Violent anti-cuts protesters are hypocrites

Money out of the public purse that could go towards jobs and the like will now be redirected towards a massive police presence and the cost of repairing damage, and other less prominent expenses.

The types that will be protesting seem to claim that they are on the side of the taxpayer and the working man, yet it is these groups who will have to pay for their (inevitable) damage.

And what for? Do they honestly believe that, even if they destroy every building in Whitehall, that the government will change their position and we won't face cuts?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

wilson_smith

It's the most marginal of costs, and prolonged activism is one of the few means of influecing public policy.

Reply 2

MathematicsKiller

I agree with you.
I hate society, I have very little trust in people, and believe that democracy is a failure. The main majority of people are now intellectual enough, or informed enough to vote in General elections.

Original post by wilson_smith

It's the most marginal of costs, and prolonged activism is one of the few means of influecing public policy.

If history proves anything, it is that violent protests, and even strikes have no effect (or in the odd case, very little) on government policy.
These things never work unless it's a full blown revolution.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 3

BlueJoker

Bending over and letting them do what they want without showing them that we're angry won't work either.

I am not oppossed to cuts, of course I understand they're needed. But they're in the wrong place, they're too quick and ultimately they are not progressive.

If we were to put a 0.005% tax on every bank transaction, the economic crisis would be solved with a surplus in just a few months. Over half the debt would be covered if the government closed the tax loopholes exploited by huge firms. Very few councillors have taken pay cuts and unemployment and inefficency has drastically increased, leading to a lack of consumer confidence and a fall inaggregate demand; we are likely to fall into another recession, with the housing market already showing signs of failure. The economy needs to be growing before the debt can be properly reduced.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are some brutal cuts we need to make. In my local area everyone's upset because we're getting rid of lollipop ladies, and I just want to tell them to shut up, because they're not needed. Harsh, but true. However, at the local sixth form college the bus fares have been doubled and Explore cards (which gave us discounts on travel) have been scrapped. This, along with getting rid of EMA means that many students are now struggling to get to school, as we live in a very rural area - we're currently paying £11 a day for my sister to get the bus to school and back.

I encourage peaceful protest, not violence. But we do need to protest and show anger, otherwise they'll just do whatever they want.

Reply 4

ish90an

Original post by BlueJoker

And every bank would tell the UK to **** off and move (as HSBC, one of the few profitable banks HQd in the UK, has been talking about recently). Great move, now replace all that lost tax revenue and jobs.

Over half the debt would be covered if the government closed the tax loopholes exploited by huge firms.

Tax avoidance, which is legal, is also something many ordinary people use, whether it be using gift aid or extra tax credits. If closing tax loopholes was this easy all the accountants and lawyers in the world would be out of work.

Very few councillors have taken pay cuts and unemployment and inefficency has drastically increased, leading to a lack of consumer confidence and a fall inaggregate demand; we are likely to fall into another recession, with the housing market already showing signs of failure. The economy needs to be growing before the debt can be properly reduced.

Labour's plan to keep borrowing and hope the economy fixes itself with jobs returning is what America is trying to do, and yet unemployment is only rising there. The biggest danger to the UK isn't the housing market, its the threat of a rating downgrade and an increase in the interest rate the country is paying back at from 3% to 10% along with a confidence loss from the markets in UK bonds.

Reply 5

speedbird

Original post by BlueJoker

If we were to put a 0.005% tax on every bank transaction, the economic crisis would be solved with a surplus in just a few months. Over half the debt would be covered if the government closed the tax loopholes exploited by huge firms. Very few councillors have taken pay cuts and unemployment and inefficency has drastically increased, leading to a lack of consumer confidence and a fall inaggregate demand; we are likely to fall into another recession, with the housing market already showing signs of failure. The economy needs to be growing before the debt can be properly reduced.

That's just armchair economics.

A regressive tax on bank transactions would be borne mainly by consumers. Firms exploiting tax loopholes is ultimately better than no firms and no tax revenue at all. Inefficiency has drastically increased? Do you have any evidence to support this? In fact it is taxes that increase inefficiency. The deficit is huge and at the moment the only way to promote economic growth is by further increasing the deficit. It's not "jam today or more jam tomorrow", it's "jam on Monday and nothing else" or "no jam on Monday and some jam the rest of the week".

Reply 6

nonotrly

Alas, the protesters have yet to learn that protesting only works when the rest of the world are watching and caring.

Reply 7

Aexis

Original post by wilson_smith

It's the most marginal of costs, and prolonged activism is one of the few means of influecing public policy.

Hardly marginal, I imagine the costs will be in the millions. Regardless of whether it's a small amount in the grand scheme of things, the fact remains that it's still hypocritical.

Reply 8

Teveth

Original post by Aexis

Hardly marginal, I imagine the costs will be in the millions. Regardless of whether it's a small amount in the grand scheme of things, the fact remains that it's still hypocritical.

A couple of million pounds in a budget of £700 BILLION is very much marginal. It's not hypocritical because those who are protesting will consider it £x Million well spent. Are you suggesting that those of us who oppose the cuts also must oppose protesting, too?

Bizarre.

Reply 9

garethDT

Original post by Aexis

Indeed. Protestors should bare in mind the great cost to the government in having to send their hired thugs to batter them :rolleyes:

Reply 10

uktotalgamer

What are people protesting against?

The cuts that need to be made no matter what? Would protesters rather see the NHS privatised than their own taxes rise?

These no doubt Labour protesters are quick to forget who it was who created this whole problem in the first place.

Reply 11

milkytea

They seem to propose an alternative of super-high taxes on bankers and other rich people. If the government did so, businesses and bankers would simply move out of the UK, hurting the economy even more. The protest is senseless, I'm afraid, but I highly doubt they'll listen to reason.

Reply 12

username133326

Original post by Aexis

Money out of the public purse that could go towards jobs and the like will now be redirected towards a massive police presence and the cost of repairing damage, and other less prominent expenses.

Policemen get lots of work out of it...

The types that will be protesting seem to claim that they are on the side of the taxpayer and the working man, yet it is these groups who will have to pay for their (inevitable) damage.

Private businesses tend to have insurance... so unless they're gonna be vandalising parliament etc, I don't think the taxpayer will be footing the bill...

And what for? Do they honestly believe that, even if they destroy every building in Whitehall, that the government will change their position and we won't face cuts?

When have protesters ever damaged government buildings?

Violent protest is far more effective than peaceful. Take a look at the anti-war protests: 1 million people marched in London, but we still went to war.

A few thousand students light a few fires, smash a few windows (again, private property so no bill to the taxpayer), and the government only scrapes its first act through, with several high-profile Lib Dems announcing that they may defect to Labour over the issue.

Reply 13

username133326

Original post by uktotalgamer

That's the point, these cuts don't need to be made. If anything, the latest budget proves that, with its tax-breaks and such: if we really needed to make these cuts, then we wouldn't be off-setting them with tax-breaks.

Reply 14

username133326

Original post by Aexis

Hardly marginal, I imagine the costs will be in the millions. Regardless of whether it's a small amount in the grand scheme of things, the fact remains that it's still hypocritical.

Its not the 17th Century love, 'millions' is marginal.

Reply 15

Bella Occhi

Original post by MathematicsKiller

Poll tax.

Reply 16

Fusilero

Original post by uktotalgamer

Yes, when something hurts yourself or your family but benefits the 'economy' you should bear it for the good of the state, Comrade!

Reply 17

username279062

Original post by speedbird

What flavour jam?

Reply 18

Entangled

Standard modern, entitlement-geared thinking. It should always be someone else that takes the hit when it comes to austerity.

'Armchair economics' was mentioned somewhere above. That's what I see and hear from trade union leaders - 'we'll close tax loopholes and crack down on tax avoidance and this will allow for jobs and growth.' Rule number 1 of tax avoidance - if you have enough capital and assets to make your tax reciept significant, you have enough capital to hire someone to navigate the next loophole.