Don’t make us rely on charity

abundance bank banking banknotes

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I was amazed that Simon Cowell could just donate £25.000 for the BBC Children in Need appeal. Wonderful, some needy children will benefit from that.

What bothers me is that the amount of requests for charity donation has spiralled to immense proportions.

Now, since Facebook has jumped onto the bandwagon and lets people collect donations on their birthday, I am really in a jiffy because I have in excess of 800 friends.

Multiply the donations x 850 and I would find myself broke by Easter.

With the creation of the Big Society and the reducation in Taxes, essential services having to rely on donation rather than guaranteed support through the Funding Formula from Central government.

Yet people constantly fall into that trap, the lower taxes will get votes but in fact, our lives are much better when all those who need it get support all year round, which will reduce the crime rate, problems with care for people and maintenance of local areas and food banks and crowd funding.

tin can on gravel surface

Photo by Nico Brüggeboes on Pexels.com

When we have a higher employment rate in the UK but most working get less money, then the tax income will fall lower because they won’t even meet the lowest tax thresholds for income tax. But they also do not earn enough to afford food.

Now we get so used to demands for money that it has become normal.

  • The beggar outside of supermarkets
  • The demand for Foodband donations inside the supermarkets
  • Constant demands for donations from online charities
  • Constant demands for donations in voluntary clubs and organisations.

Our incomes are vastly diminished through voluntary contributions, which are far higher than a regulated amount of higher tax.

Setting international standards

What humanity needs is an international set of professional standards, that enables all communities of the world to set rules of human interaction.

Even the smallest indigenous communities have standards that are set to enable the community to thrive.

Depending on location and environment, the more primitive societies made the most of what they had but set moral standards to prevent sexual exploitation or unhealthy live styles.

Most major religions are centred around the unquestionable servititude towards a divine being – a God –  and the rulers in charge identified themselves as being a direct descendant of that God. Of course that developed through from ancient times via the Greeks, Romans, then Christians in the west and Muslims in the East.

Through international communications it becomes clear that a lot of such communities exist world-wide, communities who teach their children, that their God is the only true one.

Conflicts are created when one community teaches their followers that they can exploit anybody who is not part of their religion as for example Daesh or Isis did. They said it was OK to exploit anybody sexually who was not a strict Muslim.

This principle leads to tribal conflicts on smaller area disputes as they can happen in African tribes for example, who roam wild areas and conflict with each other over territorial disputes.

Modern gangs, even in western societies use the rape of another gang’s members as a tool of control and stamping on authority. The rape of the women in other tribes is also an ancient method of destroying other cultures.

Religion started off as a moral code to regulate personal and family life to restrict behaviour to acceptable standards to avoid disease transmitted by sexual activity for  the members of any particular community.  Where later on science came in was when ‘doctors’ found  cures for common illness through scientific research, developing medications that could be administered and also by finding hygiene rules to avoid water contamination for example.

Setting a commonly accepted code of standards is important to avoid local and wider conflicts and to enable humanity to develop.

Whilst primitive cultures enslave their followers by simple dicatatorial rule, e.g. everybody must follow the laws of the leader, modern society exploits the poor by having rules, which create dependency. Universal Credit is a nodern example of that because it drove recipients into prostitution or they could not afford to live.

Other countries developed away from religious Gods and became Communist, again using strict dictatorial rules to regulate society.

A lot of states now have nuclear power and use that as a threat to keep foreign influence away.

I really do not think it matters what type of rule a society has, it just matters that each member of any society can live with a freedom of choice and without having to loose dignity.

Yes, the ability to choose aslo depends on intellect and brain function. This can vary from individual to individual. Yet professional standards should regulate good standards of living and enable everybody to contribute to the best of their ability.

Unfortunately much of modern society is determined by venture capitalism, a form of control over people, by making those with the most money privileged. Whilst it doesn’t matter how people gotten rich, they do not loose their wealth, even after they have been found to supply humanity with dangerous products.

Using advertising and mass-media, any producer of any goods can use streaming to attract people to buy their products and get rich, may that be cigarettes or e-cigarettes, alcohol or petrol cars.

Modern societies life-styles have been driven by a desire to have comfort in the home and use less physical activity.

People are required to use their energy to work for an employer and then have little time for their personal lifes. Laws force any person to work for any employer who will give them a job, not allowing the individual to choose.

This produces a downward social spiral. Dismantles family life and the ability of the individual to choose a healthy profession over an unhealthy one.

Earth warming has now become the biggest threat to humanity but the mechanisms that drive international trade, which is mainly responsible for earth warming, are not being dismantled.

When I say international trade I also mean the goods that are being traded and the production of which causes a big carbon foot print.

Wars and conflicts have an enormous carbon foot print. The use of fossil fuels, which also produce petrol, diesel and plastics is a major source of carbon.

Unfortunately many societies cannot exist unless they engage in trade because all services and labour are distributed due to a GDP calculation that is established. GDP stands for General Domestic Product.

Societies, countries rely on tax collections to provide services for the inhabitants.

Unless governments make a stand and refuse to accept taxes from bad companies, we cannot progress.

We need to exercise control over venture capitalism and control goods and services for their beneficial impact on society before we produce, advertise and sell them.

Tax cuts are not cheaper

Just watched Boris Johnson’s first Prime Ministerial speech to the Conservative Conference. He is an excellent and enthusing speaker but what he said was fairly empty propaganda.

I have not heard anything reliefing the pain of those who suffer through increasing homelessness.

He just promoted higher productivity, but said almost nothing about environmental improvements.

The biggest mantra is always the tax cuts and I would say tax cuts increase the costs for all of us on a constant basis.

The requests for charitable donations have trebled in all our daily lives. We are also providing considerably more voluntary services since the Conservatives introduced the Big Society.

Housing costs have increased significantly for those who bought their dwellings through improvement costs, may that be because of cladding or repairs.

At the supermarket are the requests to donate to the local food bank and constant request to donate to charitable deeds either through sporting or social events makes significantly more dents in all of our pockets rather than having a higher but regular tax contribution.

Crowd funding is another indirect taxation on us all.

I ask all of you to work out how much you have actually spent on donations since tax cuts have been introduced.

The speech was very emotionally satisfying to listeners but contained little proper politics. A lot of empty spin nevertheless.

In contrast Diane Abbott, the first Member of Parliament of colour, at least made reference to a real person of achievement, Dina Asher-Smith who is winning medals at Doha at the moment.

It’s not about installing women prime ministers who make the typically male policies, to be progressive. It is about making life good for all of us.

 

 

 

 

The rainforest fund

top view photo of forest

Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

Woke up this morning thinking that all the nations who have a foreign aid budget should also have a rainforest fund. Our efforts to reduce deforestation must increase and it has to become a lawfully required activity to save nature.

I searched the Internet and such organisations do exist, predominantly trying to help save the rainforest. Yet whilst countries, around rainforests make illegal logging a criminal offence, it is impossible to police and enforce the laws.

Programs like ‘‘I bought a rainforest’‘, Planet Earth, highlighted the problems, which make poor inhabitants of the rainforest regions fell trees to sell, just to be able to survive. Large swathes of rainforest get chopped down for wood to make furniture, planting of Palmoil, farming fruits for sale etc.

Higher earnings and a world-wide decreasing of poverty doesn’t ensure that people earn that money with environmentally friendly activities.

There is no environmental value how GDP is achieved, it is just GDP. As our governments are proud to provide full employment, they also do not care 100 % what products those workers make, whether they help destroy natural and vitally important resources or not. Capitalism is not valued by earth friendliness, it is valued by profits achieved, whatever it is they sell.

photography of factory

Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on Pexels.com

When we reduce our carbon footprint inland, we still deal with other countries who have a huge one. OK, we no longer strive to produce polluting goods in Britain, but we have them imported from China. Pollution is a world-wide problem, not a local one.

We need to start giving each product and service a carbon footprint value just as we give foods a calorific value.

I don’t support Esther McVey’s call to reduce the Foreign Aid, that Britain gives, instead this Foreign Aid could be diverted to Rainforest preservation. Each time foreign aid gets reduced, we increase the chance of troubles brewing up abroad, which then will need to be solved by wars. Wars have a huge carbon footprint.

Neither do I support Boris Johnson’s promise of further tax cuts for the rich as people simply do not want to invest in Britain because of Brexit. Tax cuts do not prevent Brexit. It just proofs how poorly configured Conservative Brains are, all they can think of is ‘less tax will solve all problems’.

I’ll make another post about Brexit.

 

No point in Labour

As usual, the Labour Party is already busy, thinking of ways, of selling the ordinary working folks, the latest Conservative policy changes, if and when they get into power next. Its’ always the same these days, Conservatives bring in new rules, laws, etc and when people are really upset, Labour puts them into better practise.

Labour has never reversed any Conservative policies. The latest remarks by Miliband proof completely that Labour has no plans to reverse caps or decrease taxes for the rich. Mr Blair urged against “tacking left on tax and spending”

If Labour has any guts whatsoever, then they would reverse the Trust policy of the NHS, re-nationalise the NHS and just privatise health care completely, so that each and every working and/or contributing person would pay their contributions via private health care insurance companies, who would share and finance the national resources via private contributions.

Yet Labour has not even hinted on abolishing health care trusts,which do not work and never will work, as no local area, can actually generate enough income to care for the patients in their catchment area from their own local resources.

There is no point in Labour who want to get people care in their homes, like health care by mailorder perhaps? There is nothing innovative about Labour, as home care is a by now very old concept, that was introduced by commercial retail companies and already exists in care for the elderly, disabled and dying.

Labour has not and never will revolutionise our society but always limp behind and besides Conservative inventions. It does need wealth to innovate and only wealthy people will want to protect wealth and society that revolves around it.

There is also nothing that hints on using new technology to revolutionise our lives and make production of goods more environmentally friendly.

There is this big myth of Free NHS services when nothing of the sort ever existed. Just because we do not have to pay at the point of treatment doesn’t mean that it is for free. NHS services can be paid for in either contributions from the employed, less benefits for those on handouts. A privatised NHS would merely mean that private insurance companies collect all contributions and pay for services instead of the state distributing services and taking payments of salaries. A privatised NHS that would collect payments from private insurance companies could deliver a truly equal service because all would pay contributions to private insurance companies who would collect contributions from the state for those on benefits and the rest through company collection. Currently stamp duty is paid to Inland Revenue but that could be paid directly to insurance companies instead.

Currently health services are too splintered to be effective, that is what makes it expensive.

More hypocrisy from current UK government

Owen Tudor from the Robin Hood Tax Campaign has found out that the UK cashes in £3 Billion worth of tax from the trading of UK shares wherever they are sold but at the same time the UK has now launched a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights against the Financial Transaction Tax because Osborne fears that this tax infringes on UK sovereignty.

Big hype about nothing

It is really very disappointing that we have been put and continue to be put under very much stress, with all sorts of policies, from housing to benefits, for measures, which are measurably useless.

The Welfare to Work program, simply does not work. There is anyhow very little point in bringing in a Welfare to Work Program if the economy is down. There would be a point in such a program if the economy was booming but it isn’t. We are in a triple dip recession and it is more than cruel to tell people to get jobs, when there are no jobs. Even the housing system has been put upside down, people are told to move homes or keep flats, that are deemed too big but work harder to pay the rent.

People are laid off, have problems getting enough overtime or any hours as it is.

The uselessness of the scheme is particularly concerning when I read that Margaret Hodge said: “It is shocking that, of the 9,500 former incapacity benefit claimants referred to providers, only 20 people have been placed in a job that has lasted three months, while the poorest-performing provider did not manage to place a single person in the under-25 category into a job lasting six months,” she said.

I think it is abuse on a giant scale to tell people they are fit to work but that less than 1% of those being thrown off Incapacity Benefits actually got work. This means in very simple words that this government rips people off, takes away their safety nets and makes them more vulnerable than previously.

There are at least 18 providers paid to move people into work but I read that they simply tell a lot of people to declare themselves self-employed, whether they are doing any work or not. People are just told to register with HMRC as self-employed but they actually do not have to do any work, but they can be moved off the unemployment register. Government actually pays scheme providers good money if they tell people how to register as self-employed so that they then do not have to sign on any more.

I think people are plainly being robbed of their income by the state. There should be some statutory clause that says that people could not be moved off their benefits unless there is a realistic chance of them finding work. Where there are no jobs there is no realistic chance of them finding work. Sadistic at best, this Welfare to Work Program. Furthermore statutory rules should set a framework that any state intervention in benefits must be coupled with the state of the economy. The state has a duty to look after its citizens. I do not agree with Iain Duncan Smith that people have no right to benefits. They do have rights to benefits as they do not have the chance to make a living for themselves any longer; people do depend on the economic conditions around them.

profit shifting

I am definitely with George Osborne on this one. George wants to take it up with the multi-nationals who use a tactic called profit shifting to make as much money as possible. But it means regions like Britain can suffer from high unemployment because our companies decide to set up business elsewhere; usually in a region with low labour costs.

The result is our locals end up unemployed and that then leads governments to introduce rules, which require the unemployed to work for free, as to make it viable for a company to even stay in a region like ours. Also it keeps our unemployed busy. But I am also glad that this practise has been repelled by a recent high-court ruling; the unemployed cannot be forced to work for free in Britain by the DWP.

Unemployment in any region has become a global problem and the G20 better tackle it quickly as otherwise we have law and order problems popping up here and there.

A burning issue

The Mayor will have to take legal action against the Fire Brigade because the LFB refuses to comply to a requirement, set by the Mayor Boris Johnson, to carry out a consultation with the aim of closing fire stations in various London boroughs. The thought behind this is to cut 7p of council tax and also statistics show that the LFB attended less fires recently. LFB argues that a freezing of council tax will pay for the stations to stay open.

Yet it is quite clear that the fires they attend are often in multi-storey buildings, especially in London. Fires nowadays often need more than one engine because of our density of buildings and the high-rise nature of them. There is nowadays better fire prevention in wiring and most appliances and fittings are safer, but once something does happen, it tends to be enormous rather than little.

It is in a way good that the whole problem will come before a judge because both sides are heavily biased. The Mayor is obsessed with cutting council tax and the Fire Brigade of course doesn’t want to close stations or loose fire fighters. A court will put a very objective viewing on the problem.

The amount you need to live on

Currently it says on benefit letters for Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance ‘The amount the law says you need to live on’. That amount has been calculated on the basis that means tested benefits assume that recipients of such benefits do not pay rent or council tax.

From April of this year, benefits change. We will see universal benefits caps and those stop benefits at a ceiling regardless how many children you have. But that does not assume that single claimants or small families that would fall under the benefits cap would have an amount to live on that the law says they need.

Also the universal benefit will not be paid to old claimants straightaway. Normal benefits will still be paid the old-fashioned way to people.

If Haringey council wins their bid to charge benefit recipients 20% of the council tax then that means that the law will assume that these people need that amount less to live on; yet not all councils charge that minimum payment of 20% of the council tax to all.

As I understand from this article severely disabled residents will be exempt from the council tax. overall though disabled residents get far more benefits than Jobseekers or income support pays.

Nowadays people on Jobseekers or Income Support are pretty much on the bread line already,  so how much does the government say we can be squeezed. Irwin Mitchell lawyers have taken the brave step to represent the disadvantaged before the courts to sort out the dilemma.

There would be no limit as to what a minimum living standard should be if councils can charge council tax to the already destitute. Living standards will fall well below the poverty line even further as they have fallen already.

Considering the government also wants to get rid of tax credits, that will also severely affect the workers on low wages because their standard of living will also erode considerably because the law will no longer assume a minimum standard as a safety net.

But it is probably of significance that the council that gave us Baby P, also are the first to introduce 20% council tax for the destitute to pay.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,135 hits