Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Donald Trumps

Thatcherite Treasury Team Launch Fresh Assault On Poor

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

From the first time they tried to introduce this:

Up to 90 lone parents and 35 couples could be impacted by the changes to EPA and about a third of the 300 lone parents on income support could lose benefits.

Thanks, as I said it’s a really small group of people compared to the thousands of zero rated companies based here getting tax subsidies off Treasury and the tax cappers. Hard to see why they have to attack a small sample of poor people in order to save money. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If they work 16 hours what is supposed to happen? 

Are they meant to live off their wages, whilst those working longer get benefits?

If they do 16 hours some weeks and 24 others do they lose benefits on the shorter weeks?

Will it be better to not work than work a few hours?

Edited by Declan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Anyway, I think that Henderson or Cannan should have all their bank accounts blocked for a month, give them an abrahams flat and jobseekers or basic incapacity and see how they do. Because until you've lived it, you haven't got a fucking clue how your decisions at the top affect those who do.

Phil Gawne showed that you can survive on one pound a day

Cut all benefits to £1.20 a day, which would thus be a bargain. Then they can go down Dealz. Maybe get some soap and toothpaste and that too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gettafa said:

Phil Gawne showed that you can survive on one pound a day

Cut all benefits to £1.20 a day, which would thus be a bargain. Then they can go down Dealz. Maybe get some soap and toothpaste and that too.

You only have to look at the way he dresses to know he can live on £1 a day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gettafa said:

Phil Gawne showed that you can survive on one pound a day

Cut all benefits to £1.20 a day, which would thus be a bargain. Then they can go down Dealz. Maybe get some soap and toothpaste and that too.

 

 

There might, just might be a difference in what he did as to actually having to. Surviving for a week knowing you still have a house and financial back up is totally different to having nothing and wondering how you are going to pay your bills. What he achieved really was insulting to those who don't have a lot

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said PmJ. 

It also served to give Phil his oxygen of 'look at and listen to me' publicity. Which of course backfired on him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Declan said:

If they work 16 hours what is supposed to happen? 

Are they meant to live off their wages, whilst those working longer get benefits?

If they do 16 hours some weeks and 24 others do they lose benefits on the shorter weeks?

Will it be better to not work than work a few hours?

EPA is worked out over a 12 week period. Or at least it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

EPA is worked out over a 12 week period. Or at least it was.

What does EPA stand for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Employed Persons Allowance, I think

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Employed Persons Allowance, I think

Thanks DT, in the line of business I work in its the Environmental Protection Agency

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MrPB said:

The number of claimants is actually low. Especially compared to the number of zero rated companies here, and tax cappers who are getting bigger lifestyle subsidies. But that’s ok apparently. We just hate the poor. 

Welcome to manxforums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MrPB said:

If you disagree then why don’t you publish your facts disproving what I said. 

So 1200 claimants were costing some £10m. Quite a big number. Some £8300 pa per claimant.

I'm not at all convinced of the basis of this action though. The Treasury Team on what salary exactly putting the squeeze on those near the bottom of the food chain to save how much? Based on what?

Looks to me like some public servants trying to justify their pampered existance....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, P.K. said:

So 1200 claimants were costing some £10m. Quite a big number. Some £8300 pa per claimant.

I'm not at all convinced of the basis of this action though. The Treasury Team on what salary exactly putting the squeeze on those near the bottom of the food chain to save how much? Based on what?

Looks to me like some public servants trying to justify their pampered existance....

I doubt their numbers are accurate and as I said the bigger subsidy is tax cappers and companies getting tax breaks. Not how we choose to look after largely working mothers claiming EPA so that their kids have enough to eat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how some like to use “Thatcherite” as if it was a derogatory association. If you live in the UK and other places impacted by what happens there, you would probably be wishing Mrs Thatcher was around now to sort May’s mess out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook post by MLP member:
 

Tynwald's latest attempt cut the benefits of low income families shows their contempt for anyone on social security. This assault isn’t about forcing idlers into work. The aim isn’t to save money for the hard pressed tax payer. Or improving the financial positions of the families affected. No, it’s all about pushing a right wing ideology that worships the wealthy and punishes the poor.

As cruel and unfair as this change is I don’t see Howard and Alf caring. They’re deaf to the concerns of those it affects and blind to how it will blight their lives.

The only opinions this government listens to are ones they want to hear. And the loudest voice belongs to the Chamber of Commerce; the same people who’ll benefit from more bodies competing for the lowest paying jobs. Our island already has people working three jobs to try and make ends meet.

Does anyone really believe increasing competition for these positions will ease poverty?

Forcing people to work or see their benefits cut will push them to undercut the pay of those already in post. Dividing society by setting the poor against the poorer has always been a tactic of the right and this is just another example.

Alf will no doubt claim these cuts are necessary to secure the islands financial future, ideologues like him always claim financial security can only happen if we have strong and determined leaders willing to make the hard decisions. But how much strength do you need to deliver cuts you know will never hurt you? How much determination does it take to attack those without the ability to fight back? And how hard can it be to drive the desperate deeper in to despair?

These aren’t acts of leadership; they’re the brutal actions of the callous and cruel.

In a civilised society a government without the means to provide for its citizens should seek to raise revenue from those who can most afford to pay. But as always, money means influence so as usual it’s those that have the least who are the targets in treasuries sights.

There is little doubt that on island poverty is widespread, but instead of seeking to alleviate we’re faced with the prospect of our own government preparing a vote to deliberately make it worse. All too often politicians manage to insulate themselves from the decisions they make, but the pledge by the Mannin Branch Celtic League to continue to publish the names of MHKs who vote for this abhorrent proposal every month till the next election is a tactic aimed to change this, and as such is an idea I can get behind. But isn’t feeling we have to shame our MHKs in to doing the right thing a clear indication of how low trust in our politicians has sunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...