£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Playing right into Corbyn's hand.
My guess is that they are doing this to save money as has been the stated intent? Also to incentivise people to readjust/retrain etc? I'm not privy to the rationale but that's my guess.
Simple but honest question.Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Why not simply synchronise the timing of the two so there was no pain?
Higher minimum wage, higher rate before tax, credit cuts at the same time?
Too simple?
Taking money from those who can least afford it to bail out the banks.
Not too bright.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I am only negative because there is nothing to be positive about.
Keep plugging away in your fantasy world but I fear for the future of my grand children.
The only question remaining is, should they learn Mandarin or Cantonese?
Edit:- This was meant for the other thread. Hence the bit about negativity. Bloody t'internet goblins.....The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Keep plugging away in your fantasy world but I fear for the future of my grand children.
The only question remaining is, should they learn Mandarin or Cantonese?
I'd go for German.0 -
Next in the 'ask Stevo' thread....here we goTough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Nothing to do with the lack of meaningful investment in industry or education or our infrastructure?
When you refer to this current mess, are you referring to the Bankers who flagrantly messed around with large amounts of money?
If the economy that you talk about is in such a good position, why hasn't the effects of that cut/is going to cut the deficit?
42bn in tax avoidance as displayed earlier in this thread...hmm.
Meaningful investment?
I have said it before. Too much emphasis is placed on keeping shareholders happy and high dividend yields. There are quite a few economists who criticise the short-termism culture in Britain. The average German company re-invests 4-6% of profit, whereas in the UK, it is less than 2%. That's not leftie talk.
Take a look at the current demise of steel in the UK. UK companies pays more than any of the major economies do for electricity. If this lot want to be the facilitators of business and growth, then they don't walk the walk.
Bankers messing around with money? Did they steal it or was it the market going pear shaped as it tends to do? Show me some back up for your claim.
Portfolio's with far more than a sustainable percentage of toxic debt in the US went t1ts up. We had hedge funds and pension pots and other financial investments tied in with it. None of the really clever bankers and financial institutions had the foresight to see that this was an unsustainable bubble or did they? After all, they haven't been the one's that have suffered and there was no risk to them.
Tax avoidance? Leftiebollox alert, here are the facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf
Avoidance is £3.1bn per year...the case.
My mistake, 32bn:
Cutting the deficit? It has been cut. Just not by enough - there is more to do. See the welfare cuts thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
You are probably confusing deficit and debt - above link may help clarify. Despite cutting the deficit, we are still not running an annual surplus - although we are forecast to do by the end of the decade. Hopefully the medicine will continue to work.
Do you honestly think that the UK is going to ever run at an annual surplus?
Next !seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I have lost fair percentages of my income when times have been tough economically - early 90's downturn, 2003 'dotcom' crash and a few years ago in the aftermath of the last down turn. Market conditions dictate pay and remuneration and there is a general realisation that we have to cut our cloth.As for your last statement, easy for the middle classes to say isnt? £1300 wouldnt make much difference to you or me.
If your a decent accountant, this would be similar to you losing 20k or more.
There seems to be some sort of assumption on here that certain categories of people should be immune from that. We've just about got the country round to the very sensible idea that the public sector is not immune: in the end very, very few should be. The credits point is tricky because what used to be benefits are now taken as entitlements.
Also the definition of poor and poverty is relative to the average earnings, so as our free trade capitalist system has increased average earning and wealth , those classified as poor are not as poor as they used to be. However poverty is an emotive term and for obvious reasons bandied around quite freely by those with an agenda.
Obviously we dont live in Dickensian times but the people i know who will be affected by this, will struggle to met energy/clothing/food/transport to work and rent bills, even to the extent that going to work is in question.
osbourne has not targetted non work benefits, say pensions? why would that be? pensioners are more likely to vote and more likely to vote tory.
As we agree, TaxC do need to be reformed BUT to make sweeping changes in a very short period of time, is driven by ideological reasons, or Ossie would have gone for other benefits as well, not least the extortionate rise in housing benefit.
Osbourne should take a more rounded approach to benefit cuts.0 -
Pretty obvious that cutting benefits may not be massively popular with those directly affected, that's to be expected. But it won't save the shambles that is New Old Labour. And most people realise these cuts are needed.
Playing right into Corbyn's hand.
My guess is that they are doing this to save money as has been the stated intent? Also to incentivise people to readjust/retrain etc? I'm not privy to the rationale but that's my guess.
Simple but honest question.Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Why not simply synchronise the timing of the two so there was no pain?
Higher minimum wage, higher rate before tax, credit cuts at the same time?
Too simple?
Taking money from those who can least afford it to bail out the banks.
Not too bright.
As for bailing out the banks, that happened years ago. And as far as I can see the impact of not doing so would have been a massive loss of public confidence in the banking system with possibly catastrophic effects. In that respect, Gordon Brown did the right thing so credit where credit's due."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They all speak quite good English. The only time when German might have been seen as a good option was circa 1940.Keep plugging away in your fantasy world but I fear for the future of my grand children.
The only question remaining is, should they learn Mandarin or Cantonese?
I'd go for German."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But he keeps going on about being the party for workers. Why then penalise them?Pretty obvious that cutting benefits may not be massively popular with those directly affected, that's to be expected. But it won't save the shambles that is New Old Labour. And most people realise these cuts are needed.
As for bailing out the banks, that happened years ago. And as far as I can see the impact of not doing so would have been a massive loss of public confidence in the banking system with possibly catastrophic effects. In that respect, Gordon Brown did the right thing so credit where credit's due.
There has to be a way to cut the benefits but keep employees earning the same, if not more.
What is needed is a way to make it more beneficial to work than sit at home.
Until that happens living on the dole will be a never ending lifestyle, which costs the rest of the Country.
An accountant may be able to come up with a system.
Austerity is still in play. That was kicked off by bailing out the banks. I will liken it to not paying off the war debts until recently. The wars ended some years ago too.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pretty obvious that cutting benefits may not be massively popular with those directly affected, that's to be expected. But it won't save the shambles that is New Old Labour. And most people realise these cuts are needed.Playing right into Corbyn's hand.
Taking money from those who can least afford it to bail out the banks.
Not too bright.
As for bailing out the banks, that happened years ago. And as far as I can see the impact of not doing so would have been a massive loss of public confidence in the banking system with possibly catastrophic effects. In that respect, Gordon Brown did the right thing so credit where credit's due.
So hitting families with grossly un affordable cash cuts is the right thing to do? reform yes but this is too far too soon.
Esp as Cameron went on the offensive pre election saying he would nt do it, he was in Gov for the previous 5 years so cant say he didnt realise the books were so bad etc0 -
They all speak quite good English. The only time when German might have been seen as a good option was circa 1940.Keep plugging away in your fantasy world but I fear for the future of my grand children.
The only question remaining is, should they learn Mandarin or Cantonese?
I'd go for German.
I think PBlakeney wants to send the grandchildren to live and work in another country, in which case speaking the lingo's a good idea otherwise you might end up with the wrong sort of sauerkraut.0 -
Look again at the tax avoidance numbers I provided £3.1bn. They are from HMRC, so probably the most reliable source we have. Your source is unknown but I recall Rick oiginally posted it so possibly from a source in line with his views. Also you stated that £42bn the number for avoidance, you then quote a number that combines avoidance and evasion (which I am sure you know are two completely different things - one is illegal, one is legal) that is way less than your original claim :roll:
Next in the 'ask Stevo' thread....here we goTough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Nothing to do with the lack of meaningful investment in industry or education or our infrastructure?
When you refer to this current mess, are you referring to the Bankers who flagrantly messed around with large amounts of money?
If the economy that you talk about is in such a good position, why hasn't the effects of that cut/is going to cut the deficit?
42bn in tax avoidance as displayed earlier in this thread...hmm.
Meaningful investment?
I have said it before. Too much emphasis is placed on keeping shareholders happy and high dividend yields. There are quite a few economists who criticise the short-termism culture in Britain. The average German company re-invests 4-6% of profit, whereas in the UK, it is less than 2%. That's not leftie talk.
Take a look at the current demise of steel in the UK. UK companies pays more than any of the major economies do for electricity. If this lot want to be the facilitators of business and growth, then they don't walk the walk.
Bankers messing around with money? Did they steal it or was it the market going pear shaped as it tends to do? Show me some back up for your claim.
Portfolio's with far more than a sustainable percentage of toxic debt in the US went t1ts up. We had hedge funds and pension pots and other financial investments tied in with it. None of the really clever bankers and financial institutions had the foresight to see that this was an unsustainable bubble or did they? After all, they haven't been the one's that have suffered and there was no risk to them.
Tax avoidance? Leftiebollox alert, here are the facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf
Avoidance is £3.1bn per year...the case.
My mistake, 32bn:
Cutting the deficit? It has been cut. Just not by enough - there is more to do. See the welfare cuts thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653
You are probably confusing deficit and debt - above link may help clarify. Despite cutting the deficit, we are still not running an annual surplus - although we are forecast to do by the end of the decade. Hopefully the medicine will continue to work.
Do you honestly think that the UK is going to ever run at an annual surplus?
Next !
I do believe we will run a surplus at some point. It has been done before. But if Labour get in there is no chance of that IMO.
I see you agree the market went t1ts up. A lot of banks did get burnt - otherwise why the collapses and bailouts. So your statement that there was no risk for them is not true. Hindsight is wonderful.
I'll need to look at your profit reinvestment claims separately but it doesnt seem to be doing them much good at present. Lower growth and higher unemployment than the UK for starters."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I do believe we will run a surplus at some point. It has been done before. But if Labour get in there is no chance of that IMO.
History would suggest that neither party can stake a claim to being the party of budget surpluses
Maybe they're slightly harder to achieve in real life than politicians tell us.I see you agree the market went t1ts up. A lot of banks did get burnt - otherwise why the collapses and bailouts. So your statement that there was no risk for them is not true. Hindsight is wonderful.
If they get bailed out by the public purse, do you define that as risk?
Also, some people had foresight. There were warnings against the amount of debt that British people were racking up, but they were ignored. I've tried to do a search on the Guardian website to show you some old articles, but they've gone and messed up their search engine now, so you can't set it for a certain year, but in the past, if you had done a search for the words "UK debt time bomb" and set a search date for any of the years after about 2000 or 2001, there were hundreds of articles warning about the potential for disaster. If Guardian journalists could spot the danger, why couldn't the banks?I'll need to look at your profit reinvestment claims separately but it doesnt seem to be doing them much good at present. Lower growth and higher unemployment than the UK for starters.
These are only very short-term indicators, the long-term indicators show that many of our northern neighbours in far better shape than us. Also, as I have already pointed out, different countries use different measures for unemployment, so we might not even have lower unemployment here (then again, maybe we do). However, going by official figures, Germany is doing better than us, and we are only marginally better off in terms of unemployment than many of our neighbours.0 -
Britain's official economic forecasts include the assumption that households will continue to plunge themselves ever further into debt.
0 -
@ Pinno. I can't find any data on German reinvestment levels vs UK - perhaps you can supply something to support your claim?
Please make sure that this is clear on what investment is defined as. Here is the reason:
- Often 'investment is defined as investment in specific asset categories - the traditional one being machinery, stock, factories - tangible assets basically.
- The German economy is fairly manufacturing biased and less internationalised than the UK. So you expect them to have to invest in the asset categories that normally are classed as investments.
- The UK strength in service industries means that there is much less need to spend on the above asset categories. 'Investment' for a media or city company is more often in people. These are the income producing 'assets' of this type of company but often not classed as investments.
- The UK economy is also relatively more internationalised than German in terms of the % of its economy invested in overseas businesses - usually in the form of share capital. Again, this often does not show up as investment, but it still produces income for UK/UK companies.
So its easy to see how this can be misinterpreted, especially by those who have an agenda of 'doing down' the UK by choosing facts that suit their arguments and political agendas. See above - you have set finchy off on another of his 'country x is better than the UK' postings, based on possibly misleading information .
So - evidence please..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
@ Pinno. I can't find any data on German reinvestment levels vs UK - perhaps you can supply something to support your claim?
Please make sure that this is clear on what investment is defined as. Here is the reason:
- Often 'investment is defined as investment in specific asset categories - the traditional one being machinery, stock, factories - tangible assets basically.
- The German economy is fairly manufacturing biased and less internationalised than the UK. So you expect them to have to invest in the asset categories that normally are classed as investments.
- The UK strength in service industries means that there is much less need to spend on the above asset categories. 'Investment' for a media or city company is more often in people. These are the income producing 'assets' of this type of company but often not classed as investments.
- The UK economy is also relatively more internationalised than German in terms of the % of its economy invested in overseas businesses - usually in the form of share capital. Again, this often does not show up as investment, but it still produces income for UK/UK companies.
So its easy to see how this can be misinterpreted, especially by those who have an agenda of 'doing down' the UK by choosing facts that suit their arguments and political agendas. See above - you have set finchy off on another of his 'country x is better than the UK' postings, based on possibly misleading information .
So - evidence please...
what has any of this got to do with benefit cuts? you like to always point out this in the "save our caountry thread" esp when you lose the argument
Osbourne has just told the commons treasury committee he his happy with his tax credit cuts and describes it as a choice between debt and benefit savings.
When Lord Lawson says these proposal needs to be re thought out, you can t help but get the feeling that the Tories will indeed have to alter their direction on this, taking money off the bottom 3million working familes is surely going to have to change if the tories want to get back in again in 2020, esp as Cameron did lie about this cut pre election.0 -
Confirmation that the Upper House is a waste of space, time and money.
"The Chancellor told the committee: " ... the question for the House of Lords is, is it going to respect the 1911 settlement that says the House of Lords must not second guess the House of Commons on financial matters?"
A motion in the upper house had been expected to kill off the cuts but it was dropped by Baroness Meacher on Tuesday night after warnings from the Government that the move would have risked a constitutional crisis.
The Prime Minister is understood to have been prepared to flood the House of Lords with Conservative peers to avoid defeat. There is no Conservative majority in the upper chamber and the Lib Dems had been poised to vote the cuts down."The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So its easy to see how this can be misinterpreted, especially by those who have an agenda of 'doing down' the UK by choosing facts that suit their arguments and political agendas.
Ah, yes. I forgot that anyone who disagrees with you must have some nefarious motives.See above - you have set finchy off on another of his 'country x is better than the UK' postings, based on possibly misleading information .
Feel free to correct the information any time you like.0 -
Dont recall losing an argument in there, just needed to stop you derailing my thread@ Pinno. I can't find any data on German reinvestment levels vs UK - perhaps you can supply something to support your claim?
Please make sure that this is clear on what investment is defined as. Here is the reason:
- Often 'investment is defined as investment in specific asset categories - the traditional one being machinery, stock, factories - tangible assets basically.
- The German economy is fairly manufacturing biased and less internationalised than the UK. So you expect them to have to invest in the asset categories that normally are classed as investments.
- The UK strength in service industries means that there is much less need to spend on the above asset categories. 'Investment' for a media or city company is more often in people. These are the income producing 'assets' of this type of company but often not classed as investments.
- The UK economy is also relatively more internationalised than German in terms of the % of its economy invested in overseas businesses - usually in the form of share capital. Again, this often does not show up as investment, but it still produces income for UK/UK companies.
So its easy to see how this can be misinterpreted, especially by those who have an agenda of 'doing down' the UK by choosing facts that suit their arguments and political agendas. See above - you have set finchy off on another of his 'country x is better than the UK' postings, based on possibly misleading information .
So - evidence please...
what has any of this got to do with benefit cuts? you like to always point out this in the "save our caountry thread" esp when you lose the argument
Osbourne has just told the commons treasury committee he his happy with his tax credit cuts and describes it as a choice between debt and benefit savings.
When Lord Lawson says these proposal needs to be re thought out, you can t help but get the feeling that the Tories will indeed have to alter their direction on this, taking money off the bottom 3million working familes is surely going to have to change if the tories want to get back in again in 2020, esp as Cameron did lie about this cut pre election.
Unless of course you are admitting you're losing the argument here? Anyhow , as this is is your thread, I apologise for going off topic but would like to point out that Pinno started it :P "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was debatimg with Pinno and his incorrect data. But your point about short term indicators is rather flawed, as when our growth exceeds that of Germany for several period thats a good long term indicator...So its easy to see how this can be misinterpreted, especially by those who have an agenda of 'doing down' the UK by choosing facts that suit their arguments and political agendas.
Ah, yes. I forgot that anyone who disagrees with you must have some nefarious motives.See above - you have set finchy off on another of his 'country x is better than the UK' postings, based on possibly misleading information .
Feel free to correct the information any time you like.
In the meantime, if Germany is so much better than the UK, why do dont you just go live there? Or maybe tell all the people from other countries that seem very keen to live and work here that they are making a terrible mistake "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was debatimg with Pinno and his incorrect data. But your point about short term indicators is rather flawed, as when our growth exceeds that of Germany for several period thats a good long term indicator...
Here's Germany's economic growth over the past 10 years:
Here's Britain's economic growth over the past 10 years:
So all in all, I don't think you could really say that the UK is powering away from Germany (or most of our other European neighbours) even on that one, limited indicator that you keep bringing up. Then there's GDP per capita, productivity, etc.
Besides, GDP growth doesn't tell you much about the quality of life in a country. For example, I am, like many other people under the age of 40, rather preoccupied by house prices and rents. The Germans, French or Italians can buy themselves a large, well-built house with a garden for less money than you can buy a crappy, tiny, shoddily-built flat in one of Britain's less prosperous towns.In the meantime, if Germany is so much better than the UK, why do dont you just go live there?
I wouldn't go and live in Germany (or Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, etc.) for family reasons. If I were 25 again, single and had no commitments, I'd do it. Anyway, I know you're getting on in years and senility is probably starting to set in now, so I'll just patiently repeat what I've already said an hope you remember it this time - I want the best for my country, and when I see other countries doing better than us, we should learn from them. Not a particularly controversial idea, surely. There's a whole field of research dedicated to this - it's called comparative policy studies and it's how governments see what is likely to work or fail based on the experiences of other systems.Or maybe tell all the people from other countries that seem very keen to live and work here that they are making a terrible mistake
Right, so Britain offers better prospects than Poland or Slovakia, therefore we must be doing better than other western EU nations...
0 -
Time to stop doing us down...we are on the up;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html
Set to overtake Germany in the medium term. The reasons given are pretty clear."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Time to stop doing us down...we are on the up;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html
Set to overtake Germany in the medium term. The reasons given are pretty clear.
You do know that economic forecasts don't always turn out to be 100% accurate, don't you?0 -
I the interests of fairness, here are some good facts:
http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/united-kingdom.germany
Other than current account surplus, its swings and roundabouts. Germany of course has previously benefitted massively from the exchange rate lock in of the Euro but is now starting to pay the price of the issues with the single currency such as Greece. More to it than growth yes. And dealing with the deficit is what this thread is about.
On your point about house prices, sorry but we are smallish, densely populated island with no proper control over net migration and planning laws in need of reform. Supply and demand etc. Thats life. That said, if property is so cheap in Germany, why is renting so prevalent there? And why was mamba so keen to point out rent controls in Germany?
Again you just can't resist knocking the UK, but you're still here.
As I said before, you're letting your personal experience of one issue colour your judgment."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Of course. But the underlying reasons are reasonable and the prediction plausible. I see no fprecasts going the other way at present.Time to stop doing us down...we are on the up;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html
Set to overtake Germany in the medium term. The reasons given are pretty clear.
You do know that economic forecasts don't always turn out to be 100% accurate, don't you?
Do you not want this to happen?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
On your point about house prices, sorry but we are smallish, densely populated island with no proper control over net migration and planning laws in need of reform. Supply and demand etc. Thats life.
But it's not just a case of supply and demand. If the banks hadn't lent people those massive mortgages, house prices wouldn't have shot up. You don't need supply and demand issues to have an economic bubble. You just need people gullible enough to believe that prices will always go up and someone else who will lend them enough money to pay inflated prices.That said, if property is so cheap in Germany, why is renting so prevalent there? And why was mamba so keen to point out rent controls in Germany?
Renting is also a lot cheaper in Germany and tenants have excellent protection. You'll have to ask Mamba why he was talking about rent controls in Germany. He's a bit too far away for me to be able to use my telepathic powers.Again you just can't resist knocking the UK, but you're still here
I've told you, I'm staying here for family reasons. That's the end of the story with that one. I'm not single, I have a lot of commitments and I'm going to stay in Britain at least until retirement now.As I said before, you're letting your personal experience of one issue colour your judgment.
It's not one issue, it's all the ones I've mentioned in this thread and elsewhere. What colours your judgement?0 -
Haven't the refugees made it perfectly clear that they think that Germany is the place to be?Or maybe tell all the people from other countries that seem very keen to live and work here that they are making a terrible mistake
As an aside, will this optimism remain should the banks all move to Hong Kong or Singapore?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
And dealing with the deficit is what this thread is about.
No i didnt start this thread solely to talk about the deficit, if you read my OP you ll see i talked alot about the type of cuts that have and are coming our way.
Economic booms tend to benefit those at the top the most and those at the bottom the least and as we can see in the US, those at the bottom still dont have access to free health care, housing or anything really.
i d prefer a fairer society, might not be quite as wealthy as stev0 and Cameron would like but having lived in Sweden and South Africa, with its huge inequalities i know which one i want.
this trickle down which the right tell us will happen, is always jam tomorrow
0 -
And dealing with the deficit is what this thread is about.
Economic booms tend to benefit those at the top the most and those at the bottom the least and as we can see in the US, those at the bottom still dont have access to free health care, housing or anything really.
Economic downturns also tend to benefit those at the top and affect those at the bottom the most. Working in the construction industry as I do for my sins, it is a great barometer for the UK economy. I can see that the vast majority of work is developer/residential orientated. This cannot sustain the industry alone. It needs contracts for new schools, hospitals, shopping centres, leisure centres etc. These simply are not happening in the numbers needed.
If one is currently renting and would like a new 3 bed house in Salisbury area for example, you can get a new modest sized terraced one for about £320k, but need deposit of 10% and the mortgage is approx £1.5k per month. I do not know how anyone can imagine this is affordable, achievable or sustainable for the average couple/family.
If this pricing of property is to continue then I fear we are in for another rude awakening quite soon and the first victims will be those mortgaged up to the hilt.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
No, the pejorative phrase "trickle-down economics" is entirely an invention of the left, in an attempt to paint free-market economics in a bad light. Whatever you call it, it's a simple fact that on a world-wide scale there has been a massive decrease in serious poverty over the last 30 years or so.this trickle down which the right tell us will happen, is always jam tomorrow
Or you can look at the UK, where we've heard so much about "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" for so long that everyone assumes that it's true.
Except that the facts would suggest otherwise:
That's right, under the Tories the rich have got poorer and the poor have got richer.0 -
Simple but honest question.Tough choices to be made on curbing the deficit and debt. And life isnt fair, but in the end people have had free cash from the state which isnt sustainable and there will be some pain when it stops. People have become accustomed to receiving it and will have to adjust. In the short term while wages rose and min wage kicks in.
Just dishing out cash is how we got in this mess in the first place.
Why not simply synchronise the timing of the two so there was no pain?
Higher minimum wage, higher rate before tax, credit cuts at the same time?
Too simple?
Well as I'm simple and honest I will try to answer that.
As I replied to Frank earlier, no government is 100% right 100% of the time and the policy may require tweaking as time passes.
If we assume that there has to be a trimming of welfare, the present policy requires a balancing act. Tax credits being removed should put upward pressure on wages. Cut too far and people suffer undue hardship. Cut too little and there is no upward pressure.
Put the min wage to £10 you say? Fine, I assume the big companies could find the money. They would squeal but would find it. How about smaller enterprises who couldn't afford a 30% increase in wage costs? Bump! Increasing the min wage too quickly is back to paying ourselves more than we can afford.
Balancing act.0
