Taxpayers’ Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled


3:01 pm - October 11th 2011

by Tim Fenton    


      Share on Tumblr

The propensity of the mean-spirited to pick on the vulnerable in society, epitomised by Richard Littlejohn’s dishonest attack on the Motability scheme, is now matched by an equally vicious tirade from the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA).

The TPA piece takes the Mail rant as data, and so cars obtained under the Motability scheme are deemed to be “free”, which they are not.

It also talks of “3,000 cars given to ADHD families”, but had he been bothered to research his work, would know that the number eligible is nearer 100.

So why churn over an article that is dishonest and misleading? This is because it satisfies the TPA’s primary objective: to demonise Government – any Government – along with public service and public works.

As Full Fact point out:

to describe the scheme as providing ‘free cars’ is misleading, as it is paid for by claimants’ own benefit entitlements, and many of the more expensive models of car available require a substantial investment on the part of the individual claiming.

The TPA’s Tom Welsh estimation that 200,000 Motability vehicles are used by someone other than the benefit claimant manages to ignore the possibility that the claimant is not able to drive their car. Welsh is assuming fraud and waste where he cannot prove it.

His assertion of “how easy it is to get a car” is similarly without cite and the product of malicious invention.

The dishonesty extends to claiming that “there’s also no means-testing”, which is irrelevant to Motability. Those using the scheme have already had to prove their entitlement to the higher rate of mobility benefit.

The TPA doesn’t give a damn about ordinary taxpayers – as many of the disabled that Tom Welsh trashes in his rant are – but is using a crude attack by the Mail to pick on the vulnerable as a way of attacking Government for ideological ends.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Tim is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He blogs more frequently at Zelo Street
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. David Edwards

unfounded certainly!
who/what funds the TPA?

And people wonder why I call these pieces of scum brownshirts.

The global elites and their paid for servants like the rich tax payers alliance have the same selfish arrogant attitude. They have not a shread of decency or humanity in them.

But corporate welfare as we are seeing with the Fox scandal is just fine.

Spads at the DWP are ex Tax payers Alliance officials,whom I believe regularly furnish the TPA with “information” and coordinate them as regards the press and an almost permanent seat at the BBC for suitable comments at convenient junctures. It is no accident that these stories are appearing at the same time as Lord Low is undertaking an inquiry as to the DLA Mobility Component with regard to care home residents and residential school attendees,Maria Miller was due to attend yesterday,but did not.

4. Some random pseudonym

I believe (I’m open to correction) that at least one of IDS’ SpAds are former TPA members. How independent of government can the TPA really be when they engage in this sort of blatant pro-DWP propaganda?

Yes, I’m on benefits. Yes, I pay income tax. And 20% VAT. And insurance tax.

Media outlets like the BBC should refuse to cover them until they disclose their financial backers. It wil be the usual suspects of millionaires, and billionaires who fund all the far right wing think tanks.

If New labour and the idiot Blair had not totally discredited themselves over their cringing love of the rich they should be attacking who is fundinig a lot of what the tories are up to. The Lie dems seem clueless.

By all accounts there were more lobbyists at the tory party conference last week than tory party members.

@3 @4

Ex-TPA talking head Susie Squire, who famously upbraided Nick Ferrari on LBC for suggesting that she was a Conservative, went through the revolving door after the General Election to become a SpAd for Iain Duncan Smith at the DWP.

And to answer Sunny’s question posed on Twitter – will they apologise? Doubtful. The last time something from me appeared on LC laying into the TPA, Matthew Sinclair spat out his dummy and wrote a whingeing “rebuttal” on their site.

All lies and adding to the ‘disability hate agenda’.

DLA isn’t means tested though, I don’t think it should be either, but are you implying it is by saying “had to prove their entitlement to the higher rate of mobility benefit”.

Another thing to consider is your sites linking to these despicable orgs. By linking to them you are helping to increase the importance of their sites in the eyes of search engines. You should consider using ‘no follow’ links on sites that you do not wish to promote. (the same type of links that all comments get!)

FFS this is horrible. Some issues are a matter of where you ideologically lie or how you see the world, or whatever. Some issues are just about basic decency.

Why attack the disabled? Of all the people? Children with an illness – as Richard Littlejohn whines about in his horrible comment piece about this – have really done nothing to any such vilification.

I think whatever your political views, it’s pretty hard to stomach this kind of pissing nonsense. (It has made me very cross as you can tell.)

And yes the TPA have a ridiculous name. They don’t represent taxpayers at all. Not least because most taxpayers are actually more concerned with getting value for money and good services, not just paying less tax. Because for most taxpayers it would be more costly to pay for everything, health, schools, road cleaning, etc, themselves, than just pay a bit of tax. Which is, you know, the whole reason behind the system we have. Not saying it’s perfect… but TPA aren’t taxpayers’ anything. They are just selfish and silly people. Many of whom avoid tax, according to Private Eye!

10. Leon Wolfson

@9 – “FFS this is horrible.”

No, it’s the TPA. It’s *typical* for them.

#2 Sally: And people wonder why I call these pieces of scum brownshirts.

Well, the brown stuff is inside the shirts. (Well, that was true of the old brownshirts as well, mind you.)

Another important aspect to this (having calmed down/eaten a piece of chocolate) is that many people are able to work and pay tax and be independent BECAUSE they get access to a mobility car .But without they’d be unable to. So I would be interested to see a proper costing analysis of this which takes all this into account.

13. Leon Wolfson

@12 – This government doesn’t need any stinking costings!

It’s an expense, cut it! (What do you mean it’ll cost more money down the like. Does it look like I CARE?)

Having roundly humiliated TPA on twitter for an hour or so, disabled people have asked them to change the post and they have – not once, but twice.

Clearly it’s still utter drivel, but it’s their opinion now, which we’re all entitled to and they have modified it fairly comprehensively to remove the inaccuracies of the Daily Mail nonsense.

15. Andy (@NCCLols)

Hmm, I still think it’s full of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. DLA mobility has been payable for severe behavioural problems since its introduction in the early 90s by the Tories. IDS should have looked at the law before being suddenly ‘outraged’.

Ah the tax dodgers alliance, every day they seem to look a little bit more like one of the evil organisations you see in action movies. I’m sure that next week they will relocate their headquarters to some sort of secret volcano base… purely for tax avoidance purposes of course!

Anyone who thinks it’s easy to get High Rate DLA (which entitles you to a full motability component) has never applied. My neighbours appealed when they were turned down flat after a Doctor (a retired GP) from the DLA office visited them and told them their severely autistic son “would grow out of it.” They appealed, and won. How many don’t, I wonder.

As for children with ADHD getting cars – has any of these numpties ever met a child with ADHD? The more severely disabled are extremely impulsive, and will wrecklessly endanger themselves. Public transport or walking near main roads is almost impossible. It doesn’t help that, over the years, journalists from the educational press – including TES – have sought to paint ADHD as a bogus condition, obtained by benefit greedy chavs Obviously, these educational journalists know oh so much better than gullible consultant paediatricians.

My autistic son’s former consultant designs micro-helicopters for a hobby, builds them, and when they’re registered as airworthy, donates them to an international medical charity. How does that compare to your average Daily Fail hack?

18. So Much For Subtlety

The TPA piece takes the Mail rant as data, and so cars obtained under the Motability scheme are deemed to be “free”, which they are not.

Evidently they are.

It also talks of “3,000 cars given to ADHD families”, but had he been bothered to research his work, would know that the number eligible is nearer 100.

No. The number of people with ADHD children entitled to the car is allegedly something like 100 people. But there are another 3,200 with similar ADHD-type disorders who are also entitled. So their figure is not wrong. This is quibbling.

to describe the scheme as providing ‘free cars’ is misleading, as it is paid for by claimants’ own benefit entitlements

To claim that it is not free because people have to use the free money in the left hand of the government rather than the free money in the right hand of the government is bizarre. It is free.

19. So Much For Subtlety

9. LibertarianLou

Why attack the disabled? Of all the people? Children with an illness – as Richard Littlejohn whines about in his horrible comment piece about this – have really done nothing to any such vilification.

They are not. They are attacking what looks to be a bogus scheme. It is perfectly possible to talk about how we provide for the disabled without everything being an attack. Children with an illness? Children do not drive cars. They are not getting them. Even assuming you accept ADHD exists.

Because for most taxpayers it would be more costly to pay for everything, health, schools, road cleaning, etc, themselves, than just pay a bit of tax.

Really? Why do you think this?

12. LibertarianLou

Another important aspect to this (having calmed down/eaten a piece of chocolate) is that many people are able to work and pay tax and be independent BECAUSE they get access to a mobility car .But without they’d be unable to.

Children with ADHD do not work. They are not independent either, but giving their Father a BMW is not going to change that.

17. Yakoub

Anyone who thinks it’s easy to get High Rate DLA (which entitles you to a full motability component) has never applied. My neighbours appealed when they were turned down flat after a Doctor (a retired GP) from the DLA office visited them and told them their severely autistic son “would grow out of it.” They appealed, and won. How many don’t, I wonder.

So you are illustrating how hard it is to get the HRDLA through an anecdote involving some people who got it over the objections of their doctor? Interesting.

As for children with ADHD getting cars – has any of these numpties ever met a child with ADHD? The more severely disabled are extremely impulsive, and will wrecklessly endanger themselves. Public transport or walking near main roads is almost impossible.

Yes. Well obviously they should be free to wreck a tax-payer funded car then. Children with ADHD are not strictly speaking disabled.

It doesn’t help that, over the years, journalists from the educational press – including TES – have sought to paint ADHD as a bogus condition, obtained by benefit greedy chavs Obviously, these educational journalists know oh so much better than gullible consultant paediatricians.

Obviously. It is clear to pretty much everyone that ADHD is just a label for bad parenting. It is a non-disease. Which we are treating with dangerous chemicals that have a profound and demonstrably bad effect on growing children. All because we don’t want to say that some children lack discipline and are utterly out of control. They don’t need cars. They need boundaries.

Wow. It is just…. what? What can you say when someone argues something so indefensible …..

SoMuchForSubtelty The Fail article was shown to be so wrong it was embarrassing. Or some may say sinister. TPA just parroted it. Then they changed it. Twice.

Really, when you’re in a big fat bottomless hole, stop digging. for goodness sake stop digging, people are being hurt.

Wow. It is just…. what? What can you say when someone argues something so indefensible …..

In SMFS’s case – nothing. He’s a professional troll, got his own bridge and everything. Indeed, I have in my possession an accurate pictorial representation of SMFS posting his comments onto this website. Observe.

This is rather typical of these vermin. As far as I am concerned these co-ordinated and orchestrated attacks are completely analogous to the attacks we saw during Nazi Germany.

There are people who see these Right Wing groupings and false flag operators as ‘decent, but misguided’, or ‘merely mistaken’ and have been described as ‘wanting the same as us, just want to achieve it using different means.’

Well I have to be brutally honest here, these ‘people’ are not the same as me (even if they share political DNA with ‘blue Labour’); they are sub human vermin. These ‘people’ are nothing short of Nazis. Not ‘Neo Nazis’, Nazis. Not in the ‘Traffic Warden are Nazis’ or your doctor is a Nazis, but actual Nazis. I have no doubt that if these cunts had been around in 1930’s Germany, they would be petrol bombing Jewish businesses. Even if they are not openly anti Semitic, there is something deeply unpleasant about the views they espouse regarding the disabled.

These movements can’t be reasoned with or common ground found with them; this is why I find ‘Blue Labour’ such a disgusting concept. We should not be accommodating this scum, attempting to steal their clothing and claim as it our own; we should be opposing these people and calling them out for the Nazis they are.

What I find depressing about the Left is how timid they have become. Where is the spirit that faced down Mosley in the 1930s or the National Front in the seventies? Where is that spirit that fought apartheid? We seem too eager to wilfully ignore these attacks on the weak and pretend it isn’t happening.

SMFS

“‘Because for most taxpayers it would be more costly to pay for everything, health, schools, road cleaning, etc, themselves, than just pay a bit of tax.’

Really? Why do you think this?”

Gosh, yes, where would anyone get a crazy idea like that? Let’s see… my family pays out maybe as much as £10,000 a year in tax and NI. In return we get £1,000 in tax credits, £3,000 in Child Benefit, education for our four children worth around £32,000 a year, and unlimited healthcare on tap for six people (including ongoing treatment for chronic conditions). Our rubbish is collected every week, our local parks are maintained etc. etc. The police and fire brigade are there if we ever need them. And when we retire we can expect to collect maybe £200,000 in state pension payments. *Of course* we’re better off paying £10k a year tax than covering all those costs privately.

@ GO

Let’s see… my family pays out maybe as much as £10,000 a year in tax and NI. In return we get £1,000 in tax credits, £3,000 in Child Benefit, education for our four children worth around £32,000 a year, and unlimited healthcare on tap for six people (including ongoing treatment for chronic conditions). Our rubbish is collected every week, our local parks are maintained etc. etc. The police and fire brigade are there if we ever need them. And when we retire we can expect to collect maybe £200,000 in state pension payments.

Hmm.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there but, if I were you, I wouldn’t be boasting about it. What you are saying is that you are getting a lot more back than you’re paying in and there are a lot of others doing likewise.

That’s why our country is bankrupt.

Pagar @ 24

That’s why our country is bankrupt.

Garbage!!!! The reason we are allegedly bankrupt is because we have had to bail out the banks and other financial institutions after the economic looters have wrecked them.

@ 22:

“As far as I am concerned these co-ordinated and orchestrated attacks are completely analogous to the attacks we saw during Nazi Germany.”

Oh, grow up, get a sense of proportion, and stop being such an utter hypocrite.

@ 25:

“Garbage!!!! The reason we are allegedly bankrupt is because we have had to bail out the banks and other financial institutions after the economic looters have wrecked them.”

The bank bailouts were a one-off expenditure. If out country had been in sound fiscal shape before them, we wouldn’t still be running a deficit.

Public services are cheaper than if people paid less tax and purchased them directly themselves because of the collective buying power of government. They are investments and that is how it’s possible to get more out than is put in.

And ‘ADHD-related conditions’ is a term made-up by the Daily Mail because they didn’t want to have to say ‘behavioural disorders’ which even then do not reach the 3,200 figure pulled out the Mail’s rectum. It’s a tissue of lies from start to finish and SMFS simply repeating them doesn’t make them true.

FullFact.org have contacted the Mail to push for corrections, but so far the Mail hasn’t gone far enough. They have outright lied to their readership and never cared for the truth in the first place. Neither does the resident troll.

@26 We are running a deficit because most developed nations for most of the past century and before have ran deficits for most of that time. Making up for the shortfall with borrowing stimulated the economy. With the money system we have where a substantial amount of money is credit, then there must be debt somewhere to keep things going. The state has the strength to share a substantial portion of it.

I’m not defending Labour, but their deficit up until the recession was the lowest for nearly forty years. So what is the actual basis of your criticism?

29. David Edwards

@Mason Quite!

30. Leon Wolfson

@19 – Of course, you don’t believe mental illness exists. Right.

And you agree with the doctor that autism is something people “grow out of”. How typical of the far right.

@20 – He’s a government-paid troll. I’m working to cut off the funds at the moment. I have an interesting response to a FoI request I’ll be able to go over in the next few days.

31. So Much For Subtlety

20. Sue Marsh

Wow. It is just…. what? What can you say when someone argues something so indefensible …..

I don’t know Sue, what did I say that was in any way indefensible?

The Fail article was shown to be so wrong it was embarrassing. Or some may say sinister. TPA just parroted it. Then they changed it. Twice.

Which does not change the fact that some £1.5 billion is being spent on providing cars for the parents of some 3,200 children who have ADHD or a similar type of behavioural disorder.

Really, when you’re in a big fat bottomless hole, stop digging. for goodness sake stop digging, people are being hurt.

Sorry but which people?

23. G.O.

Gosh, yes, where would anyone get a crazy idea like that? Let’s see… my family pays out maybe as much as £10,000 a year in tax and NI. In return we get £1,000 in tax credits, £3,000 in Child Benefit, education for our four children worth around £32,000 a year, and unlimited healthcare on tap for six people (including ongoing treatment for chronic conditions). Our rubbish is collected every week, our local parks are maintained etc. etc. The police and fire brigade are there if we ever need them. And when we retire we can expect to collect maybe £200,000 in state pension payments. *Of course* we’re better off paying £10k a year tax than covering all those costs privately.

So you have proven you are a massive consumer of welfare. Which means that somewhere there are other families that are massive payers of tax. The claim is that most people benefit. Do you claim that most people are in your boat – and if so, why? I do notice you have some odd ideas about what you get. Why do you think your education is worth some £32,000 a year? Or to put it another way, you are getting a more or less worthless product which no sane person would pay for in a real market, how do you know it is worth that much?

Someone has to pay for all of this. The problem with the government is that they are massively inefficient at providing it. So much so that some sink schools in London cost more than Eton but teach their pupils nothing. If we all bought these products on an open market, they would cost less and be vastly better. The problem is that you want rich people to give you stuff for free, so the only real question is whether or not more people benefit from this utterly inefficient redistribution than not. Take the EU for instance. The CAP benefits a few thousand farmers – mostly millionaires – and the rest of us pay through higher taxes and higher food costs. Education is probably another area where the only net beneficiaries are the Unions. You sure more people get something out of it?

(You know, not mentioning the fact that you must living in Noddyland if you actually get weekly rubbish collection and policemen who turn up when you give them a ring)

32. So Much For Subtlety

27. Mason Dixon, Autistic

Public services are cheaper than if people paid less tax and purchased them directly themselves because of the collective buying power of government. They are investments and that is how it’s possible to get more out than is put in.

Sorry but can you find a single case where this is true? It is certainly not the case in, say, defence spending. I am happy to agree it is probably the case when it comes to buying drugs for the NHS, but otherwise? No. What is more you are looking at services. Government-run services are invariably dominated by their Unions. Which means they are vastly more expensive than they need be. That is the point of Unions. How do you get a bulk discount on services anyway? You say this as if people should believe it.

And ‘ADHD-related conditions’ is a term made-up by the Daily Mail because they didn’t want to have to say ‘behavioural disorders’ which even then do not reach the 3,200 figure pulled out the Mail’s rectum. It’s a tissue of lies from start to finish and SMFS simply repeating them doesn’t make them true.

I think that in fact it was those Fact Checkers who used it. I did not read the original DM article, but why wouldn’t they want to say behavioural disorders? Isn’t that kind of the point – this is a behavioural problem? Those nice Fact Checking people say the numbers do reach 3,200.

28. Mason Dixon, Autistic

We are running a deficit because most developed nations for most of the past century and before have ran deficits for most of that time. Making up for the shortfall with borrowing stimulated the economy.

No it doesn’t. We run deficits because the welfare state demands so much money. That is basically it. Borrowing by the State simply drives up interest rates and reduces growth in the real economy.

With the money system we have where a substantial amount of money is credit, then there must be debt somewhere to keep things going. The state has the strength to share a substantial portion of it.

Sorry but WTF?

33. Leon Wolfson

@31 – That would be the denial of mental conditions which are recognised by actual medical professionals.

“The problem with the government is that they are massively inefficient at providing it. ”

The American health system has FAR higher admin costs.
For-pay school systems arround the world have FAR higher admin costs.
Etc. Etc.

What happens, every time, is that a few rich people get richer, and the poor get shit. You want serfs, can’t see anyone not as rich as you as Human.

And of course, if you were not a bigot and abusive, the council might collect your bin and the police respond to your calls. Man, who PUT this stuff in the FoI request. I’m sure this shouldn’t be…heh…

24. pagar
@ GO

Hmm.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there but, if I were you, I wouldn’t be boasting about it. What you are saying is that you are getting a lot more back than you’re paying in and there are a lot of others doing likewise.

That’s why our country is bankrupt.

Our country isn’t bankrupt, and as long as we have a sovereign currency we can pay any debt denominated in it, also the government doesn’t need to tax to spend, the government spends before it either taxes or issues bonds, as professor James Galbraith said in this article

“It’s not necessary, when the government issues a check, that it issue a bond to “borrow” the money behind that check. The check creates money in the first place. (Yes, it does this from thin air, by changing numbers in bank accounts.)

Operationally, this is a free reserve in the banking system. The reason the government issues a bond later, is that the banks like to have a higher rate of interest than they can earn on reserves, and the government likes to oblige them. This is why Treasury auctions don’t fail: the government has already created the demand for the bonds, by issuing checks to the banking system.”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/summer-rerun-misunderstanding-modern-monetary-theory.html

The only thing taxes do in a monetary system like ours is keep the economy from overheating, and that will only happen when we are putting every idle resource to use, and currently we are not remotely near to doing that.

Hilarious – the TPA have admitted that they didn’t double-check the Mail’s figures, but then go on to pretend it simply strengthens their argument.

here is their update:
We have edited the post above to clarify that the figure of 3,000 is an estimation of the number eligible for the cars, rather than those who received them, and that this refers to a broader spectrum of behavioural disorders, in line with this article. This strengthens the argument in the original post that this is a small part of the overall cost of the scheme.

The TPA has strong links to the Tea party. something they don’t brag about. Indeed funding sources are similar. They also are influential in the Tory party. We have a TEA Tory party

@31

”Someone has to pay for all of this. The problem with the government is that they are massively inefficient at providing it. So much so that some sink schools in London cost more than Eton but teach their pupils nothing”

Companies pay a large slice of tax, not individuals per se.You would have to be earning a lot to be better off paying for things privately . Private police, rubbish, fire service they would all cost shed loads of dosh. Further they wold not have the public service spirit people like you decry, something the TEA Tory party doesn’t appear to understand. They might not turn up if you had defaulted resulting in al your family being burned to death etc.

The school point is dismal. The average UK spend per pupil is around £2500 p.a. Sink schools often do a good job in difficult circumstances, and educating children with a range of problems is hardly likely to cheap compared to a toff who is provided with everything in life by mummy and daddy.

SMFS,

“Sorry but can you find a single case where this is true?”

You gave one yourself, then cited defence spending as an exception. Defence spending is an exception because first there are few competitors and second there’s little point in a country as small as ours buying in bulk. In every other regard the rules still apply: collective purchasing power makes services cost less. It’s not hard to grasp and one of the first mistakes the Coalition made was to scrap quangos that had the sole purpose of making common purchases across multiple departments and services to insure the best use of money. It was well-publicised when they got Philip Green to review public sector waste and he identified it quickly.

“I think that in fact it was those Fact Checkers who used it”

No, FullFact specifically identify this as a factual short-coming. They say:

“To describe all behaviour disorders as ‘ADHD-related’ is highly misleading and in conflict with the information provided in ‘The Disability Handbook’. While the handbook deals with the HS and other behaviour disorders in the same chapter, it also gives two different judgements on the effect of the these disabilities on mobility.

The value of the phrase ‘ADHD-related’ is therefore questionable.”

You go on(and on):

“I did not read the original DM article, but why wouldn’t they want to say behavioural disorders? Isn’t that kind of the point – this is a behavioural problem? ”

It’s an umbrella fallacy; ADHD is classed as a behavioural disorder by the DWP, that does not mean that other conditions in this category are anything like ADHD. It would be like saying that because Prader-Willi Syndrome and Autism are neurological disorders, then Prader-Willi is ‘an Autism-related condition’. The DWP doesn’t say comprehensively what they include as ‘behavioural disorders’ but these could include Tourette’s Syndrome, Landeu-Kleffner Syndrome, William’s Syndrome, Angelman Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder- none of which have anything to do with ADHD.

“Those nice Fact Checking people say the numbers do reach 3,200.”

You’re selectively reading and excluding this:

“Unfortunately neither the DWP or Motability keep records in the number of people using the Car Scheme broken down by primary disability.

However a Motability spokesperson did stress to Full Fact that only 30 per cent of those eligible for the scheme choose to use it. The actual number of people using the scheme for whom ADHD is their main disabling factor would therefore be expected to be much lower than the 3,200 the Daily Mail suggests.”

And back to you:

“No it doesn’t. We run deficits because the welfare state demands so much money. That is basically it. Borrowing by the State simply drives up interest rates and reduces growth in the real economy.”

We were running much higher deficits before we even had a welfare state. You have nothing to support either of these claims.

“Sorry but WTF?”

In a fractional reserve central banking system, money is debt. Look it up. Now I have to ask, do you do this deliberately? Your entire contributions seem to be just repeats of the same paper-thin nonsense that has already been factually corrected, yet you can’t seem to bother reading anything properly. If I had just happened on this site I’d think this was an argument between two sides which are of roughly equal merit and with good reasons behind them. But it’s a predictable pattern with you and to know that you’re blowing smoke out your ass all I needed to do was read the things you didn’t concern yourself too much with. Do you have the slightest interest in the truth?

39. So Much For Subtlety

38. Mason Dixon, Autistic

You gave one yourself

Drugs are not a service. I also said it was probably true.

then cited defence spending as an exception. Defence spending is an exception because first there are few competitors and second there’s little point in a country as small as ours buying in bulk.

I see. Except for the services the Government provides there are no competitors at all. Why does your magic logic stick hit that argument with one end when you want the Government to be super efficient and with the other end when it comes to defence? Logically, would you agree?, if a lack of competition causes an exception to your rule, then the NHS and pretty much everything else is also an exception to your rule?

Also the British Armed Forces are mass purchasers of some types of equipment. Doesn’t make them any cheaper in my experience.

In every other regard the rules still apply: collective purchasing power makes services cost less. It’s not hard to grasp

Well it is not true so it is irrelevant. Collective purchasing power can make some things cost less. But services? Not necessarily. It depends on the marginal costs of provision. The ten thousandth car is a lot cheaper than the tenth. But the tenth medical visit is not necessarily cheaper than the ten thousandth.

It’s an umbrella fallacy; ADHD is classed as a behavioural disorder by the DWP, that does not mean that other conditions in this category are anything like ADHD.

That is true, but we are talking about the Daily Mail here.

The DWP doesn’t say comprehensively what they include as ‘behavioural disorders’ but these could include Tourette’s Syndrome, Landeu-Kleffner Syndrome, William’s Syndrome, Angelman Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder- none of which have anything to do with ADHD.

Which of these demands Daddy gets a free BMW?

We were running much higher deficits before we even had a welfare state. You have nothing to support either of these claims.

Well sure, if you count World War One and Two. That is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty, no?

In a fractional reserve central banking system, money is debt.

Umm, no. In a fractional reserve system saving and lending causes the expansion of the money supply, but what has that got to do with what you said?

DLA has two parts one is mobility and stands at £56 a week, then care which stands at £52 a week. The mobility which to get I had to have a doctor from the beloved ATOS and then he did a report which stated this person has severe mobility issues, I ‘m paraplegic. I had my first car 15 years ago you keep it for three years or five years it depends on how much the adaption’s cost.

I have hand controls so do not need legs to drive.

The car also takes a wheelchair.

I pay my mobility section of DLA, I’ve had six medicals which means I have a full examination to the point the doctor checks my bowel by giving me an internal examination, sticking his finger up my backside.

The care which is paid I use to have a carer come in three times a week to help me have a bath.

I paid a deposit on my car, but I actually get the money back from Motability for keeping the car in perfect condition, so I get a bigger car due to the wheelchair and the hand controls which fit below the steering wheel, in smaller cars this bangs against my legs and I find it difficult to get in and out.

I will now keep this car for five years before it goes back and I can have a new one, it does look though as it mobility will end with the Labour and Tories idea for PIP’s

Does seem we are being attacked.

We have just been told all our private information we send to the DWP like medical files documents from doctors are being opened and sorted by the Post office, letter openings service, which has annoyed me to think people from the post office are allowed to read my personal information

So Much For Subtlety

god your a twat

@ Pagar

“I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there but, if I were you, I wouldn’t be boasting about it.”

Why not? This has been the great achievement of the past century: for the first time, ordinary low and middle-income familes are able to access things they could never have afforded to pay for privately. Comprehensive healthcare from the cradle to the grave; a secure income in old age; education for all children from the age of five right through to adulthood, etc. Damn right I will boast about it, as everyone on the left should be boasting about it.

@ SMFS

“So you have proven you are a massive consumer of welfare. Which means that somewhere there are other families that are massive payers of tax.”

Well – families, individuals and businesses, yes. The top 10% of earners (who pay around 53% of all income tax), and especially the top 1% (who pay around 25%), together with businesses, are heavily subsidising public services and benefits for the rest of us. I think I’m right in saying that people in the bottom 70% of the income distribution are estimated to be net beneficiaries of the tax system in any given year; presumably that percentage rises substantially if you look at the picture across whole lifetimes, since even people who are net contributors throughout their working lives will typically pay little or no tax, but heavily consume public services, during the first and last 20 years or so of their lives. Clever, eh?

“Do you claim that most people are in your boat – and if so, why?”

Because we’re a fairly typical middle-income family, reliant on public services and benefits to a fairly typical degree. We have more kids than average, but then again we pay more tax than average (because our income is higher than average, and we’re only using one person’s tax-free allowance). And we don’t rely on subsidised childcare like many people on similar incomes.

“I do notice you have some odd ideas about what you get. Why do you think your education is worth some £32,000 a year?”

I’ve looked this up and median spending per pupil in more deprived areas is actually closer to £7,000 than £8,000. So OK, I’ll revise my estimate to £28,000.

43. alienfromzog

I’ll tell you what though,

The comments section under this ridiculous TPA article made me smile. It seems no one agrees with them…

AFZ

44. So Much For Subtlety

40. Treborc

I ‘m paraplegic.

So your experience has nothing to do with this thread at all?

42. G.O.

Why not? This has been the great achievement of the past century: for the first time, ordinary low and middle-income familes are able to access things they could never have afforded to pay for privately.

Because it looks a little bit like you could afford it. If you wanted to. The welfare state was a nice idea, and one that perhaps should be celebrated (unlike living off it) but it was poorly designed and it needs to be fixed.

Not that it will survive anyway. Welfare is only possible in homogeneous societies. America has never had a major socialist movement because of the problem of race. As we now have the same problem with minorities we will soon have the same lack of welfare.

Well – families, individuals and businesses, yes. The top 10% of earners (who pay around 53% of all income tax), and especially the top 1% (who pay around 25%), together with businesses, are heavily subsidising public services and benefits for the rest of us.

Indeed they are. A basic fact that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge in other threads. However VAT is not only paid by the rich. So it is a little harder to work out than you think.

Because we’re a fairly typical middle-income family, reliant on public services and benefits to a fairly typical degree. We have more kids than average, but then again we pay more tax than average (because our income is higher than average, and we’re only using one person’s tax-free allowance). And we don’t rely on subsidised childcare like many people on similar incomes.

And yet you don’t think there is anything strange about paying the government large sums of money so they can inefficiently give it back to you as mediocre services?

I’ve looked this up and median spending per pupil in more deprived areas is actually closer to £7,000 than £8,000. So OK, I’ll revise my estimate to £28,000.

Spending isn’t remotely the same as value.

XXX @ 26

Oh, grow up, get a sense of proportion, and stop being such an utter hypocrite.

A hypocrite? I am a hypocrite am I? How? Where is the hypocrisy in anything I have said? You cunts are the hypocrites with your false concern over the plight of the innocent ‘babies’ in the womb, only to label such babies as a fucking nuisance when born.

Look at the disgusting abuse heaped onto the disabled and the mentally ill on this thread. A true ‘pro lifer’ would be sickened by the language used by the Tory lice on this thread to describe people, but you are no ‘pro lifer’ are you? You are just a fucking nasty Tory.

Funny when we are discussing abortion you are all for babies being giving ‘a chance’ and Welfare State support and suddenly when they are born, their parents become parasites.

Scum like you make me want to be physically sick.

It’s definitely time for MoveAnyMountain / SoMuchForSubtlety to go. His relentless sub-par ‘fisking’, peppered with complete non-sequiters and easily faulted personal fallacies presented as rock-solid fact, is merely designed to disrupt intelligent conversation, and it is time Sunny called time on his time-wasting. It’s not productive for any side of the debate, least of all his.

Joe @ 46

I have seen it so many times before. I have been on too many message boards that start off interesting but end up destroyed when a few Nazis (real Nazis) start spouting off and distrupt the boards completely. My ‘favourites file’ is full of links to defunct and semi defunct boards because once the Nazis (or sometimes merely Americans) turn up any, hope of a rational debate goes out the window.

This thread is a prime example. Not only does the OP point out that these bastards distort the figures to attack mental illness but the resulting comments show a pretty vile side of one of our mainstream political parties as well.

The thing is, the Left are always searching out examples of racism and homophobia, quite rightly, and condemn them, but when we are confronted with actual Nazi ideology, we shy away from it and pretend it is not there.

26
No, you are totally wrong, Jim was not being a hypocrite (is this the right word?) This sort of propaganda was used widely by the nazis, you should watch their films about the mentally and physically disabled. First you slowly demonize a powerless/vulnerable group and then you start to introduce policies which directly and negatively affect the group. As I have said many times before, Germany was one of the most liberal countries in the world until economic depression set-in.
We can go right back to witch-hunting and probably further to see how powerless groups are singled-out in times of economic recessions.
Just a suggestion, as most people with mental health problems do want to work, why don’t we stop redisributing wealth and instead redistribute work instead.?
Surprisingly, people with mental health problems in third world countries do better than those in the west, and it’s generally considered to be because they are involved in all social activies, including work.

Look at the disgusting abuse heaped onto the disabled and the mentally ill on this thread.

Looking back through it, the closest thing to abuse that I can see is SMFS describing ADHD as a behavioural disorder and not a disability or a disease. You can disagree with that position, but I don’t think it counts as disgusting abuse.

And arguing that the parents of disabled children should not get cars as part of their disability allowance is about as far from “completely analagous” to the murder of disabled children as it’s possible to get, and equating the two is ridiculous. Pr for the course admittedly, but ridiculous nonetheless.

@ SMFS

“Because it looks a little bit like you could afford it. If you wanted to.”

Huh? Gross family income: £38,000. Cost of privately educating 4 children: c. £40,000 p.a. Cost of having the corneal graft I had earlier this year privately: £3,300. Cost of private pensions worth £10,000 p.a. between us: say, £5,000? Basic cost of living (housing, clothing, food, utilities) for a family like ours, according to the JRF: c. £26,000 a year. Total shortfall: £36,300.

Don’t be silly.

“Indeed they are. A basic fact that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge in other threads. However VAT is not only paid by the rich. So it is a little harder to work out than you think.”

Good grief SMFS, you’ve made a reasonable point. Well done. You’re right: low and middle-income families are making a larger contribution than you or I have hitherto acknowledged. Still, it remains the case that their public services are being subsidised by the rich.

“And yet you don’t think there is anything strange about paying the government large sums of money so they can inefficiently give it back to you as mediocre services?”

Well, let’s see: we’ve already established that the cost of state education is substantially lower than the cost of private education. And the cost of that corneal graft to the NHS is only £1,800: £1,500 less than it costs to have done privately. So funnily enough, it doesn’t strike me that the government is being particularly inefficient. In fact they seem to be getting very good value for money.

“Spending isn’t remotely the same as value.”

Right you are. I had the dubious privilege of attending a private school (there was a quirky 11+ system where I grew up), and I can assure you that compared to the Bradford comp my children attend, it looked like a garden shed full of broken abacuses. Nor was the teaching of a notably high standard: while some teachers were excellent, others were coasters, buffoons or bullies who could get away with it because the school’s privileged and/or particularly bright intake would do fairly well in exams in any case.

@ SMFS again

I meant to make a more general point.

Look: I know there is a group of people at the very top of society who have, in some ways at least, been royally shafted by the advent of the welfare state.They’re still paying privately for healthcare, education etc., just as they have always done. But now they are required to subsidise comparable services and benefits for people lower down the income distribution.

This must be very annoying for them (though of course they do benefit in some ways – e.g. they have a healthier and better-educated workforce to draw on). So it’s understandable that they continue to fund and lead a political party that defends their interests by calling for cuts to those subsidies.

But the vast majority of Tory voters do not belong to this group. They are ordinary people on ordinary, five-figure incomes who have been duped into thinking that the bulk of the taxes they pay are not being spent on benefits and services they themselves rely on, but instead are being frittered away on ‘scroungers’. It’s an appealing and (for the rich) extremely useful idea, but it’s bollocks.

GO @ 50

I had the dubious privilege of attending a private school

Your story accidently exposes the inconsistency of the Left’s argument about income inequality.

If even a (dubiously) privileged former private schoolboy, with a higher than average income, intends to spend most of his working-life + retirement depending on the state to give him stuff for free, then we certainly will need plenty of super-rich types on high salaries to pay the bills.

If we were to pursue policies to narrow the income gap: stop bankers getting bonuses, trim back fat-cat executive salaries etc. – then we’d all – including you – perhaps be a few thousand richer; but not richer enough to close that £36k shortfall you identified. Who’d subsidise you then?

Tim J @ 49

You can disagree with that position, but I don’t think it counts as disgusting abuse.

To be fair though, Tim, you are a Tory and pretty much agree with SMFS on these points. The Nasty Party are pretty much as one when it comes to the weak and defenceless. As in this little gem:

It is clear to pretty much everyone that ADHD is just a label for bad parenting

Nobody will be surprised to find out you cannot see much wrong with what he is written, because you people are basically all the same, even if some of you are more circumspect regarding these vile views.

You say you cannot find anything wrong with what SMFS has written, well fair enough because his general opinions on the disabled are pretty explicit. He thinks they are mostly lazy, greedy bastards and liars who deliberately feign illness for benefits. That is not only apparent on this thread, but on others too. That is the clear subtext of his contributions over a number of threads.

Of course he is aided and abetted by the Tory vermin who have attempted to distort the figures regarding ADHD and trivialise this mental illness.

Why Tim? You are a Tory, so tell me what you cunts are getting out of deliberately falsifying these figures and trivialising a form of mental illness? Why would you people attempt to deny that a potentially disruptive medical condition be treated seriously?

Do you not admit it is an attempt to marginalize people with serious mental problems?

@ 28:

The bank bailouts are over, and so aren’t showing up on current government expenditure. If we’re still running a deficit, it can’t be because of the bank bailouts.

Jim @ 45:

“A hypocrite? I am a hypocrite am I? How? Where is the hypocrisy in anything I have said?”

You say that the Tories are ZOMG TEH EBIL NAZIS!!!!111! because they demonise disabled people, before speaking about them in exactly the same dehumanising terms that the Nazis used for their opponents (scum, vermin, lice).

“You cunts are the hypocrites with your false concern over the plight of the innocent ‘babies’ in the womb, only to label such babies as a fucking nuisance when born.”

You do realise that this makes you look every so slightly obsessive?

“Scum like you make me want to be physically sick.”

I’ll try not to cry myself to sleep tonight over that revelation.

@ Flowerpower

Let me illustrate why you’re wrong with a little sketch of two mini-societies.

Greater Inequalia, population 100.

There are 90 people earning £10,000 a year and paying £4,000 in tax, and 10 people earning £100,000 a year and paying £35,000 in tax. (As in the UK, poorer people pay around 40% of their income in tax and richer people around 35%.)

After tax, the rich are more than ten times better off than the poor, with net incomes of £65,000 vs £6,000.

Total national income: £1,900,000. Total tax revenues: £710,000.

Assume 95% of that money, £674,500, is shared equally around the 90 poor people, with each receiving £5,000 worth of services and £2,494 in cash benefits. The other 5% provides £3,550 worth of services to each of the 10 rich people. Now…

Lesser inequalia, population 100:

Here there are 90 people earning £12,222 and paying £4,888 in tax, and 10 people earning £80,000 a year and paying £28,000 a year in tax. Total national income: £1,900,000. Total tax revenues: £719,920.

After tax, the rich are only seven times better off than the poor, with net incomes of £52,000 vs. £7,334.

It’s true that the subsidy being provided by the rich has fallen, but so what? Tax revenues have risen. More money, not less, is available to fund the public services poorer people rely on. What’s more, their net incomes have all risen by 13% – £1,334. In general, poorer people have become better off and more self-reliant.

Nobody will be surprised to find out you cannot see much wrong with what he is written, because you people are basically all the same

This is that whole reading comprehension problem that we’ve come across before. I have no particular opinion on ADHD one way or the other, and certainly gave none in my comment. Equally though challenging its validity as a diagnosis is, regardless of whether that challenge is correct, not ‘disgusting abuse’. There’s only one person on this thread dealing in disgusting abuse.

You say that the Tories are ZOMG TEH EBIL NAZIS!!!!111! because they demonise disabled people, before speaking about them in exactly the same dehumanising terms that the Nazis used for their opponents (scum, vermin, lice).

It’s remarkable isn’t it?

XXX @ 55

You say that the Tories are ZOMG TEH EBIL NAZIS!!!!111! because they demonise disabled people, before speaking about them in exactly the same dehumanising terms that the Nazis used for their opponents (scum, vermin, lice).

People choose to be Tories; they do not choose to have children with mental health issues. You cunts choose to attack those people who are often the most vulnerable people in society. I find such people despicable and do not hide my contempt for them. You reserve your contempt for people with serious mental health problems.

Says it all really.

59. Robin Levett

@SMFS #39:

Which of these demands Daddy gets a free BMW?

None of them – but since Daddy doesn’t get a “free BMW”, that’s slightly irrelevant.

Just to get this straight; do you argue that the Governemnt should abolish the Higher Mobility Component of DLA?

Tim J @ 58

I have no particular opinion on ADHD one way or the other, and certainly gave none in my comment. Equally though challenging its validity as a diagnosis is, regardless of whether that challenge is correct, not ‘disgusting abuse’.

Describing the parents whose children are diagnosed with this potentially debilitating illness as (SMFS #19)

It is clear to pretty much everyone that ADHD is just a label for bad parenting.

Is a pretty disgusting attack to me.

61. Chaise Guevara

@ 57 TimJ

“This is that whole reading comprehension problem that we’ve come across before. I have no particular opinion on ADHD one way or the other, and certainly gave none in my comment. Equally though challenging its validity as a diagnosis is, regardless of whether that challenge is correct, not ‘disgusting abuse’. There’s only one person on this thread dealing in disgusting abuse.”

I agree with your RE Jim’s general conduct on this site (i.e. his assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is a subhuman monster and his frequent Godwinning), but he’s right about SMFS’s crass dismissal of ADHD as bad parenting. Note that SMFS doesn’t feel the need to explain why he is right and the medical profession as a whole is wrong; he just parrots the line because it suits his political position (namely that “tough” responses are generally the right ones). It’s a lazy, self-serving and (in the absense of evidence) rather offensive assumption.

Ignore the brownshirt trolls. They will not be happy until they have returned us to the 19th century, and if they have to put the weak and sick and elderly in camps to do it they are quite happy.

Personally I have found those people who comlain about one group in society getting benefits, are usually the first in the que if they think they are entitled to something. See tory mps or tory farmers. They always have the biggest begging bowl, and are at the front of the que.

I dont mind your average trolls who understand the power of brevity, but MaM / SMFS is so excessively long with its pointless banality and relentlessly unimaginative sub-par fisking that it just takes a lot of the wind out of the conversation’s sails. Which is probably its point.

Chaise @ 61

(i.e. his assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is a subhuman monster and his frequent Godwinning)

No, that is not true. There is no way you could accuse me of describing people as monsters merely because they disagree with me. There are lots of people who disagree with me, who I respect none the less. There are people who I have fundamentally different views with who I can have a cordial debate with. An example of this was the recent abortion debate when I addressed ‘Green Christian’ with total respect to his Christian views.

I have a problem with people who regularly and deliberately attack people with mental or physical health issues or generally abuse the weakest members of our society.

One thing I will say, is this. I NEVER Goodwin. When I use the term ‘Nazi’ I always use the term advisedly. The term Nazi is not a throwaway line of abuse for those of us on the Left. Not like the Right who use terms like ‘health Nazi’, ‘eco fascism’, or the general public (Left and Right) who describe traffic wardens as ‘Hitler’ etc.

Those of us on the Left with an attention span of more than two minutes and a knowledge of history further than the last ‘Big Brother final’ are more than capable using the term ‘Nazi’ in a correct context. In this instance the merciless and unrelenting attacks on the disabled and the techniques employed are entirely consistent with Nazi Ideology.

Chaise, whatever our past differences and past history may suggest, I will give you an assurance that I never throw the word ‘Nazi’ about lightly.

I agree with your RE Jim’s general conduct on this site (i.e. his assumption that anyone who disagrees with him is a subhuman monster and his frequent Godwinning), but he’s right about SMFS’s crass dismissal of ADHD as bad parenting.

Arguing that ADHD is not a disability is a relatively unexceptional psychological viewpoint I think – although you’ll certainly find arguments the other way. Saying that ‘it’s all bad parenting’ is clearly a crass generalisation, but if you classify those as disgustingly abusive then you’re setting a pretty low benchmark.

I’d argue that it’s less disgustingly abusive than calling your political opponents cunts, lice, vermin and Nazis.

Jim @ 64:

“There is no way you could accuse me of describing people as monsters merely because they disagree with me.”

Hmm, I suppose you’re right. Describing them as “cunts”, “vermin” and “lice” seems more your style.

SMFS,

“I see. Except for the services the Government provides there are no competitors at all. Why does your magic logic stick hit that argument with one end when you want the Government to be super efficient and with the other end when it comes to defence? ”

Because you didn’t read properly, again.

68. Flowerpower

G.O.

There are a number of things wrong with your illustration, for example the differential in proportion of tax paid by rich and poor is not a constant, but reflects differences in spending/saving patterns that shrink as a society becomes more equal.

Also, I wonder if it’s true. You say that you pay out 10k in tax and NI. The average person in the 25- 30k range pays £5790 in income tax 15.4% of income, so I think we can conclude you are grossing well over 30k. That would mean you’d have to be paying at least 5k in council tax and VAT ….. ??

But, in any case, you have missed my point. In England today there are around 10k bankers each getting a bonus of 1 million per annum. That’s 5 billion straight to the Treasury – because at the margin they are paying 50% tax. Ban bonuses and chances are that most of that 5bn will never cross the Treasury threshold – finding its way offshore etc.

So we get a more equal society – but at the expense of, say, 3bn reduction in tax take and consequent loss of services.

Ignore the tory brownshirt troll whores. Iam sure they are well paid for sucking their masters cock.

70. David Edwards

yep, the TPA probably has a pool of trolls always available to divert people away from any basic debate about the misinformation it is used to mouthpiece. Bet the Fail and its readers still believe that DLA is squandered on the undeserving.

No response from TPA, presumably one has to be a generous funding source to elicit any kind of response?

Tim J @ 65

Arguing that ADHD is not a disability is a relatively unexceptional psychological viewpoint I think

Is it? Any evidence for that? I would accept that there is controversy surrounding the subject among health professionals but I doubt very much that there are many people who have studied the subject who would describe ADHD as a label for bad parenting. In any event, SMFS motive to dismiss ADHD is not some academic interest, it is driven, it is driven by his sheer hatred of the disabled.

but if you classify those as disgustingly abusive then you’re setting a pretty low benchmark.

If you have a child who has been diagnosed with a serious, chronic psychiatric disorder at the age of four and be told that the prognosis could leave your child pretty disadvantaged throughout its life is a pretty devastating turn of events. To then have some nasty little shit of a Tory dismiss the medical evidence in favour of his ‘expert’ diagnosis (without even reading a book on the subject) as down to bad parenting is a pretty disgusting attack in my book. Among your people unfounded attacks on the character of people you hate is all good knockabout stuff, but to normal people, attacking people through shear ignorance is pretty vile.

I’d argue that it’s less disgustingly abusive than calling your political opponents cunts, lice, vermin and Nazis.

George W. Potter is a political opponent of mine. We disagree on a number of issues. I think him wrong, misguided or even duped, but he is not a cunt, nor are many others on this board who I have tangled with. Most of who have deeply held political beliefs that I understand, even if I personally do not share. Tim, most of your views I can respect, even if I do not share them. However, you are still a member of the Party of hate and that is difficult to get past and ignore.

Your average Tory and more than the odd New (Blue) Labourite spends almost all of his time attacking the most vulnerable in society and I would not piss on these people if they were on fire.

It takes a special type of wickedness to swindle a Down ’s syndrome sufferer out of his minimum wage. I give such views all the respect that it is due. Unfortunately, that amounts to fuck all respect whatsoever.

Is it? Any evidence for that?

Hell, it’s not even remotely my area, but there have been a fair few journal articles floating about the place for years. Such as:

There are no specific cognitive, metabolic or neurological markers and no medical tests for ADHD. Because of uncertainty about definition, epidemiological studies produce hugely differing prevalence rates: from 0.5% to 26% of children… More than 30 neuroimaging studies have been published; however, researchers have yet to compare unmedicated children diagnosed with ADHD with an age-matched control group. Sample sizes in these studies have been small and have produced a variety of inconsistent results. In no study were the brains considered clinically abnormal, nor is it possible to work out whether any differences seen are caused by (rather than being the causes of) different styles of thinking, or are the result of the medication the children had taken. What we end up with is a modern version of the long-discredited ‘ science’ of phrenology.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/184/1/8.full#ref-11

It takes a special type of wickedness to swindle a Down ’s syndrome sufferer out of his minimum wage. I give such views all the respect that it is due. Unfortunately, that amounts to fuck all respect whatsoever.

When they finally get around to updating the book of Greek myths, Sisyphus will be illustrated by a link to the arguments had on this website.

@ Flowerpower

“There are a number of things wrong with your illustration, for example the differential in proportion of tax paid by rich and poor is not a constant, but reflects differences in spending/saving patterns that shrink as a society becomes more equal.”

So would that change the overall picture significantly? Genuine question.

“That would mean you’d have to be paying at least 5k in council tax and VAT ….. ??”

It’s a fair point about VAT, we must pay a lot. So yes, the gap between what we pay in and what we get out is maybe not quite as large as I’ve been painting it. (On the other hand, I didn’t try to calculate the cash value to my family of collectively-received services like defence, road maintenance, etc.,because I was sticking to neat examples of things that can be bought privately.)

“But, in any case, you have missed my point. In England today there are around 10k bankers each getting a bonus of 1 million per annum. That’s 5 billion straight to the Treasury – because at the margin they are paying 50% tax. Ban bonuses and chances are that most of that 5bn will never cross the Treasury threshold – finding its way offshore etc.”

Three points:

1 – It hardly seems likely that the effective tax rate on bankers’ bonuses is 50%, given the abilty of such people to avoid tax.

2 – A more equal society isn’t necessarily one in which people’s incomes *before taxes and benefits* are more equal; it can be a society in which there’s redistribution from rich to poor, pulling their incomes closer together. So the contradiction you see between relying on high taxes levied on high earners, and wanting more equality, just isn’t there.

3 – Of course if every pound cut from high earners’ pre-tax incomes was just going to vanish from the economy, there’d be a real problem. But the idea (if we wanted to promote greater equality) would be to have it show up in the pocket of someone lower down the income distrbution – either because it’s been put there via redistribution, or (better) because we’ve brought it about that a larger slice of the pre-tax pie is going to lower earners.

Tim J @ 72

Hell, it’s not even remotely my area, but there have been a fair few journal articles floating about the place for years. Such as:

Oh, I did say that there is controversy surrounding the subject among health professionals. However, there are few with relevant qualifications that explicitly state that these symptoms are being either simply made up in order for parents to receive benefits or simply the result of bad parenting as SMFS suggested. ADHD is widely recognised as an illness, like it or not, Tim.

75. Chaise Guevara

@ 64 Jim

“I have a problem with people who regularly and deliberately attack people with mental or physical health issues or generally abuse the weakest members of our society.”

We’ve had this conversation before and we remain at opposite ends. It’s probably not worth going into again.

“One thing I will say, is this. I NEVER Goodwin.”

Said in a thread where you just did.

“When I use the term ‘Nazi’ I always use the term advisedly. The term Nazi is not a throwaway line of abuse for those of us on the Left. Not like the Right who use terms like ‘health Nazi’, ‘eco fascism’, or the general public (Left and Right) who describe traffic wardens as ‘Hitler’ etc.”

Firstly, please don’t pretend that Godwinning is a right-wing disease. Leftwingers throw “Nazi” around all the time, it’s just that they use it differently (rightwingers tend to use it as you describe, leftwingers are more likely to use it for draconian sentencing and the like). I’m within the category “those of us on the Left”, as are you, and yet I think you Godwin all the time. And I used to as well.

“Those of us on the Left with an attention span of more than two minutes and a knowledge of history further than the last ‘Big Brother final’ are more than capable using the term ‘Nazi’ in a correct context. In this instance the merciless and unrelenting attacks on the disabled and the techniques employed are entirely consistent with Nazi Ideology.”

Yes, as is patriotism. So would you call someone who likes to see England win at football a Nazi? And don’t move the goalposts by pointing out the obvious differences, because obvious differences are exactly what you’re ignoring so you can make your Nazi slurs. If Cameron’s attitude towards the disabled were “consistent with Nazi ideology” in any meaningful sense, he’d be sending them to fucking death camps.

The whole point of the Godwinning concept isn’t that people use “Nazi” as a total non sequitur, it’s that they use flimsy excuses to throw it at their opponents. You like a big state? The Nazis had a big state! You like law and order? The Nazis liked law and order! You support the smoking ban? So did Hitler! Believe in evolution? Fascist! Breath air and drink water? Guess who else did! Cutting benefits to the disabled? ITS THE HOLOCAUST!

Seriously, knock it off.

76. Chaise Guevara

@ 65 TimJ

“I’d argue that it’s less disgustingly abusive than calling your political opponents cunts, lice, vermin and Nazis.”

Well, what you consider offensive is ultimately your call. I can certainly see your point of view on the matter. What I would say, though, is that SMFS is making shit up to support an attitude that could lead to vital support being withdrawn for ADHD sufferers. Whereas Jim’s behaviour, unpleasant as it is, is never going to lead to SMFS being tried in Nurenburg. Jim might be more offensive, but I’d say SMFS’s attitude (in the context of this specific subject) is worse.

Tim J @ 72

When they finally get around to updating the book of Greek myths, Sisyphus will be illustrated by a link to the arguments had on this website.

Sorry Tim my last remark was a bit unfair. I think I may have ascribed a viewpoint to you find as repugnant as I do.

So to clarify your position:

Are there circumstances that someone with Down’s syndrome could be paid less than the prevailing wage for the job at hand, even if the prevailing wage was he minimum wage?

Chaise @ 75

Sorry mate, you just do not understand what Goodwin’s law is about. Goodwin is about people drawing false comparisons with Nazi Germany, Hitler et al, not merely drawing any comparisons with Nazi Germany. Thus saying things like the Nazis supported gun control, therefore everyone who supports gun control is a Nazi’. Gun control, supporting football teams, holding the Olympics, conscription, National Railways and the like are all things that Nazis did, but they are not specifically Nazi in their outlook.

On the other hand, Nazi ideology is specifically associated with persecution of people adjudged to be inferior. That persecution included the mentally and physically disabled during the Nazi era in Germany and Nazi ideology that occurs today.

No-one is suggesting that cutting benefits is akin to the building of concentration camps and the mass slaughter of the disabled, I am merely pointing out that the former is being driven (no matter what rationale is being used) by the same basic ideology as the latter.

The language is the same. ‘Drains on society’, ‘parasites’, ‘we can no longer afford…’, ‘Not economically productive’ and the like. This language is used deliberately to dehumanise and demonise people and paint them as dragging us down and therefore ripe for stigmatisation and ultimately the part of the scapegoat.

SMFS and XXX have made specific (check it out, BTW) allegations regarding the Country’s wealth being ‘wasted’ on these people. Among ‘these people’ are the sick, long term disabled and the mentally ill to the point he even denies these people are even disabled.

But for you, describing a few scumbag Tories as ‘vermin’ is the big deal. Writing of the disabled as non producers? Pah! Harmless banter. You are welcome to your view of cousre, but I still shudder at the people you feel able to support.

Jim @ 78:

“SMFS and XXX have made specific (check it out, BTW) allegations regarding the Country’s wealth being ‘wasted’ on these people. Among ‘these people’ are the sick, long term disabled and the mentally ill”

Hmm, I don’t remember making any such allegations. Any examples?

Chaise @ 76:

“What I would say, though, is that SMFS is making shit up to support an attitude that could lead to vital support being withdrawn for ADHD sufferers. Whereas Jim’s behaviour, unpleasant as it is, is never going to lead to SMFS being tried in Nurenburg.”

The sorts of opinions Jim expresses — that people who disagree with him are evil and brutal, that they pose a threat to ordinary people, that they are sub-human “vermin” and “scum” — are exactly the sorts of opinions that lead people to oppress one another. I suppose it’s more likely that disabled people will suffer discrimination that that we’ll see wide-scale political repression, but that doesn’t make the views themselves any better; it just means that they’re (thankfully) less likely to be carried through to their logical conclusion.

XXX @ 80

Jesus wept! Have you just compared the Tories to small group of oppressed people on the edge of our society, struggling to aviod being trampled on by the might of the State and herded into cattle trucks?

Are you serious? Oh, the humanity of it all!!!!

@ 81:

“Jesus wept! Have you just compared the Tories to small group of oppressed people on the edge of our society, struggling to aviod being trampled on by the might of the State and herded into cattle trucks?”

No, merely said that that’s what they would be if people took your ravings seriously.

83. Leon Wolfson

@69 – No, thing is, he’s not even well paid. Very odd.

XXX @ 82

Seriously dude, no one, not even me, wants to put you in cattle trucks. I dislike the views of the many of the Tories and I imagine that people who hold such unpleasant views must be intrinsically unpleasant and perhaps disturbed people, but I am sure we can all rub along. Many of my suppliers and clients that I deal with on a daily basis share many of your values, but I manage to have placid relationships with most of them. There are a couple of people that if I never had to deal with again I would be quite happy, but in nearly a quarter of a centaury I have only been marched of site once after kicking the living shit out of a ‘workmate’. A cowardly attack from behind to my eternal shame, unfortunately, but in those days you could move from job to job without too much hassle or history following you. Too old for such carry on now.

@ 78. Jim

” The language is the same. ‘Drains on society’, ‘parasites’, ‘we can no longer afford…’, ‘Not economically productive’ and the like. This language is used deliberately to dehumanise and demonise people and paint them as dragging us down and therefore ripe for stigmatisation and ultimately the part of the scapegoat. ”

That sounds awfully alike to how some on the left describe the 2 million British workers who work in financial services. Of course, when pressed they always claim that they really mean a distinction between the 20k branch tellers and Bob Diamond or Fred Goodwin. Unless a distinction has been clearly expressed then it is a fair assumption that none was meant.

Richard W @ 82

That sounds awfully alike to how some on the left describe the 2 million British workers who work in financial services.

Really? You have heard people use terms like that about financial service workers? The actual workers and not just the work they happen to do?

87. Leon Wolfson

@86 – Yes. Routinely. I’m a moderate, others are not.

88. So Much For Subtlety

67. Mason Dixon, Autistic

Because you didn’t read properly, again.

Then explain why the services you like are an exception and the services you do not are not.

89. So Much For Subtlety

50. G.O.

Huh? Gross family income: £38,000. Cost of privately educating 4 children: c. £40,000 p.a. Cost of having the corneal graft I had earlier this year privately: £3,300. Cost of private pensions worth £10,000 p.a. between us: say, £5,000? Basic cost of living (housing, clothing, food, utilities) for a family like ours, according to the JRF: c. £26,000 a year. Total shortfall: £36,300. Don’t be silly.

But remember that you would be paying for these things over a number of years. You will be paying a lot of tax for the rest of your life. You will not be paying for school fees for long. Well a couple of decades. You may have a cash flow problem right now – and I agree that many costs are front-loaded for young couple. But that does not mean that you are getting value for money or that you cannot afford to pay for these things yourself.

Good grief SMFS, you’ve made a reasonable point. Well done. You’re right: low and middle-income families are making a larger contribution than you or I have hitherto acknowledged. Still, it remains the case that their public services are being subsidised by the rich.

Not to mention that company tax depressed wages. It is true that the very rich pay a lot. I am not sure it is true that it follows the poor get a lot. Those on welfare certainly do. I think that it is more likely to be an hour glass shape – those at the very bottom in the underclass get a reasonable amount, what is left of the working class and the lower middle class get little, and then the upper middle class and the rich get a lot. Opera tickets do not benefit a lot of poor people. They should but they don’t. Nor do subsidies to London’s railways.

Well, let’s see: we’ve already established that the cost of state education is substantially lower than the cost of private education.

I don’t think we have actually. Of course private education is limited by the ability of people to pay. Not by what it costs. So it is hard to say.

And the cost of that corneal graft to the NHS is only £1,800: £1,500 less than it costs to have done privately. So funnily enough, it doesn’t strike me that the government is being particularly inefficient. In fact they seem to be getting very good value for money.

Why do you assume that the NHS is showing the full costs?

Right you are. I had the dubious privilege of attending a private school (there was a quirky 11+ system where I grew up), and I can assure you that compared to the Bradford comp my children attend, it looked like a garden shed full of broken abacuses. Nor was the teaching of a notably high standard: while some teachers were excellent, others were coasters, buffoons or bullies who could get away with it because the school’s privileged and/or particularly bright intake would do fairly well in exams in any case.

As someone else said, if even the privately educated upper middle class intend to coast on welfare, this country is screwed. Someone has to pay the bills. I would also doubt that the quality of teaching was not higher. You can spell. Therefore it was likely to be higher than most British Comps today.

51. G.O.

Look: I know there is a group of people at the very top of society who have, in some ways at least, been royally shafted by the advent of the welfare state.

But that is not the issue. The problem is that there are people at the very bottom of society who have been shafted by welfare too. Now their destroyed lives were of no interest to the middle class as long as they got their Radio Three and the Guardian told them they were wonderful caring people. But we can no longer afford it. We no longer have the luxury of ruining other people’s lives to make us feel better.

So it’s understandable that they continue to fund and lead a political party that defends their interests by calling for cuts to those subsidies.

Tony Benn?

It’s an appealing and (for the rich) extremely useful idea, but it’s bollocks.

Why do you think it is bollocks?

90. So Much For Subtlety

59. Robin Levett

Just to get this straight; do you argue that the Governemnt should abolish the Higher Mobility Component of DLA?

Well I haven’t yet. But I certainly think it needs to be reserved for people who, you know, have mobility issues. Not for the parents of ADHD children. Nor any other behavioural problem. We need to maintain standards in what we do or the whole system collapses. It is collapsing anyway but if you support this scheme surely you must agree that public support is conditional on giving to deserving people?

61. Chaise Guevara

but he’s right about SMFS’s crass dismissal of ADHD as bad parenting.

What was crass about it?

Note that SMFS doesn’t feel the need to explain why he is right and the medical profession as a whole is wrong; he just parrots the line because it suits his political position (namely that “tough” responses are generally the right ones). It’s a lazy, self-serving and (in the absense of evidence) rather offensive assumption.

No one asked me to. Nor is this a conflict between me and the medical profession. A lot of medical professionals do in fact agree with me. Especially if they were trained in any of the main Talking Cures tradition. Talk to a psycho-analyst about ADHD and see what they say. As for my political position, the irony here is that the Right hated Talking Cures. Freud especially. They welcomed the rise of pharmo-psychology – so cheap! Just give them a pill! The people who objected, and still object, to this alliance between the medical profession, the government and the large pharmaceutical companies tended to be on the Left. Thomas Szasz is hardly a Tory is he? You google people who object to ADHD and most of them will be on your side of politics. I object to the on-going medicalisation of small children because it is demonstrably bad for their physical health, it does not work and it is counter-productive. Not to mention there is no objective measure of ADHD, no indicators beyond a vague check list that could apply to every person here, and most diagnoses come from our failing school system that clearly prefers to drug children up rather than discipline them.

But of course rather than consider the compexities of the issue, or indeed the issue at all, you would rather go for the cheap shot. A, dare I say it?, cheap and self-serving cheap shot.

This is one of those rare cases where I stand with the hippy fruit loops who think that Autism is caused by vaccines. Except I think they are right this time.

91. Leon Wolfson

@90 – No, I don’t agree that there’s a magical barrier where it’s acceptable to define people as worthless and discard them becuase you’re a bigot and don’t believe they should have any rights.

You are crass. Every post you have made here is crass. Every post you will make here is crass. Any more easy questions? Don’t you have more science to denounce, now you’ve made it utterly plain that you’re on the side of a debarred doctor and his illegal actions regarding children…

92. So Much For Subtlety

78. Jim

Sorry mate, you just do not understand what Goodwin’s law is about. Goodwin is about people drawing false comparisons with Nazi Germany, Hitler et al, not merely drawing any comparisons with Nazi Germany.

No it isn’t. Take my word for it. I knew Godwin. I was there when the law was first formulated. That is not what he meant. What he meant is clearly what you are doing – the inevitable result of tempers fraying is that people become more and more incoherent and extreme until they accuse each other of being Nazis.

On the other hand, Nazi ideology is specifically associated with persecution of people adjudged to be inferior. That persecution included the mentally and physically disabled during the Nazi era in Germany and Nazi ideology that occurs today.

I would ask why insisting that medical benefits go to people who are, you know, actually sick amounts to persecuting anyone, or why paying people billions of pounds every year in cash and services, albeit a little less than previous years, amounts to persecution at all, but it is not worth it, is it Jim?

SMFS and XXX have made specific (check it out, BTW) allegations regarding the Country’s wealth being ‘wasted’ on these people. Among ‘these people’ are the sick, long term disabled and the mentally ill to the point he even denies these people are even disabled.

So usually I don’t bother with people who are clearly not worth bothering with, but can I just clarify what you are trying to say here Jim – you are in that last bit admitting that I am talking about people who are not actually disabled but get benefits by claiming they are? Which sort of goes with money being, you know, wasted on then? Money intended for the sick which is going to people who can and should work?

So my question is, if I am talking about people who are claiming falsely, how is that persecuting the sick? Or anyone really.

I’m pretty sure any discussion about Godwins Law and what it means (Pretty much sweet FA) this link is required:
http://xkcd.com/261/

94. Leon Wolfson

@92 – Godwin said you persecuted the sick.

@88,

Why? You’re the most nakedly obvious of trolls and no matter what evidence or reason is given to you, nothing changes your mind because you’re not engaging in an open and honest debate. You’re posting for shits and giggles and that’s it.

Jim @ 84:

“Seriously dude, no one, not even me, wants to put you in cattle trucks.”

You might not want that, but that’s nevertheless the logical conclusion to what you’re saying.

97. So Much For Subtlety

95. Mason Dixon, Autistic

Why? You’re the most nakedly obvious of trolls and no matter what evidence or reason is given to you, nothing changes your mind because you’re not engaging in an open and honest debate. You’re posting for shits and giggles and that’s it.

Because you have yet to provide any evidence or reason at all. You have simply stated something that I have repeatedly pointed out is not true and in this one specific case you have specifically contradicted yourself.

Now frankly I don’t think throwing insults and projecting is going to help your case. Perhaps you might like to just answer the question?

50. G.O.

“But remember that you would be paying for these things over a number of years. You will be paying a lot of tax for the rest of your life.”

No – I’ll be paying a lot of tax for the rest of my *working* life. I can then expect to pay little or no tax for 20 years or so (depending on what sort of private pension I get, and how high the tax threshold is by then), while claiming a state pension etc. and making greater use of the NHS.

So in my adult life, I’ll probably spend two decades-ish as a (modest) net contributor, and four decades-ish as a (significant) net beneficiary – like most people on mid-to-high incomes who at one time have kids and at another time grow old. (People on more modest incomes may never be net contributors, of course.)

“I am not sure it is true that it follows the poor get a lot. Those on welfare certainly do.”

I’ve tried to demonstrate to you that even people on middle incomes typically get a lot. The poor get more – higher tax credits, etc.

“As someone else said, if even the privately educated upper middle class…”

My dad was a postman. My education was not privately funded. People don’t become “upper middle class” just by passing the 11+.

…intend to coast on welfare, this country is screwed. Someone has to pay the bills.”

*sigh*

I’m no more ‘intending to coast on welfare’ than the next person who pays tax on a decent income, but relies on the state to educate his children, provide him with a pension, care for his family when they get sick, and make allowances for his dependents via the tax and benefits system (e.g. child benefit and tax credits). With the exception of certain people who die young, never have kids, rarely get sick etc., we’re all ‘intending to coast on welfare’ over our lifetimes – subsidised by the top 10% or so of earners, who are the ones who (as you say) have to pay for all this.

“But that is not the issue. The problem is that there are people at the very bottom of society who have been shafted by welfare too. Now their destroyed lives were of no interest to the middle class as long as they got their Radio Three and the Guardian told them they were wonderful caring people. But we can no longer afford it. We no longer have the luxury of ruining other people’s lives to make us feel better”.

Ah yes, the ‘welfare trap’. I remember it well – when I first started work after a three-month period on jobseekers, my net income (after paying for the train to work) fell by £20 a week. That was in 1996, back when all your benefits were withdrawn at a rate of £1 for every £1 you earned. Mercifully I had my life ‘ruined’ by the advent of tax credits a few years later, at which point work finally began to pay. (I don’t know what’s going wrong to leave certain people better off on benefits than in work nowadays, and I would genuinely like to know; but I very much doubt that things are worse than they used to be.)

Are there circumstances that someone with Down’s syndrome could be paid less than the prevailing wage for the job at hand, even if the prevailing wage was he minimum wage?

Rather than go through this all again on this thread, why don’t you have a re-read of this one?

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/08/17/why-cutting-or-scrapping-the-minimum-wage-is-economic-lunacy/

The arguments stay the same, and we won’t bore anyone else.

100. So Much For Subtlety

98. G.O.

No – I’ll be paying a lot of tax for the rest of my *working* life. I can then expect to pay little or no tax for 20 years or so (depending on what sort of private pension I get, and how high the tax threshold is by then), while claiming a state pension etc. and making greater use of the NHS.

You assume that either the State pension or the NHS will be available to you. The Baby Boomers are retiring. That means fewer tax payers and more tax consumers – something will have to give. I wouldn’t bet on anything much being available to you. It just is not possible.

So in my adult life, I’ll probably spend two decades-ish as a (modest) net contributor, and four decades-ish as a (significant) net beneficiary – like most people on mid-to-high incomes who at one time have kids and at another time grow old. (People on more modest incomes may never be net contributors, of course.)

Which is precisely why the system will collapse like the Ponzi scheme it is. People on modest incomes probably are net contributors. They do not consume a lot of what the State provides. You simply can’t have fairly wealthy people like expecting to pay in for only one third of the time. Someone has to pay.

I’ve tried to demonstrate to you that even people on middle incomes typically get a lot. The poor get more – higher tax credits, etc.

And I have pointed out that the distribution of benefits is probably an hour glass shape – with the upper middle class getting a lot, perhaps even most.

My dad was a postman. My education was not privately funded. People don’t become “upper middle class” just by passing the 11+.

And what do you do now with that expensive education?

With the exception of certain people who die young, never have kids, rarely get sick etc., we’re all ‘intending to coast on welfare’ over our lifetimes – subsidised by the top 10% or so of earners, who are the ones who (as you say) have to pay for all this.

They pay for a large chunk of it, but it is just not possible for them to pay for it all. The modern Welfare state rests heavily on middle class taxes. PAYE and VAT. Oddly it is English speaking countries that tend to tax the richest the most – America, Australia and Britain. As a percentage of the total income tax take anyway.

Mercifully I had my life ‘ruined’ by the advent of tax credits a few years later, at which point work finally began to pay.

Tax credits are the start of a sensible policy. We would have been much better off with a more comprehensive system of tax credits than the dole.

(I don’t know what’s going wrong to leave certain people better off on benefits than in work nowadays, and I would genuinely like to know; but I very much doubt that things are worse than they used to be.)

I would too. But it is too late because the old fashioned culture of much of Britain has been destroyed and it is not coming back. Too many British people are simply unemployable. Even if they could read and write.

101. Chaise Guevara

@ 78 Jim

“Sorry mate, you just do not understand what Goodwin’s law is about.”

Actually, all Godwin’s law states is that people often use Nazi comparisons. In my experience, however, it’s generally interpreted to mean unreasonable comparisons, such as yours.

“Thus saying things like the Nazis supported gun control, therefore everyone who supports gun control is a Nazi’. Gun control, supporting football teams, holding the Olympics, conscription, National Railways and the like are all things that Nazis did, but they are not specifically Nazi in their outlook.”

So what makes something “specifically Nazi” if it doesn’t mean a) something the Nazis did, b) something only the Nazis did or c) what the Nazis are most hated for (the Holocaust)?

“On the other hand, Nazi ideology is specifically associated with persecution of people adjudged to be inferior. That persecution included the mentally and physically disabled during the Nazi era in Germany and Nazi ideology that occurs today.”

Problem is, you’re using “persecution” to mean “wholesale slaughter” and “cutting benefits”. And then pretending that it’s the same thing, because that way you can excuse throwing ridiculous accusations at people.

You really need to get your head around this: just because you can use the same word to describe too very different things, that doesn’t make them equivalent.

“No-one is suggesting that cutting benefits is akin to the building of concentration camps and the mass slaughter of the disabled, I am merely pointing out that the former is being driven (no matter what rationale is being used) by the same basic ideology as the latter.”

Horse shit. If you didn’t want to invoke the holocaust you wouldn’t have said people are showing Nazi attitudes to the disabled. And it’s not the same ideology, and even if it was that wouldn’t make the actual policies in any way comparable.

“The language is the same.”

The actions are different, which some people think is more important.

“SMFS and XXX have made specific (check it out, BTW) allegations regarding the Country’s wealth being ‘wasted’ on these people.”

Where’s XXX say that?

“Among ‘these people’ are the sick, long term disabled and the mentally ill to the point he even denies these people are even disabled.”

Ditto.

“But for you, describing a few scumbag Tories as ‘vermin’ is the big deal. Writing of the disabled as non producers? Pah! Harmless banter. ”

Go fuck yourself. My attitude is the exact reverse of that, as shown at post 76. So stop ascribing shitty attitudes towards me just because I object to your childish behaviour. I’m fed up of your straw men and false dichotomies and constant Godwin attacks and blatant lies. If you can’t talk to me without making up moronic lies about my beliefs, then don’t waste my time with your bullshit trolling.

“You are welcome to your view of cousre, but I still shudder at the people you feel able to support.”

Some of us back whoever’s in the right, rather than whichever individual they think can make them look good by siding with them. But someone like you will obviously have trouble understanding reason. After all, isn’t it so much more fun to make up lies about people and then shout “cunt nazi cunt cunt!” at them?

Lying little shit.

SMFS

“People on modest incomes probably are net contributors.”

How is that even remotely plausible, given the amount of tax someone on a modest income typically pays and the cost of services and benefits typically provided to them over their lifetime? Say someone on the median wage, 20k, pays 7k in tax (including indirect tax) every year for 45 years. That’s £315k altogether. The NHS costs around £2k per person per year, so they can expect to have £170K spent on their healthcare if they live to 85. If they claim 7k a year in state pension and other age-related allowances/benefits, that’s another £140k. We’re already at the break-even point, and this is assuming this person never has a period of unemployment, never has children, never uses a public road, library or park, never needs the police or fire brigade, never gets his rubbish collected, never does any state-subsidised education or training, never has his housing costs subsidised by the state (even in retirement), etc. It just doesn’t add up.

“They do not consume a lot of what the State provides.”

God give me strength. Of course they – you, we – do. We just take it all so much for granted that we can’t see it.

“You simply can’t have fairly wealthy people like expecting to pay in for only one third of the time. Someone has to pay.”

But as you conceded just a couple of posts ago, someone *is* paying – the top 10% of earners cover the more-than-50% of costs the rest of us can’t manage between us.

“And I have pointed out that the distribution of benefits is probably an hour glass shape – with the upper middle class getting a lot, perhaps even most.”

Most of what? I don’t know what you mean. It can’t be most of things like state education, state healthcare, and state benefits, since as you move up the income scale people are less likely to be in receipt of benefits and less likely to use state schools, hospitals etc. Even those who *do* use state schools and hospitals are probably likely to have less spent on them than low and middle earners, since they’re likely to enjoy better health and to live in less deprived areas where less is spent on education per pupil.

“They pay for a large chunk of it, but it is just not possible for them to pay for it all.”

Sure – we in the bottom 90%, and especially those towards the top end of that range, have to partly fund our own services and benefits. As I keep saying, the rich are *subsidising* these things for the rest of us.

“it is too late because the old fashioned culture of much of Britain has been destroyed and it is not coming back.”

There may be some truth in this, I don’t know. But who was it who decided, thirty years ago, that full employment was a bad thing – that we had to have a high proportion of people permanently out of work in order to keep inflation down? The evil something-for-nothing Left? Or the good old work-hard-and-pay-your-way Right?

103. Robin Levett

@SMFS #90:

Well I haven’t yet. But I certainly think it needs to be reserved for people who, you know, have mobility issues. Not for the parents of ADHD children. Nor any other behavioural problem.

Two questions:

Who do you think provides mobility to children disabled severaly enough that they qualify for the Higher Rate Component of DLA?

What do you think qualifies a child for the Higher Rate component?

This is one of those rare cases where I stand with the hippy fruit loops who think that Autism is caused by vaccines. Except I think they are right this time.

Such credibility as you retained just went thataway =>

Tim J @ 99

In others words ‘yes’, you do believe that Down’s syndrome people should be paid less because they are disabled. All the rationale behind be damned, you still want people as your people see as second class humans driven into the dirt and exploited because they are disabled.

And you seriously cannot see anything wrong with that?

Chaise @ 101

So what makes something “specifically Nazi”

Ideology. An ideology based on distinguishing people as inferior on and using that alleged inferiority specifically to discriminate against such people.

If you didn’t want to invoke the holocaust you wouldn’t have said people are showing Nazi attitudes to the disabled.

So only the holocaust counts as Nazi-ism?

Tell me Chaise, do you think Eugene Terra-Blanche is a Nazi? He has not advocated a holocaust against black people, just that they are inferior to every other race on the planet. So, not really a Nazi then? What about the Nazi Party of America? No holocaust from them either, so a bit mean calling them Nazis, after all they merely want to segregate the white race from other inferior races, not kill them, so a bit of a misnomer then?

Try reading a book or at least a Wikipage, for fucks sake. Seriously mate, you are only going to make a further arse of yourself.

105. So Much For Subtlety

102. G.O.

How is that even remotely plausible, given the amount of tax someone on a modest income typically pays and the cost of services and benefits typically provided to them over their lifetime?

Because they pay a lot more tax than you think.

God give me strength. Of course they – you, we – do. We just take it all so much for granted that we can’t see it.

Watch what I said very carefully. They may consume a reasonable amount in terms of monetary value – the NHS for instance – but the State has millions of ways to waste money and the poor, the lower middle class, they typically have no means to access such spending. The number of programmes open to them is low. They will not be poets-in-residence, nor will they go to the Opera that much. A lot of these programmes are Upper Middle Class welfare.

But as you conceded just a couple of posts ago, someone *is* paying – the top 10% of earners cover the more-than-50% of costs the rest of us can’t manage between us.

The top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax. Not over 50% of the tax. VAT is regressive for instance. The rich may more, but they don’t pay that much more. The wealth in Britain are surprisingly frugal. They may or may not pay a larger share of company tax – it is impossible to tell as those costs are spread out among shareholders, workers and customers. They probably pay a reasonable but lower share of Excise.

Most of what? I don’t know what you mean. It can’t be most of things like state education, state healthcare, and state benefits, since as you move up the income scale people are less likely to be in receipt of benefits and less likely to use state schools, hospitals etc.

Less likely to use schools, but more likely to use expensive ones when they do. Leafy Buckinghamshire almost certainly spends more on its schools than, say, Camden. Roads. They are more likely to get more benefit from transportation. From spending on culture. From government jobs in general. Any number of things.

But who was it who decided, thirty years ago, that full employment was a bad thing – that we had to have a high proportion of people permanently out of work in order to keep inflation down? The evil something-for-nothing Left? Or the good old work-hard-and-pay-your-way Right?

Ummm, no one? We cannot achieve full employment. We tried it in the 1970s and all we proved is that there is not a particularly good relationship between inflation and employment. We could have full employment, but only if we end benefits. It is the Left that prohibits that. Keeping people out of work does not keep down inflation and they don’t want to work.

103. Robin Levett

Who do you think provides mobility to children disabled severaly enough that they qualify for the Higher Rate Component of DLA?

It is irrelevant as we are talking about whether children with ADHD are disabled enough.

What do you think qualifies a child for the Higher Rate component?

A sympathetic doctor. Or a bullied one.

Such credibility as you retained just went thataway =>

And yet I am right about ADHD.

106. Leon Wolfson

“We cannot achieve full employment”

We had it for years. Full Employment isn’t 100% of course, but you’re also of course unaware of that.

And right, there has to be corruption for doctors to follow the government rules. You’re not even a good shill

SMFS

“Because they pay a lot more tax than you think.”

Give me some reason to think a typical person on 20k is paying significantly more than 35% of their income (7k) in taxes – say, 4k in income tax and NI, plus 1k in VAT (on 5k of VAT-able spending), 1k in council tax, and 1k in miscellaneous indirect taxes (fuel duty etc.). Do such people typically spend a very small proportion of their income on untaxed or low-taxed things like rent/mortgage payments, food, and domestic fuel?

“They may consume a reasonable amount in terms of monetary value – the NHS for instance – but the State has millions of ways to waste money and the poor, the lower middle class, they typically have no means to access such spending. The number of programmes open to them is low. They will not be poets-in-residence, nor will they go to the Opera that much. A lot of these programmes are Upper Middle Class welfare.”

But the proportion of Government spending you’re talking about – the proportion spent on things that benefit mainly the upper middle classes – is tiny compared to the proportion of spending that benefit mainly ordinary working and middle class people. I just don’t see how this can change the overall picture significantly.

“The top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax. Not over 50% of the tax. ”

Yes, fair enough.

“The rich may more, but they don’t pay that much more.”

Of course they do. The proportion of their income people pay in tax sticks around the 35% mark as you go right up the income scale, so even a relatively low earner in the top-1% bracket – on a mere 100k, say – pays around five times as much as the middle earner we’ve been considering: 35k vs. 7k.

“Less likely to use schools, but more likely to use expensive ones when they do. Leafy Buckinghamshire almost certainly spends more on its schools than, say, Camden.”

No – more is spent on schools in deprived areas than on schools in ‘leafy’ areas. Per pupil spending in Buckinghamshire is £4,950 a year; in Camden it’s £7,125.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/12/secondary-school-tables-gcse-alevel-data)

“Roads. They are more likely to get more benefit from transportation.”

“From government jobs in general.”

How is it that you think most government jobs benefit mainly the upper middle classes? A – most government jobs go to the upper middle classes – there are more consultants that nurses, and more senior civil servants than council admin staff; B – most government workers aren’t themselves upper middle class, but they do spend most of their time on things that mainly benefit the upper middle class – e.g. arranging subsidies for the opera? Do tell.

This is desperate stuff SMFS.

In others words ‘yes’, you do believe that Down’s syndrome people should be paid less because they are disabled. All the rationale behind be damned, you still want people as your people see as second class humans driven into the dirt and exploited because they are disabled.

You’re making ‘in other words’ do quite a lot of work there. Such as, completely making up what I said and what I argued. But you know, knock yourself out.

109. Chaise Guevara

@ 104 Jim

“Ideology. An ideology based on distinguishing people as inferior on and using that alleged inferiority specifically to discriminate against such people.”

Fine, as long as you don’t twist that out of all meaning, to the point that making any judgement about anyone lets you shout: “That implies inferiority! Nazi!”

“So only the holocaust counts as Nazi-ism?”

No, but I notice this isn’t actually a reply to what I said. By claiming that people have a Nazi attitude to the disabled, you ARE invoking the holocaust and you bloody well know it.

“Tell me Chaise, do you think Eugene Terra-Blanche is a Nazi? He has not advocated a holocaust against black people, just that they are inferior to every other race on the planet. So, not really a Nazi then? What about the Nazi Party of America? No holocaust from them either, so a bit mean calling them Nazis, after all they merely want to segregate the white race from other inferior races, not kill them, so a bit of a misnomer then?”

I’m fine with the use of “Nazi” to describe people who hold to “strong” forms of racism like this (as opposed to more casual, semi-conscious xenophobia), especially if they preach fascist policies to enforce their beliefs.

“Try reading a book or at least a Wikipage, for fucks sake. Seriously mate, you are only going to make a further arse of yourself.”

Sigh. You really can’t handle criticism, can you? First you slander me (a point in my last post that I notice you conveniently skipped over, intellectual honesty obviously not being your strong suit), now you’re implying that it’s only possible that I disagree with you because I’m somehow ignorant about the biggest event in 20th Century history.

I guess actually engaging with the debate – not to mention admitting and apologising for your pathetic straw man attack on me – is beneath such a beacon of morality as yourself. This isn’t a one-off either: it seems nobody’s allowed to disagree with you without getting false accusations hurled at them. No, I’m not the one making an arse out of myself.

Tim J @ 108

You’re making ‘in other words’ do quite a lot of work there.

Strip away all the bullshit and the ‘well, it is not as simple as that’ cant. We both know that among your type of people there is wide support for the notion that employers should be allowed to openly discriminate against certain people. One category of people you would happily see exempted from the minimum wage are the genetically impure.

Now, you might put it more subtly than that and you may offer caveats (many of them easily bypassed), you may even claim it would be it would be ‘voluntary’, but cutting to the chase, you would quite happily sit at a dinner party, the bar at the golf club, the office or whatever and champion the right of some of our biggest companies to pay a twenty five year old Downs syndrome suffer less than the minimum wage. Furthermore you would be shocked if anyone among your Tory voting friends summoned either the courage or the conscience to object to that.

Chaise @ 109

Fine, as long as you don’t twist that out of all meaning, to the point that making any judgement about anyone lets you shout: “That implies inferiority! Nazi!”

That is not what is going on here, though and you know it.

No, but I notice this isn’t actually a reply to what I said. By claiming that people have a Nazi attitude to the disabled

Not ‘to the disabled’, Chaise people are supporting general ideology consistent with Nazi ideology. The ‘to the disabled’ is a tautology, because Nazi propaganda was built on this demonising of people as ‘drains on society’, ‘holding back the race’, a waste of resources etc.

I’m fine with the use of “Nazi” to describe people who hold to “strong” forms of racism like this (as opposed to more casual, semi-conscious xenophobia), especially if they preach fascist policies to enforce their beliefs.

Why? Is it because it is because it is more obvious?

If someone said that because black people where more likely to be unemployed because they are less productive and therefore should be exempt from the minimum wage and receive less benefits when unemployed, you would instantly (I hope)see this argument as having Nazi ideology written all over it (as opposed to merely racist), but when that is written about disabled, you fail to make the connection.

Why is that?


Sigh. You really can’t handle criticism, can you? First you slander me (a point in my last post that I notice you conveniently skipped over, intellectual honesty obviously not being your strong suit), now you’re implying that it’s only possible that I disagree with you because I’m somehow ignorant about the biggest event in 20th Century history.

Can you possibly explain why you appear to miss entirely the point about Nazi ideology not starting of with the holocaust, but getting to that point over a period of twenty years? You have clearly implied that the only thing that marks out Nazi ideology was the holocaust, but you appear to forget that the holocaust was supposed to be the final solution to the problem of ‘inferior’ people using German resources.

it seems nobody’s allowed to disagree with you without getting false accusations hurled at them

The disagreement is fine Chaise, but at least have the common decency to under what it is we are supposed to be disagreeing about. The Nazi ideology is not about death camps, gassing millions of people, it is about the process of singling out groups of people and turning the populace against them on grounds that these people are a drag on the rest of us.

Strip away all the bullshit and the ‘well, it is not as simple as that’ cant. We both know that among your type of people there is wide support for the notion that employers should be allowed to openly discriminate against certain people. One category of people you would happily see exempted from the minimum wage are the genetically impure.

I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing this. Your bizarre need to poison the well makes debating with you not just unpleasant, but actually impossible. I’m afraid you fall into the ‘life’s too short’ category.

112. Chaise Guevara

@ 110 Jim

“That is not what is going on here, though and you know it.”

No I don’t.

“Not ‘to the disabled’, Chaise people are supporting general ideology consistent with Nazi ideology. The ‘to the disabled’ is a tautology, because Nazi propaganda was built on this demonising of people as ‘drains on society’, ‘holding back the race’, a waste of resources etc.”

Please point me to where XXX, SMFS or the Tory party have referred to disabled people in these terms, or terms like them?

“Why? Is it because it is more obvious? ”

No, it’s because an analogy can only get so far from the thing it’s describing before it becomes unreasonable. Some who preaches that whites (or whoever) are the master race and that all other people should accept their rule is a Nazi. Someone who’s naturally a bit untrusting of people with a different skin colour is not a Nazi, just a bit of a bigot.

“If someone said that because black people where more likely to be unemployed because they are less productive and therefore should be exempt from the minimum wage and receive less benefits when unemployed, you would instantly (I hope)see this argument as having Nazi ideology written all over it (as opposed to merely racist), but when that is written about disabled, you fail to make the connection.

Why is that?”

Because disabled people often ARE less productive – if they weren’t, we wouldn’t have this category “disabled” in the first place (at least in the sense of employment). Deciding disabled employment policy would be a no-brainer, we’d take the same approach as we do with race.

If, for example, you have an employee with severe depression, they are likely to be less productive in their daily work, not to mention likely to take more time off. This is a reality we have to deal with. One solution is to make them more marketable by allowing them to work for lower pay, like we do with teenagers and younger adults. I don’t agree with this policy, probably for much the same reasons as you dislike it, but it’s not “Nazi”.

“Can you possibly explain why you appear to miss entirely the point about Nazi ideology not starting of with the holocaust, but getting to that point over a period of twenty years? You have clearly implied that the only thing that marks out Nazi ideology was the holocaust, but you appear to forget that the holocaust was supposed to be the final solution to the problem of ‘inferior’ people using German resources.”

Yes, Nazism also covers “white pride” style racism. I focused on the holocaust because it seemed most relevant to the discussion.

“The disagreement is fine Chaise, but at least have the common decency to under what it is we are supposed to be disagreeing about.”

I can’t believe you’re lecturing me about decency when you STILL haven’t apologised for your earlier slur against me or even referred to it in any way. I’m really not concerned about how a slanderous intellectual coward views me – which is what you’ll remain until you stop dodging the issue. Put up or shut up.

“The Nazi ideology is not about death camps, gassing millions of people, it is about the process of singling out groups of people and turning the populace against them on grounds that these people are a drag on the rest of us.”

Fine, but like the racism example above, this only remains “Nazi” within reason. If someone said that benefit scroungers (real ones, not the people unfairly labelled as such) were a drain on the state, would you invoke Nazism in response? What about bankers? What about your own view on Tories?

You shouldn’t shout “Nazi” just because something looks vaguely comperable to Nazism if you squint at it hard enough. If someone starts talking about deporting the disabled, or putting them in camps, or neutering them, or turfing them wholesale out onto the street, then we’re looking at Nazis. If someone objects to the current setup of benefits, maybe they have a callous ideology but they’re hardly Hitler.

113. Robin Levett

@SMFS #’105:

Who do you think provides mobility to children disabled severaly enough that they qualify for the Higher Rate Component of DLA?

It is irrelevant as we are talking about whether children with ADHD are disabled enough.

I take it than that your comment “Not for the parents of ADHD children” was not expressing a concern that the parents were getting the car, but that ADHD was the qualification.

What do you think qualifies a child for the Higher Rate component?

A sympathetic doctor. Or a bullied one.

Does that mean you don’t know, and can’t be bothered to look, because you couldn’t then continue to argue from ignorance; or that you are saying that every claim for Higher Rate Mobility Component for an ADHD child is a fraudulent one, not because it’s for ADHD, but because every single doctor certifying compliance with the statutory standards applying to a claim for an ADHD child is a lying fraud?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. The Taxpayers’ Alliance Have Joined In The Mail’s Madness « Same Difference

    […] October 11, 2011 by samedifference1 Thanks to Liberal Conspiracy for the info and the coverage. Share this:TwitterEmailPrintFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. from → […]

  2. Molly

    Taxpayers' Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled http://t.co/XwHh5oOC

  3. liane gomersall

    Taxpayers’ Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hUp0SBgX via @libcon

  4. Neil Courtman

    RT @sunny_hundal: Taxpayers' Alliance repeats Daily Mail's unfounded attack on disabled mobility. Will they apologise? http://t.co/Pqotx96l

  5. Alicia

    Taxpayers’ Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OeEE6wns

  6. TheCreativeCrip

    Taxpayers’ Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OeEE6wns

  7. sunny hundal

    Odd, @the_TPA haven't responded after @zelo_street showed their claims to be unfounded http://t.co/IyyfsWhz Where's the retraction?

  8. Neil Hughes

    Odd, @the_TPA haven't responded after @zelo_street showed their claims to be unfounded http://t.co/IyyfsWhz Where's the retraction?

  9. Daniel Gray

    Odd, @the_TPA haven't responded after @zelo_street showed their claims to be unfounded http://t.co/IyyfsWhz Where's the retraction?

  10. Chris Boyle

    Taxpayers’ Alliance launch vicious, unfounded attack on disabled http://t.co/QfMUWQMQ

  11. Andy Birss

    Taxpayers' Alliance-just a bunch of liars doing the government's dirty work for them http://t.co/qAziJAq6

  12. eleanor lisney

    Taxpayers' Alliance repeats Daily Mail's unfounded attack on disabled mobility. Will they apologise? http://t.co/IyyfsWhz

  13. Mail admits mistake on disability scheme | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] 16, 2011 at 9:00 am Earlier this week, Tim Fenton pointed out how the TaxPayers’ Alliance had repeated rubbish from the Daily Mail on the disabled ‘motability’ […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.