£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Interesting so what the fact appear to be saying are that the left wing claims of
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.
1. The rich get ricner and the poor get poorer
2. Housing costs are crippling people
Are both just leftie delusion /propaganda.
Nice one. Quoted for future reference as this seems to undermine totally the central argument of those opposed to gettng benefits costs under control."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Interesting graph. Under the tories 90% of households have seen their real income fall after housing costs. Hardly a resounding success is it?
Or to put it another way, pretty much everyone is a loser under David cameronYou live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jam yesterday and today in my personal experience.[
this trickle down which the right tell us will happen, is always jam tomorrow
Everyone in my team apart from one who hadnt performed got decent pay rises/bonuses. I have hired 4 people in the last year, all 40% taxpayers and skilled roles, all on more money than they were on before bar one who is on a the same but was doing pretty well in his last role.
Dont you just love this anecdotal evidence?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well, isn't that what you want? So many people drone on about inequality: the easiest way to reduce it is to make everyone poorer, isn't it? What's not (for lefties) to like?Interesting graph. Under the tories 90% of households have seen their real income fall after housing costs. Hardly a resounding success is it?
Or to put it another way, pretty much everyone is a loser under David cameron0 -
Well, isn't that what you want? So many people drone on about inequality: the easiest way to reduce it is to make everyone poorer, isn't it? What's not (for lefties) to like?Interesting graph. Under the tories 90% of households have seen their real income fall after housing costs. Hardly a resounding success is it?
Or to put it another way, pretty much everyone is a loser under David cameron
Lefties policy in a nutshell.0 -
Well, isn't that what you want? So many people drone on about inequality: the easiest way to reduce it is to make everyone poorer, isn't it? What's not (for lefties) to like?Interesting graph. Under the tories 90% of households have seen their real income fall after housing costs. Hardly a resounding success is it?
Or to put it another way, pretty much everyone is a loser under David cameron
Lefties policy in a nutshell.
Except I'm not particularly "leftie" just someone who saw a graph which showed that 90% of people are doing worse and commented that.
Besides, anyone knows that statistics can be chosen carefully to paint the story that the author wants. In this particular graph they've managed to show that the tories haven't made the gap between richer and poorer bigger. Unfortunately the metric they've used has shown that the vast majority have got poorer.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest to cut costs to help the austerity.
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.
Austerity which has been brought on by bailing out the banks.
You can see why it isn't popular.
FWIW I will actually benefit from the plans but find them unfair.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 -
See above ... :roll:Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest0 -
Well, isn't that what you want? So many people drone on about inequality: the easiest way to reduce it is to make everyone poorer, isn't it? What's not (for lefties) to like?Interesting graph. Under the tories 90% of households have seen their real income fall after housing costs. Hardly a resounding success is it?
Or to put it another way, pretty much everyone is a loser under David cameron
No one likes a smart arse.
Everyone in mainstream politics wants everyone's income to rise. That's a given. It's how it's done that is the debate.0 -
I am not interested in anyone's statistical stories. These things can represent anything you wish them to.
See above ... :roll:Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest
If a family is at the lower tier and you remove income that is going to affect them hardest.
Anyone thinking companies will make up the short fall need to wake up and come out of their fantasy dream.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 -
Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest to cut costs to help the austerity.
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.
Austerity which has been brought on by bailing out the banks.
You can see why it isn't popular.
FWIW I will actually benefit from the plans but find them unfair.
Maybe it does impact on the poorest, because obviously the rich aren't on benefits.But the welfare bill has to decrease so where would you cut?
The cause of the deficit may be partly due to bank bailouts, although we have been living beyond our means for years. The cause is in many ways immaterial, the question is 'We are in this position, what are we going to do?' I agree the answers may not be popular.
Most people seem to agree that there needs to be a rebalance between the rewards for working and those for not, but people throw their arms up in outrage when a government tries to address the issue.0 -
Sharing the cutting burden in the welfare state would help.
Pensions are massively too high and need huge reform. But people don't like demonising old people and they vote a lot.0 -
...
Pensions are massively too high and need huge reform...
Really? You mean that after I have paid national insurance at anything up to £130 per week for 40+ years and then retire to end up with £116 a week, that it is massively too high?0 -
FTFY
I am not interested in facts
See above ... :roll:Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest0 -
...
Pensions are massively too high and need huge reform...
Really? You mean that after I have paid national insurance at anything up to £130 per week for 40+ years and then retire to end up with £116 a week, that it is massively too high?
Can't comment on individual pensions but broadly the consensus amongst professional economists and policy makers is that pension reform and well placed cuts would yield much better savings for significantly less pain.0 -
Pensions are a genuine looming crisis and much bigger numbers are involved than benefits.
Realistically a pension for every person is unsustainable in its current form. If people want lower taxes as they are now they should expect to rely on their own private pension. You would be mad to be in your 20s, 30s, even 40s and count on a state pension. It just literally isn't sustainable and will get worse when immigration is curbed.0 -
Okay.
FTFY
I am not interested in facts
See above ... :roll:Which basically boils down to - Hit the poorest hardest
Reformat that graph after the tax credit has been removed and get back to me.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 -
Pensions are a genuine looming crisis and much bigger numbers are involved than benefits.
Realistically a pension for every person is unsustainable in its current form. If people want lower taxes as they are now they should expect to rely on their own private pension. You would be mad to be in your 20s, 30s, even 40s and count on a state pension. It just literally isn't sustainable and will get worse when immigration is curbed.
Cutting pensions is one option but not a popular one. Reach your dotage and society decides to cast you aside. How would you cut them? Would you announce that from this year State pension is to be slashed? What about those coming up for retirement, how could they possibly adjust? Or would you prefer tor people to carry on working until they drop?
Means test the pension? No incentive then to save for old age. The last year before you retire you could do a Viv Nicholson and 'Spend Spend, Spend'
Some universal benefits could be means tested such as fuel allowance, bus passes etc, but that won't save much.
Raising retirement age even further remains an option though.0 -
Pensions are a genuine looming crisis and much bigger numbers are involved than benefits.
Realistically a pension for every person is unsustainable in its current form. If people want lower taxes as they are now they should expect to rely on their own private pension. You would be mad to be in your 20s, 30s, even 40s and count on a state pension. It just literally isn't sustainable and will get worse when immigration is curbed.
Cutting pensions is one option but not a popular one. Reach your dotage and society decides to cast you aside. How would you cut them? Would you announce that from this year State pension is to be slashed? What about those coming up for retirement, how could they possibly adjust? Or would you prefer tor people to carry on working until they drop?
Means test the pension? No incentive then to save for old age. The last year before you retire you could do a Viv Nicholson and 'Spend Spend, Spend'
Some universal benefits could be means tested such as fuel allowance, bus passes etc, but that won't save much.
Raising retirement age even further remains an option though.
mmmm but its ok for someone who earns very little to see their income slashed ???? whilst they wait years for a supposed min wage increase.
Raise retirement age? for whom? not for anyone with a remotely physical job, and what about the younger generation who will have to wait even longer before stepping into their work.
Pension benefits are already means tested, anyone with savings losses out.
Just listening to a report that states 30% of londoners cannot afford their rent and want to move out of the capitol, avg rents in Plymouth have increased 25% in the last year, so Housing benefit will go up to compensate, HB is the big benefit that should be be slashed, a form of rent control is the way it will be done, it has too, or parts of the country will suffer shortages in public sector workers esp as their employers cannot increase wages to attract staff.
have to say, until i "met" bally and Steve0 never really considered myself a left winger, never had much time for Benn or Scargil, let alone Derek Hatton, its just that ime the tories are always for people with money and influence and never do a thing for the avg joe.
To me changes in the way rent rises are allowed would save the state a fortune and allow normal people a chance to save for their own home and/or have more money in their pockets, how never ending rent rises is somehow seen as good is stupid.0 -
Having watched a program about people in Manchester paying £600 rent for a house with broken windows and wallpaper peeling off due to damp, it is high time we capped rent charges based on the condition of the property. Land lords cannot get away with constant rent rises. Capping HB is the wrong way about dealing with disproportionately high rent. Owning a house is not the Holy Grail that it purports to be. Mortgages are a means to make a lot of money for financial lenders and rising house prices provide the fodder for the wet dreams of Estate agents and property speculators. Having lived in Sweden where I enjoyed very good rented accommodation for a very reasonable sum, I can vouch for this.
@ Stevo. We are back to this argument again. Germany rode the crash in 2008 better than we did. They are also in a position to prop up Greece and in turn, the Eurozone in a way that we wouldn't be able to.
Service sector jobs are fickle and most likely to benefit/suffer from global changes. The reason Germany has come out of the recession in a fit state is that they have an industrial base that acts as a stabiliser and a foundation: A truly mixed economy. Ours, one could argue, is far too concentrated on the service sector.
In the current UK bubble, who is to say that it will be a transient and not permanent? Time will tell.
The F1 industry employs some 50,000 people in the UK. We are brilliant at the top tier of industrial creativity yet the environment for the lower tiers of industry is not being kindled.
Chinese steel is heavily subsidised, to the point of stupidity (one would think). However, it is better to produce it here at a slight loss than to import it as the money flows directly out of the economy. Now that Chinese steel has mashed the global market to a pulp and steel is as cheap as it has been for years, they are benefiting from that over subsidy. We don't have a long term strategy outside of the service sector for business. We never have. The rot set in the shipbuilding in the 1920's when the rest of the world was seam welding and we were still pot riveting. In 1968, we had 84% of the motorbike market, by 1972, it was less than 15%.
Just a few examples and to add: BMW spent £2.2bn on the acquisition of Rover. A great case in point.
The differences between the 2 corporations were marked, both structurally and hierarchically. BMW spent £345m and £650m on buying out British Aerospace and Honda's stake in Rover, the rest, just over £1bn was spent on product/process development such was the archaic condition of the production process. Where previously, BMW had grown organically, they got burnt in their first acquisition because the full extent of the problems at Rover and the depth of it's poor condition weren't fully realised until it was too late.
The left and the right are so intrenched (this thread serves as a perfect reminder) in their ideologies, that we do not and cannot seem to do things for the collective good.
Whatever the right wing say about our economy and the relative merits of UK neo-liberalism, the UK is not in a good position:
A burgeoning underclass
A huge North-South economic divide
Massive pressure, socially, economically on Housing
An NHS bursting at the seams
A communication network that is pitiful, expensive and serves to make profit for the providers not serving as a valuable economic necessity; the life blood of the whole system (Re.: Japan - a good country to compare as it is as densely populated).
An education system that is a postcode lottery... etc etc It is also ad-hoc and voluntarist.
We have food banks for the poor !?! In a first world country. there's something very wrong there.
The current administration is perceived by some as better than the other option. Isn't that a completely flawed way of looking at the UK and it's long term needs, pressures, problems? Isn't it time, we had the politics of need rather than two opposing sets of flawed ideology?
What I will add, is that if anyone who is right wing thinks that we are in a great position, then they are walking around with their eyes shut.
FWIW. I do not know why I have been labelled a leftie. I am more for a mixed economy and we can take a leaf out of other societies/economic systems/industries/communication systems/housing policies/ways of doing things. If I question some of the clap trap from the right (and the left), it doesn't make me a leftie, it is just simply my right to question some of the assumed conventions.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
"We have food banks for the poor !?! In a first world country. there's something very wrong there."
I was caught behind a couple of scrotes at the newsagent who were chatting about having to go to a food bank the next day. I did feel like pointing out that some of the £20 they both splashed on a heady cocktail of fags, strong cider and scratch cards could actually have been used for food but, having looked at them, I decided that the rationale of my argument would be lost somewhat. I think food banks are bit like the field of dreams...build them and they will come.0 -
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.
Long-term, the increase in income inequality since the 1980s is undeniable.
What will happen in the next few years is another question, but in the time period that your graph shows, the Tories were in coalition and had to compromise. The first budget without the Liberal Democrats and they announce measures which will hurt poor working families.
Also, people on low wages will have been protected from bigger falls by minimum wage legislation, so companies looking to slash their wage bill would have to do that by 1) reducing the number of hours available and 2) cutting wages for those higher up the scale.0 -
Since you addressed this to me...@ Stevo. We are back to this argument again. Germany rode the crash in 2008 better than we did. They are also in a position to prop up Greece and in turn, the Eurozone in a way that we wouldn't be able to.
Service sector jobs are fickle and most likely to benefit/suffer from global changes. The reason Germany has come out of the recession in a fit state is that they have an industrial base that acts as a stabiliser and a foundation: A truly mixed economy. Ours, one could argue, is far too concentrated on the service sector.
In the current UK bubble, who is to say that it will be a transient and not permanent? Time will tell.
Germany rode the crash better probably because they have a smaller banking and financial sector, which was the sector that suffered most. However, Germany's own little financial crisis is still brewing and there is a very good reason why Germany is so determined to prop up Greece:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/league-table-of-greek-debt-exposure-2015-7
Because they have massive exposure to Greek debt. If Greece goes belly up, they have a big problem, particularly in the banking sector. That on its own is pretty bad but the contagion caused by a Grexit may only be the first domino to topple. Recent news on Portugal does not look very good at all as they start to rebel against German imposed financial constraints. Etc etc.
Never mind ability, we have no reason to prop up a basket case country and in turn a basket case currency.
Where you get the idea that service businesses are 'fickle'. Try telling that to a Redcar steel worker. I have worked in services and manufacturing businesses and there was nothing fickle about the services businesses - in fact they were more successful ones. What we are seeing in the increasing commoditisation of many manufactured products - including those of my current group which makes much of its profit from the after sales and consumables/replacement parts rather than the core products themselves. And which is expanding into related services, knowledge management, business efficiency etc as its future strategy. Something that will be an issue for a country with a focus on manufacturing like Germany. Sorry, but this assumption of 'industry = good; services = bad' is a bit 20th Century - outdated.
Germany certainly has its strong points, but it also has weaknesses as you can see above. The millstone of the Euro and restrictive labour laws will continue to hamper its growth prospects. Hence certain forecasts that the UK economy will overtake Germany in the foreseeable future. Go Britain!
Sorry but the relentless negativity in your post above (shared by a few others on here) about the UK is simply misplaced and based on a highly skewed view of the country and quite a few unsupported assumptions."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
@ Stevo. ...tell.
Sorry, but this assumption of 'industry = good; services = bad' is a bit 20th Century - outdated.
I did not say that and if you go over what I said there was no evidence of that. I talked about a mixed economy.
Germany certainly has its strong points, but it also has weaknesses as you can see above. The millstone of the Euro and restrictive labour laws will continue to hamper its growth prospects. Hence certain forecasts that the UK economy will overtake Germany in the foreseeable future. Go Britain!
Sorry but the relentless negativity in your post above (shared by a few others on here) about the UK is simply misplaced and based on a highly skewed view of the country and quite a few unsupported assumptions.
Fair point but is it not in the Eurozone interest to make sure that the Grexit doesn't happen? If a Grexit occurs, won't we suffer?
You did not address any on the list of faults that I posted.
I am not as negative as you presume, however, you seem to be a little blind to some issues and not inclined to admit that there are faults in the UK socially and economically. Therefore, the arguments waged against you will appear negative. Your opinion is a tad rose tinted and often paints an unrealistic picture, so what exactly do you expect?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Didnt think the whole thing was addressed to me, just the para I quoted.You did not address any on the list of faults that I posted.
Show me some back up for each of the faults you claim - including comparisons with other countries where relevant. Then I can comment sensibly. I'm not going to comment on unsupported claims or run around doing all the leg work. Its easy to ask questions..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quite frankly, I really do hope that this does not happen. Because if it does it will be built on a foundation of debt. Have we learned nothing in the last 7 years? It would appear not.Hence certain forecasts that the UK economy will overtake Germany in the foreseeable future. Go Britain!
No, I cannot substantiate this, and neither can you countenance it, because it is the future and no one knows the future.
Really, it is so appalling that I am beginning to find it hysterically funny.
I was coming out with all this stuff in the early noughties and no one would listen. No one is listening now. Nuts.
I wasn't burned in 2008 and I won't be burned again but so many will that it is frightening.
Any economy has to have a solid foundation, and this Country most certainly does not. It is based on debt and paper shuffling.
Time for another malt and something to lighten the mood.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 -
You're starting to sound like one of those excuses from the train companies about delays due to the wrong sort of snow etc. So if we overtake Germany, it will, 'the wrong type of growth'
Quite frankly, I really do hope that this does not happen. Because if it does it will be built on a foundation of debt. Have we learned nothing in the last 7 years? It would appear not.Hence certain forecasts that the UK economy will overtake Germany in the foreseeable future. Go Britain!
No, I cannot substantiate this, and neither can you countenance it, because it is the future and no one knows the future.
Really, it is so appalling that I am beginning to find it hysterically funny.
I was coming out with all this stuff in the early noughties and no one would listen. No one is listening now. Nuts.
I wasn't burned in 2008 and I won't be burned again but so many will that it is frightening.
Any economy has to have a solid foundation, and this Country most certainly does not. It is based on debt and paper shuffling.
Time for another malt and something to lighten the mood.
That also puts us into a bit of a no-win situation as if it doesn't happen you'll then be gleefully pointig out the failure of this country to grow enough... :roll:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not quite.That also puts us into a bit of a no-win situation as if it doesn't happen you'll then be gleefully pointig out the failure of this country to grow enough... :roll:
An analogy. Some are applauding building a skyscraper on a foundation of sand. I would prefer it to be a bungalow on solid foundations.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 -
Please explain what you mean by the foundations analogy? Going back to my point above about 'good' and 'bad' growth. Feel free to use financial or economic terminolgy.
Not quite.That also puts us into a bit of a no-win situation as if it doesn't happen you'll then be gleefully pointig out the failure of this country to grow enough... :roll:
An analogy. Some are applauding building a skyscraper on a foundation of sand. I would prefer it to be a bungalow on solid foundations."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Regarding British and German GDP growth, on current demographic trends, you would expect Britain to be competing (at least) with Germany in 15 years, as Germany has a more rapidly ageing population, and Britain has experienced higher population growth over the past 20 years.
There are three things to bear in mind when we consider this:
1) This situation might change. As the German population ages, it might offer more job openings to migrant workers, allowing a certain rejuvenation of the population. Then again, it might not.
2) Even if we do end up with higher GDP per capita, it doesn't necessarily mean that the average Brit will enjoy a higher quality of life. Whether we do or not depends on a whole host of factors.
3) Unless we want endless population growth, Britain will one day also have to face up to the problem of an ageing population, whereas Germany will have passed through that point probably by the middle of the century given current life expectancy.0
