General Discussion
This is an advert for workplace pensions, so if he has money for this why are we seeing all these welfare cuts
Yes how dare the Government try to publicise someone that is of benefit to workers. (And yes that is said with sarcasm)
It might be a bit strange as an advertising campaign but it's certainly had some media attention and that might help people to remember the importance of it. If it helps more people to be aware of workplace pensions and the fact that if they pay in their employer also has to pay in, then how is it a bad thing?
The principle of the advert is not an issue, surely the point is in these times of austerity, is it wise to spend this amount of taxpayers money. Just think how far that would have gone to helping the NHS and the general welfare cuts , people are now at breaking point with it all and everyday you read of money wasted somewhere. Wonder how the sick , disabled and working poor thinkk about this
"people are now at breaking point with it all"
Yes, I've been wondering to myself just how much the proposed tax credit cuts on the working poor will impact on the local economy. After all, if local people have less money to spend then they can't spend it in the local shops. Or, if living further afield, and they usually come down here on holiday spending money here will they now be able to do so?
Lynne is spot on i have friends who stand to lose huge amounts of Tax Credits and holliday in the South West they always camp at Cofton for one week in the summer. If they lose the Tax Credit payment they will not be able to afford there one week camping holliday at Cofton and this will be the same for many families who holliday in the South West.
Also Lynne think of the knock on effect from your comments, people who work in the local economy will be affected if business suffers either become unemployedor have their hours cut Housing Benefit will increase as well, because if they are on low wage and income decreases the inevitable will happen. 
Have read that approx 4,600 families in the Teignbridge area will lose out under these proposed cuts to tax credits.
But as roberta says, and I had in mind when I first posted on this thread, it may not only be those on tax credits who will lose out....
Wonder how many of those 4,600 will then benefit from a rise in the national minimum wage, increase in tax allowances etc etc that is also being brought in.
Also wonder how it is ever right for big companies, who past lovely large profits every year, to pay as little as possible to large number of their employees because they know the Government will step in to top up the wages.
I remember when my husband worked for a local company shortly after tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown, the owners called in the workers who got tax credits and pointed out that there was no point giving them a pay rise because they would lose more in benefits, it was financially better off for the owner to pay less, the employee to earn less and the Govt to pay more. That is a ridiculous state of affairs and although what they are doing is going to be painful, something had to give at some point to make companies employing people pay fair living wages.
I see gideons spiel has worked wonders on you, pity you dont actually get out and talk to people it will affect.
In the 70s the cons brought in something called Family Income Supplement you had to work 24hrs or more a week and provide 6 weeks payslips, you renewd every 6 months, I know because as a divorced mum of 3 it was a godsend as opposed to sitting at home claiming full benefit. Gordon Brown merely changed that to Family Credit based on what you earnt the previous year, so you see it wasn't a Labour thing
It is wrong that goverment subsidizes wages but would a simple solution be to leave everything as is and increase the living wage and benifits would automatically drop as wages increased or is that to simple.
If you don't earn enough to pay tax then a rise in the income tax threshold means nothing.
I'll stick my neck out and say that I feel sure lots of people right across the political spectrum think that it is wrong (except employers perhaps) that the tax payer should top up low pay.
It is the way that this tax credit reform is being introduced and its financial consequences for the low paid that is at issue.
and if you want to read more about what is being proposed and the effect it will have the info in these two links might be of use.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34572807
Roberta I see that you instantly resort to using names you see as an insult, calling him Gideon. As if he had a choice in the name given to him by his parents. And you also presume that you know my own personal or financial circumstances in that somehow I don't know people who will be affected by the changes.
In fact I will be affected by the changes they are bringing in on Tax Credits but I actually agree with the principle of what they are trying to do. And when Gordon Brown brought in Tax Credits originally, and then expanded the scheme shortly after they came in, (and by doing so brought in to it huge numbers of people who hadn't been considered as in need before under older systems) he created a monster that has slowly but surely gone out of control. When you had people with above average incomes able to take advantage of the scheme then it clearly wasn't being focussed on the right people. When we were first eligible for Tax Credits, under Gordon Brown, it actually penalised us if we were given a pay rise - the exact situation I explained in my earlier post. But what it did most of all was encourage bosses, my husband's included, to not bother with pay increases. That meant more money in the bosses pocket and the Government paying more to us in Tax Credits. All that system does is encourage companies to pay low wages and allow the Government to step in. Some huge multi national companies pay very low wages to large numbers of their employees because of this, while their shareholders benefit and those at the top of the wage tree earn huge pay packets and bonuses for the increased profits they get as a result of keeping wages low.
There is a need for reform of the system and no reform is going to happen without people getting upset and angry about the changes. But it is only right that people are paid properly for the work they do by the companies they actually work for. And that those companies understand that proper wages need to be paid - fair days pay, for a fair days work and all that.
I wholeheartedly agree that the benefit system should be there to help people in need and I believe that it still is. It won't be perfect, no system ever is, but it is a safety net that many people in many countries would be very glad to have. What the benefit system should NOT be there for is to help the balance sheets of big business by subsidising their workforce for them.
Did anyone else see Have I Got News For You last night?
They showed the pre-election tv recording of David Cameron saying there would be no cuts to tax credits.
To add insult to injury the mp's got a 10% payrise this year and a large pension's bonus. Now that's what the reality of politics is all about. Do you think you would have half these hoorah henry's being mp's if they were payed the minimum wage?
Yet waiting for peoples views on the 8.5million spent on this "Workie" Ipersonally think its obscene and a kick in the teeth to people who are struggling. Does anybody else think like me that IDS has lost the plot
@Lynne - yes i saw it - has anyone else noticed what small hands david cameron has? <shudder>
@roberta, i think the adverts are stupid and patronising.
For those following the Tax Credit saga you'll probably be aware that the House of Lords has stuck up a metaphorical two fingers to Osborne's planned cuts.
I watched the debate. I think it is the first time I have ever watched a HoL debate. I was glued to the screen.
Here's some more info for those wishing/needing to know what happened, why, and what might happen next.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, the House of Lords has probably signed its own death warrant, and not before time.
I admire them for what they have done, there needs to be someone to hold the Government to account and I think the population are glad they stood up for the man in the street. The fact that most are ex MPs from all parties says a lot, so well done to them.
At least the muppets in the House of Commons are elected, albeit under a grossly unfair electoral system. The Lords is mostly made up of political appointees, many of whom are there only because of their financial support to one or other of the political parties. And let's not start on the clergy having a place in the House. Time this rotten institution was dragged into the 21st century.
So what' the response frm our local MP - Deafing silence !!!!!! ...no photo opportunity on this subject.......................
@Lynne first time for me too. i was overjoyed at the result but i think that is going to be shot down. i think they are still going to come down heavy, cameron was asked 6times today and wouldnt answer, they are being beligerent and saying to hell with it we will do what we like.
@Barbarawillis68
It's up to our politicians to devise a democratic alternative to the present mess that is the House of Lords - we pay them enough to act on our behalf. Plenty of countries have a second chamber, perhaps they should have a look around to see what others do.
I can see free tv licences for over 75s and the fuel allowance going as well, he said hes going to reform pensioner benefits
I will be gobsmacked if our MP does anything than toe the government's line.
I believe she is now a PPS (don't know who to) so is on the lowest rung of the ministerial ladder and therefore must toe the government line if she wishes to keep her job.
"3.9 Parliamentary Private Secretaries are expected to support the Government in important divisions in the House. No Parliamentary Private Secretary who votes against the Government can retain his or her position."
From http://www1.dehavilland.co.uk/analysis/parliamentary-private-secretaries-what-does-role-entail