Spending review 2013

[KC Cantiaci]

Let's try another tack. If a contributory benefit with clearly defined contribution rates (as 'Contributory' JSA is) is not automatically available to those who contribute, how is it in any way a 'Contributory benefit?

Mull

Because the 'contributory' element is to help the Jobcentre decide if you are a PAYE employee out of work as opposed to a self-employed person who is having a quiet moment in his/her chosen profession.

Employees pay class 1 NI and you have to be paying these to qualify for the 'contributory' JSA. It doesn't mean you'll automatically get it as once your initial eligibility has been confirmed by checking on your class 1 NI contributions, they will then look at your financial situation to decide whether you need it or not. If you have income from a works pension (as you seem to have) or have enough in savings (£6k or more may limit what you receive, more than £16k, then I don't believe you'll get anything) then you will not receive JSA. Also, if you have others in your household with an income, this too could affect what you receive.

Self Employed pay class 2 NI and therefore do not qualify for 'contributory' JSA and would have to go for the income based version and it will be purely dependent on financial situation as the self employed would usually have savings to cover them for the ups and downs of being self employed.

So a wealthy banker who has paid loads in NI and tax and is made redundant, for example, would not receive JSA despite his/her contributions. The JobCentres roll is to register you as unemployed for the national figures and dish out JSA to those who need it to help them find another job. If you do need it, it's also likely you'll qualify for some other income support which is, in the UK, deemed different and recorded in a different way than other countries who seem to role all their benefits into one payment and call that unemployment welfare.

 

[Mescalito]

Chris,
It has sod all to do with zeitgeist. What kind of 'zeitgeist' is it that gets the Turkeys (i.e. the young people) voting for Christmas (i.e the destruction of the state)? It is the result of a deliberate campaign of lies, invective, scapegoating and misinformation perpetrated by the present Govt. and ably assisted by the press.

Are you ever going to admit that our current situation is NOT the result of benefits, or of scroungers, but of a failed international capitalist system and an even more failed response from our present 'leaders?

Mull

First of all, a reduction in the size & influence of the state in peoples lives is essential & long overdue. It is starting to happen & long may it continue.
We have developed an entirely unhealthy dependency culture since 1945. We need to be disabused of the notion that we can depend on the state to provide for us at all times. We can't, as you are finding out at the moment.

The state is piss poor at managing ANYTHING.

As to a failed capitalist system, it is in the nature of the beast to be cyclical. Live with it, it's not going to change.

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

Since the evidence indicates that Austerity is likely to fail in purely fiscal terms, that implies that Austerity will endure forever (or until come dramatic external event forces it to stop).

Increaing population + limited resources = increasing austerity.

It's here to stay.

Chris

 

[russel]

First of all, a reduction in the size & influence of the state in peoples lives is essential & long overdue. It is starting to happen & long may it continue.
We have developed an entirely unhealthy dependency culture since 1945. We need to be disabused of the notion that we can depend on the state to provide for us at all times. We can't, as you are finding out at the moment.


Chris

Despite this, it produced the post war economic boom that created a great deal of wealth, despite taxes on personal income being quite high in comparison today, oh and we also had a moon landing. So that's your state being no good and low taxes necessary for growth down the toilet.

 

[Mescalito]

Despite this, it produced the post war economic boom that created a great deal of wealth, despite taxes on personal income being quite high in comparison today, oh and we also had a moon landing. So that's your state being no good and low taxes necessary for growth down the toilet.

I stand by my assertion.

Chris

 

[russel]

I stand by my assertion.

Chris

Despite the evidence, a true believer.

 

[gassor]

As far as I am aware if you inflate the money supply and keep the supply of goods constant then there will be price inflation as well. If the money supply is constant and the amount of goods increases then there will be price deflation, assuming demand is constant. If the money supply falls and the supply of goods falls at a faster rate then there will be stagflation. Austerity is reducing government expenditure which reduces the amount of money in circulation, so it will not get rid of debt since people have less money to pay it off. The only way out is to increase spending, via the money supply, in such a way that the increase in wealth of the country reduces the debt to GDP ratio, otherwise you can write off the debt.

As I said before you cannot talk of inflating the money supply, only increasing or reducing it.

Even the IMF agrees the economic policy in the UK is too tight and there needs to be increased government spending. However it is a narrow margin between too little and too much. Doing the latter will only store up more problems in the future.

Accepting that more spending is called for still leaves the decision on what exactly should be it be spend on - what kind of infrastructure projects will have the greatest benefit on in terms of increasing overall GDP.

Simply increasing the money supply (as we have seen with QE) does not provide an injection of spending when there is a constipated financial system, the government must roll up its sleeves and do some extra spending. The road system in much of the country needs to be upgraded around most of our major cities. Another suggestion is to develop fracking in the UK to provide cheaper gas and electrical energy. This could give a boost to industry and jobs.

 

[Mescalito]

Despite the evidence, a true believer.

Let's compare the economic growth rates of the UK & the USA, shall we?

UK 1950 -1973 = 2.96%
USA 1950 - 1973 = 3.91%
USA outperforms UK by 32%

UK 1973 - 1992 = 1.59
USA 1973 - 1992 = 2.39

USA outperforms UK by 50%

The USA state has a much smaller footprint in business & the private lives of it's citizens. And, as you say, they still managed to put a man on the moon.

So the evidence supports my assertion that smaller state = higher prosperity & growth.

Chris

 

[russel]

Let's compare the economic growth rates of the UK & the USA, shall we?

UK 1950 -1973 = 2.96%
USA 1950 - 1973 = 3.91%
USA outperforms UK by 32%

UK 1973 - 1992 = 1.59
USA 1973 - 1992 = 2.39

USA outperforms UK by 50%

The USA state has a much smaller footprint in business & the private lives of it's citizens. And, as you say, they still managed to put a man on the moon.

So the evidence supports my assertion that smaller state = higher prosperity & growth.

Chris

Have you looked at the Nordic countries during that time period?

 

[Mick P]

That is of course not government policy and outside the scope of the BoE mandate (although we might see Carney to get that mandate changed) and would be completely unjustified if it were not for the current, once in three generations, interest rate situation.

The point of running moderate levels of inflation at this time is not to reduce debt but because we want to create an effective negative interest rate to boost demand. Note that you need to not actually create the inflation but rather an expectation in households, businesses and markets that it will arrive and persist and the central bank will allow it to do so.

Incidentally, Mick, calling for radical monetary policy like 5% inflation puts you not only at odds with government policy, the Tory party, the right wing press, etc. but puts you firmly in the ranks of the Keynesians and about as far left as modern orthodox Economics goes.

Matthew

Carney will almost certainly allow inflation to rise and he is not a radical lefty.

The Tories will live with that, it is neither radical nor controversial, just expedient.

Mick

 

[Cav]

JSA is supposed to be a CONTRIBUTORY BENEFIT. It has nothing to do with the last 40 years. The contributory version is based on contributions over the last couple of years. Which I have made and then some.

So. I have been conned.

Whether I have other income is frankly irrelevant. Unemployment benefit was never means tested before. Why now, when we are encouraged to buy pensions, should they count against us? I paid enough for a full state pension years ago. Therefore, the only logic to me continuing to pay Class 1 contributions, was to be eligible for JSA. I have been conned. If the Govt was a bank I'd be suing the bastards for PPI fraud.

Mull

Mull

Contribution based JSA is, as you rightly say, based on class 1 contributions in the relevant tax year but, if you have a pension, your entitlement is reduced pound for pound by the amount you pension exceeds £50 a week if I remember correctly.

This is not a con, it is the law. As I said upstream you can insist on making a claim, having a formal decision made, and appealing that decision. You can also lobby your MP.

 

[Mick P]

Naahh. As you often hint, there isn't really any 'pot', just the contributions.



Unemployment benefit was never generous. I had short periods due to redundancy in the 70s and 80s. I NEVER got my mortgage interest paid. More mythology.



That's fantasy. The unemployment benefit bill is miniscule in the scheme of things. And why maintain the illusion of 'contributory' benefits?



Mick. Try to think really hard. There is no reason on Earth, apart from Govt prejudice, why my modest pension should render my NI contributions void.
At the very least, they should stop this ridiculous pretence of a 'contributory' benefit and just be honest and tell me to **** off.



Mick. That is even more stupid than most of your posts. If I didn't have my modest pension, which I, not Govt, paid for, I would be getting JSA.

You still don't grasp the lunacy. Do you?



Mull

Mull

You asked the question why they didn't tell you to f*** off. Obviously they can't. However because people of our generation unpaid NI over a long period of time, they had to change the rules. Nulab will not reverse them either.

The new rule is simple, if you have a second income or a pension, you lose your JSA. It has been done to balance the books. In your case you compare unfavourably with other claimants who don't have a pension and that is unfair, but JSA is only £70 odd quid a week, so not having it is hardly going to put you in the workhouse.

Also your pride is intact, do you really want to be a doley.

Regards

Mick

 

[paul auster]

Let's compare the economic growth rates of the UK & the USA, shall we?

UK 1950 -1973 = 2.96%
USA 1950 - 1973 = 3.91%
USA outperforms UK by 32%

UK 1973 - 1992 = 1.59
USA 1973 - 1992 = 2.39

USA outperforms UK by 50%

The USA state has a much smaller footprint in business & the private lives of it's citizens. And, as you say, they still managed to put a man on the moon.

So the evidence supports my assertion that smaller state = higher prosperity & growth.

Chris

that is the biggest load of biased bollocks you have ever written and ignores plethora of other variables and factors [ population , land size , natural resources to name 3 ] to equate economic growth to laisse faire government is bollocks of the highest order .

edit - incidentally there was some yank on radio 4 today programme spouting this shit this morning and the interviewer may as well have sucked his dick rather than ask questions . Anybody from the Today programme on pfm , pm me and I will give you a lesson in interviewing techniques so you can abandon the useless façade of objectivity which allows any old idiot to talk unchallenged shite .

 

[Greg]

Matthew

Carney will almost certainly allow inflation to rise and he is not a radical lefty.

The Tories will live with that, it is neither radical nor controversial, just expedient.

Mick

Mick shall now be known as "Keynesian Mick"

 

[Barrymagrec]

Mick shall now be known as "Keynesian Mick"

No, Keynesian policies will become known as "Swindonism"

 

[Mick P]

Mick shall now be known as "Keynesian Mick"

Greg

Sorry but that sort of stupid bloody comment just kills off a sensible debate.

I just lose patience with that sort of stupidity and I will now act equally stupid as you and flounce off.

FFS either get a brain or f*** off.

 

[Greg]

Greg

Sorry but that sort of stupid bloody comment just kills off a sensible debate.

I just lose patience with that sort of stupidity and I will now act equally stupid as you and flounce off.

FFS either get a brain or f*** off.

cheer up, Mick

 

[Greg]

Let's compare the economic growth rates of the UK & the USA, shall we?

UK 1950 -1973 = 2.96%
USA 1950 - 1973 = 3.91%
USA outperforms UK by 32%

UK 1973 - 1992 = 1.59
USA 1973 - 1992 = 2.39

USA outperforms UK by 50%

The USA state has a much smaller footprint in business & the private lives of it's citizens. And, as you say, they still managed to put a man on the moon.

So the evidence supports my assertion that smaller state = higher prosperity & growth.

Chris

the evidence doesn't support your assertion.

 

[Mullardman]

As I said before you cannot talk of inflating the money supply, only increasing or reducing it.

Even the IMF agrees the economic policy in the UK is too tight and there needs to be increased government spending. However it is a narrow margin between too little and too much. Doing the latter will only store up more problems in the future.

Accepting that more spending is called for still leaves the decision on what exactly should be it be spend on - what kind of infrastructure projects will have the greatest benefit on in terms of increasing overall GDP.

Simply increasing the money supply (as we have seen with QE) does not provide an injection of spending when there is a constipated financial system, the government must roll up its sleeves and do some extra spending. The road system in much of the country needs to be upgraded around most of our major cities. Another suggestion is to develop fracking in the UK to provide cheaper gas and electrical energy. This could give a boost to industry and jobs.

Fracking is lunacy when you have a country literally built on coal. We used to get ALL of our domestic and industrial gas supplies by processing coal in the old Victorian gasworks, of which there was one in every town. And that was back when our old heavy industries were hungry for gas. We could do this again and in all probability more efficiently. This provides Gas, Coke, Tar for all sorts of construction and road building uses along with masses of useful chemicals.

What's not to like?

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

the evidence doesn't support your assertion.

Of course it doesn't. Since the 19th C the USA has been essentially a 'pirate' economy which blundered around the world taking whatever it wanted and stifling the opposition.

Things are changing now.

Mull