US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.

Germanshepherdsmum

That makes no sense to me DaisyAnne. A company employs X and pays them maybe considerably more than the statutory minimum. However X has a stay at home spouse and quite a few young children. If as a result of their chosen personal circumstances X is paid UC, why should the blame be laid at the door of their employer?

GSM employers cannot be liable for employees partners/spouses/living situations.

Precisely.

The fact is that the UK sis one of the most unequal economically in the developed world, and while many do not think of this as a problem, research clearly shows that it is.
From the Equality Trust Its clear that the more equal countries see better physical and mental health, better educational outcomes, and lower levels of violence.
So it’s a win win for all, not just the poorest.

Another thought, those familiar with the philosopher John Rawls, and who are comfortably well off - If you had to choose behind the veil of ignorance would you vote for the status quo?

Urmstongran

Perhaps our government could look at best practice in other ‘rich’ countries and see how they manage wealth inequality. I’m sure many European countries have similar problems though from what I’ve read and seen.

I imagine they do Urmstongran. They look at Australia often enough. I'm not sure they go for "best practice" but rather the cheapest they can get away with and the one's that appeal to the basest of their base.

It's definitely not the people with huge offshore accounts, aristocrats with the idea that they have a divine right to reign or those who think the best way to run a country is "devil take the hindmost.”

Lovely post Volver.
So your solution is to stop the wealthy having offshore accounts.
I’m in total agreement if it means they would have to pay tax on the money that is then kept in UK accounts.
We don’t need to discuss the government because we already agree on that. (Unless you’re a secret Tory voter.)
Your divine right to reign has me puzzled. Do you think that if there was no RF, they would immediately give up all their sources of income, land etc. and that money would immediately flow to the poorest in the land?
Or would it be, as we all do that they hang on to what they’ve got in order to run their homes, (Giving up second or even third homes to support the poor would be a touchy subject on GN.)
Or to support those they employ? (Giving up having a cleaner -another touchy point.)
The poverty and the need for food banks is appalling and it affects some members of my family. I don’t have a solution,
though I’ve read some good suggestions on here.

So your solution is to stop the wealthy having offshore accounts.
Not necessarily. Just stop them diverting profits into offshore accounts so that they can benefit unfairly from money made in this country. I'm looking at you, Mr Rees Mogg.

Your divine right to reign has me puzzled. I don't think they will give up their personal wealth and shouldn't be expected to. But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

They don't have to give up their second or third homes. Giving up their eighth or ninth homes would be adequate. And certainly not give up their cleaners, especially the older members of the RF.

Urmstongran

The UK is a magnet for some to come to. It must suit them or they wouldn’t keep trying to get in. But how we ‘level up’ is the bigger question. It would be wonderful if we could do it.

Most come because they speak the language or have relatives here Urmstongran.

It's an age-old system; if you look back in history, we used to do the same. We just thought we were entitled to take other countries' wealth. We sent the eldest or the second eldest son. The system has always been used by the poor or dispossessed. People talk as if we never used it but I would guess those who went to Australia, South Africa, Canada, India, America, etc., from these islands far outstrip those coming here.

We need a proper system or we must accept that we encourage people to cross the channel because we don't have a proper system. We could give each person asking for asylum a card which allows them to be housed, given a small income and allowed and encouraged to work for, let's say, three months or six months. Whichever the companies the government outsources to say they can achieve.

The company must achieve an outcome on the asylum claim within that time. If the claim was not finalised, or if the person is appealing the asylum seeker would continue with the original housing, benefit (which would go if earning enough) and ability to work until it is finalised. The company would now be responsible for the costs. This would mean they charged a proper amount for their services and government might just see it pays them to have it in-house rather than outsourced.

Urmstongran

Baaad TORIES‼️ (Again) ?
Maybe we should just vote Labour in and have done with it as most of GN posters would love that anyway.
Mind you, looking back (Blair PPI debacle), Brown (cashing in the family silver) it’s never plain sailing whoever is in.

Try reading what is written UG, instead of making it up. I for one pointed out going to extremes (as you would and do) does not help. Others have commented about a more balanced way.

GrannyGravy13

As MaizieD has posted repeatedly taxation does not fund government spending the U.K. could tax the rich at 90% and it would not make any difference to government spending.

However, taxation at 90% would not be an incentive to invest in the U.K.

Life is unfair and unjust, I have no idea what the overall solution is other than increasing the living wage and ensuring that the State safety net works for all who need it.

Why does taxing personal income prevent investment in just the UK? Those people would not be able to play roulette with their money in any country. Most currently don't invest in anything tangible at the moment.

If the tax is used to expand real industries, then the UK would be fine.

But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

What makes you think that they think they're 'entitled' to this, volver? Surely these decisions are made by the government, or are perceived traditions. Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Is it still the norm that schoolchildren in the US swear allegiance to The Flag every day? That seems really strange to us, but it is a way of 'attaching' the US citizens to their country. In the same way, the RF traditions can be seen as promoting attachment to the UK. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that they can have a function beyond what you seem to think of as massaging royal egos.

Germanshepherdsmum

That makes no sense to me DaisyAnne. A company employs X and pays them maybe considerably more than the statutory minimum. However X has a stay at home spouse and quite a few young children. If as a result of their chosen personal circumstances X is paid UC, why should the blame be laid at the door of their employer?

What makes no sense? You didn't refer to anything I said or quote it, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I mention stay at home spouses or children? You do seem to be twisting what I said although I am sure you would never do such a thing.

MaizieD

^But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.^

What makes you think that they think they're 'entitled' to this, volver? Surely these decisions are made by the government, or are perceived traditions. Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Is it still the norm that schoolchildren in the US swear allegiance to The Flag every day? That seems really strange to us, but it is a way of 'attaching' the US citizens to their country. In the same way, the RF traditions can be seen as promoting attachment to the UK. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that they can have a function beyond what you seem to think of as massaging royal egos.

Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Then they can say "No thank you" then, can't they. I'll not be holding my breath though.

I know fine that the RF traditions are about more than massaging royal egos. Although when I see them in the Ruritanian costumes, I do wonder. They are more to do with giving the masses what they want. One thing that I have realised through this last week or so is how happy people are to be "subjects" and how they will lap up the ceremony they are told is needed on the passing of a monarch. Even to the extent of queuing for 24 hours to spend a few minutes in the presence of the body of a former Queen.

The RF traditions do nothing to "attach me to my country", quite the opposite.

Employers making UC claims DaisyAnne.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not sure what your point is volver. The woman had money but wouldn’t spend it on food or bills. We will never know what caused the problems with her benefits but it’s possible that, given her mental health issues, she didn’t engage with the DWP to provide the necessary information.

If you haven't seen the film by Ken Loach, I Daniel Blake, might I recommend it to you.

Daniel Blake, a widowed 59-year-old joiner from Newcastle, has had a heart attack. Though his doctor has not allowed him to return to work, he is deemed fit to do so after a Work Capability Assessment and is denied Employment and Support Allowance. He is frustrated to learn that his doctor was not contacted about this decision and thus applies for an appeal, a process he finds difficult because he must complete forms online and is not computer literate.

Although fictional it is an accurate description of what often happens to people who try to claim benefits.

The Film won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2016.

I honestly don’t think the vast majority think of themselves as ‘subjects’ in anything like the true sense, volver. It’s just a word, like many others, whose meaning has changed or diminished over many years.

I haven’t seen the film Dinahmo. I’m aware of the difficulties there can be when someone is assessed to be fit to work. Help is available from various sources for completing forms. It’s something I have done as part of the requirement for solicitors to undertake pro bono work. A good many people who need to claim benefits are completely illiterate, or speak English insufficiently well to complete forms.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not sure what your point is volver. The woman had money but wouldn’t spend it on food or bills. We will never know what caused the problems with her benefits but it’s possible that, given her mental health issues, she didn’t engage with the DWP to provide the necessary information.

I've just read the link provided from which I gather that there were several periods where her benefits were withdrawn so you cannot say that she had money. She obviously didn't.

The officials at the DWP are quite capable of running rings around claimants with mental health problems. The daughter of friends who suffers from mental health went to a tribunal to get her benefits restored. She was lucky because her adoptive parents are articulate and also know some influential people who assisted with their daughter's claim.
The tribunal came down in her favour and granted benefits for x number of years.Within this period the DWP has taken benefits away from her and they are now having to go through the process again. This is not a rare occurrence.

Germanshepherdsmum

I haven’t seen the film Dinahmo. I’m aware of the difficulties there can be when someone is assessed to be fit to work. Help is available from various sources for completing forms. It’s something I have done as part of the requirement for solicitors to undertake pro bono work. A good many people who need to claim benefits are completely illiterate, or speak English insufficiently well to complete forms.

so why are they still called for PIP assessments and why are they called regularly for fit for work assessments?

My own daughter has to attend them every 3 months and she is never going to improve, she has always had a severe learning disability and always will have. She has to attend with 2 carers to support her, rather than the 1 she has in her home as she finds the situation too challenging. Why is she is being called? She also has a Mother. Why are all of those living in the LD communities being called? Wouldn't this money be better directed at providing care for these groups of people rather than a private firm getting paid for each appointment.

volver

MaizieD

But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

What makes you think that they think they're 'entitled' to this, volver? Surely these decisions are made by the government, or are perceived traditions. Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Is it still the norm that schoolchildren in the US swear allegiance to The Flag every day? That seems really strange to us, but it is a way of 'attaching' the US citizens to their country. In the same way, the RF traditions can be seen as promoting attachment to the UK. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that they can have a function beyond what you seem to think of as massaging royal egos.

Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Then they can say "No thank you" then, can't they. I'll not be holding my breath though.

I know fine that the RF traditions are about more than massaging royal egos. Although when I see them in the Ruritanian costumes, I do wonder. They are more to do with giving the masses what they want. One thing that I have realised through this last week or so is how happy people are to be "subjects" and how they will lap up the ceremony they are told is needed on the passing of a monarch. Even to the extent of queuing for 24 hours to spend a few minutes in the presence of the body of a former Queen.

The RF traditions do nothing to "attach me to my country", quite the opposite.

But they can't say no thank you; this is a "State" event. As Head of State the King has responsibility and this is one of them.

You might want to update events and scrap all our history but you are not the one who decides. The government does that.

I rather think you must have a cat. You always seem to need to find someone else to blame. Cat's come in useful for that.

Whitewavemark2

What I do think is that the tax payer has been subsidising businesses for years by topping up the poor wages paid by so many with benefits.

There should be a sensible living wage, and it should be made mandatory.

Exactly.

You are so rude. Miaow. ?

Does the State mandate several vigils in Ruritanian costume and a performative queuing system?

Dinahmo

Whitewavemark2

What I do think is that the tax payer has been subsidising businesses for years by topping up the poor wages paid by so many with benefits.

There should be a sensible living wage, and it should be made mandatory.

Exactly.

I think that is something which we all agree on

According to the link she had savings Dinahmo, which she wanted to keep in order to buy a dilapidated bungalow. That’s why I made the comment that she did have money but chose not to spend it.

Germanshepherdsmum

Employers making UC claims DaisyAnne.

I didn't say employers would pay UC claims GSM, which is the road you seem to be travelling down. They would be claiming against their own lack of income, not the workers. The amount would be set by the government at a level one person can live on. The spouse is not the worker, nor is the child.

volver

MaizieD

But in return, they shouldn't expect us to pay for extravagant events celebrating their lives and achievements, that they think they are entitled to.

What makes you think that they think they're 'entitled' to this, volver? Surely these decisions are made by the government, or are perceived traditions. Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Is it still the norm that schoolchildren in the US swear allegiance to The Flag every day? That seems really strange to us, but it is a way of 'attaching' the US citizens to their country. In the same way, the RF traditions can be seen as promoting attachment to the UK. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that they can have a function beyond what you seem to think of as massaging royal egos.

Who is to say that the RF might prefer not to have such a fuss made?

Then they can say "No thank you" then, can't they. I'll not be holding my breath though.

I know fine that the RF traditions are about more than massaging royal egos. Although when I see them in the Ruritanian costumes, I do wonder. They are more to do with giving the masses what they want. One thing that I have realised through this last week or so is how happy people are to be "subjects" and how they will lap up the ceremony they are told is needed on the passing of a monarch. Even to the extent of queuing for 24 hours to spend a few minutes in the presence of the body of a former Queen.

The RF traditions do nothing to "attach me to my country", quite the opposite.

But it's not all about you, is it volver? At the moment the majority seem to be content at the moment. At least it gives you people you can attack who can't answer back.