "oxygen theives", or for that matter any of the other slurs that have been applied to one tribe by another) enables people of otherwise sound conscience to treat their fellow humans dispicably.

[On the edge]

The problem with politicians using inaccurate adjectives to promote their cause is that we end up with inaccurate solutions. Our big issue today isn't the alleviation of hunger more the elimination exploitation. Tax credits actually increase the opportunity for employers to get away with paying low wages. If any business or operation cannot pay its workers adequate rewards then it should not be in operation and if we are buying its goods or services then we are also complicit in exploitation. Defining adequate is of course key.

[Simon Kirby]

The problem with politicians using inaccurate adjectives to promote their cause is that we end up with inaccurate solutions. Our big issue today isn't the alleviation of hunger more the elimination exploitation. Tax credits actually increase the opportunity for employers to get away with paying low wages. If any business or operation cannot pay its workers adequate rewards then it should not be in operation and if we are buying its goods or services then we are also complicit in exploitation. Defining adequate is of course key.

I agree of course that no one should be paid less than a living wage and doing so would lift some people of tax credits, but I also feel that means-tested tax relief targetted at families and on top of a living wage is just. The major problem here is how the Conservatives have so demonized benefits.

[Andy Capp]

I see wage subsidy as a way of competing in a world economy. We'll have to get used to it until such time poor countries reach our standard of living or the consumer develops a sense of duty to the local economy, i.e. pay more for locally sourced goods. Or the relatively well off accept their, probably, fortunate circumstances and accept paying more tax.

[Rdg]

I agree of course that no one should be paid less than a living wage and doing so would lift some people of tax credits, but I also feel that means-tested tax relief targetted at families and on top of a living wage is just. The major problem here is how the Conservatives have so demonized benefits.

But that is logically absurd - if the "living wage" is a living wage then there is no need for top up tax relief - if top ups are needed then the "living wage" is not enough to live on.

The only problem in my mind with the current plans was that the reduction in tax credits/taper relief changes were going to happen immediately whilst the living wage is being phased in over several years. Get the 2 phasings in line and there shouldn't be a problem.

As for Corbyn demanding a guarantee that nobody should be worse off that is complete political gesturing - I don't think there is a single person in the country who does not believe that there is a small subset of people who know how to play the system and so are actually doing very well out of not working etc - these few people should be made worse off and so it is a silly demand designed more to pander to the heavy left wing than actually mena anything. Like people saying "think of the nurses who will be worse off", an HCA maybe but nurses earn more than the bracket that will be badly hit by the changes to the taper - I hate people making false examples to try and play the emotional card when there are perfectly good and correct examples available - it makes me lose all sympathy for their viewpoint.

Benefits should be demonised if all they do is allow employers to underpay - and don't forget one of the largest low pay employers is the government itself both via state bodies or sub contractors

[James_Trinder]

Just thank the Lord they don't grow-up in an environment that equipped them with the wherewithal to take your job.

I give thanks daily that the Chinese/Indians haven't worked out how to do my job yet.

[Andy Capp]

But that is logically absurd - if the "living wage" is a living wage then there is no need for top up tax relief - if top ups are needed then the "living wage" is not enough to live on.

That's right, but the Living Wage is like Affordable Housing: it has a definition that isn't necessarily described accurately in the phrase.

As for Corbyn demanding a guarantee that nobody should be worse off that is complete political gesturing - I don't think there is a single person in the country who does not believe that there is a small subset of people who know how to play the system and so are actually doing very well out of not working etc - these few people should be made worse off and so it is a silly demand designed more to pander to the heavy left wing than actually mena anything. Like people saying "think of the nurses who will be worse off", an HCA maybe but nurses earn more than the bracket that will be badly hit by the changes to the taper - I hate people making false examples to try and play the emotional card when there are perfectly good and correct examples available - it makes me lose all sympathy for their viewpoint.

I don't see it as reasonable to reject a principle or argument just because someone chooses to use language that is regrettable. My feelsings are that the Tories promote the idea that work should pay more than idleness. That seems perfectly fair, but to then decide to impoverish people who are not idle, but are already on a low income is not a policy that supports that principle. Indeed, I feel it could easily discourage work, or encourage a 'black economy'.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was a small amount of money, in this case it is a large amount of money, but in any case, anyone that has lived on the breadline will know, you only need to dip under slightly and your world can come caving in.

Benefits should be demonised if all they do is allow employers to underpay - and don't forget one of the largest low pay employers is the government itself both via state bodies or sub contractors

It is a simple arithmetic: usually, higher wages = fewer jobs. While we have a global economy we need inducements for employers to want to come here, and one of those inducements (and there are others), is to subsides wages to make it cheaper to employ people.

[Rdg]

But the low paid jobs are not for international companies really are they - they are cleaners, low end retail, health and social care assistants - nothing to do with manufacturing or internal investment into the UK. Also strictly speaking work does still pay - even if you are facing a 80% effective tax rate at some points you are still 20% off than not working.

If they sort the timing of the wage increases with the tax credit decreases/threshold increases then I can't see what the issue is - there will always be a few losers when you change systems but as long as it is a small % and able to be planned for well in advance (i.e. over a year not <6mths) then effects can be mitigated, I think it is largely a timing issue which has rightly been picked up but then used as a political bludgeon by some people wanting to score points

[Andy Capp]

But the low paid jobs are not for international companies really are they - they are cleaners, low end retail, health and social care assistants - nothing to do with manufacturing or internal investment into the UK.

These companies would more than likely be subsidiaries of 'vulture capitalists' and the like (sorry, I can't remember the correct word(s) for it). And when multinationals decide to invest in a country they will also look to see the cost of being there too.

Also strictly speaking work does still pay - even if you are facing a 80% effective tax rate at some points you are still 20% off than not working.

Only if the alternative is no income, but that isn't the case here.

If they sort the timing of the wage increases with the tax credit decreases/threshold increases then I can't see what the issue is - there will always be a few losers when you change systems but as long as it is a small % and able to be planned for well in advance (i.e. over a year not <6mths) then effects can be mitigated, I think it is largely a timing issue which has rightly been picked up but then used as a political bludgeon by some people wanting to score points

A small % when you have very little can be all that makes the difference; however, it is better explained here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34572807

"... by 2020, a low-earning single parent, with one child, who works 20 hours a week, and who earns £9.35 an hour, will end up £1,000 a year worse off.

A low-earning couple with two children, also on £9.35 an hour, will be £850 a year worse off. However, a childless middle-earning couple will be £350 a year better off, as a result of the new personal tax allowance."

"Chancellor George Osborne says that anyone who is working full-time on the National Living Wage will be better off, after the tax changes are taken into consideration. However most people claiming tax credits are likely to be working part-time."

In my view, the figures quoted here are huge when you are a low income person or family. Of course, what is also not helpful for the Monster Raving Tory party is that Cameron is believed to have said shortly before the election that he wouldn't touch tax credits. One of your routine political lies it seems.