Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

£10 MILLION publically funded funeral for Thatcher?!?!!??! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Public sector workers might spend their salary they've earned but the effect is limited to them. Spending £10m on a funeral attracts thousands of people who will each spend more money. How can that not make sense?
    The effect is not limited to only them, your economic knowledge is poor.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    The effect is not limited to only them, your economic knowledge is poor.
    You misunderstood my point; your ability to comprehend English is poor.

    Giving several workers a salary means they will go out and spend such money. You cannot know how they will spend it, it could ultimately go to paying off debt. It could be spend on goods and help the economy, and some will likely go back to the Government through taxation.

    Holding an event in which thousands attend, and visit businesses for food and drink, buying souvenirs etc. will contribute directly to the economy. Since there are more people, the effect is greater than even all of those employed public service workers spending their money on goods.

    Does that make sense? More people spending money = more money contributing to the economy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The irony of all this being that the reasons the costs have gone up is because of the spending on extra police and security to control the protesters.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    amanda thatcher is hot
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    You misunderstood my point; your ability to comprehend English is poor.

    Giving several workers a salary means they will go out and spend such money. You cannot know how they will spend it, it could ultimately go to paying off debt. It could be spend on goods and help the economy, and some will likely go back to the Government through taxation.

    Holding an event in which thousands attend, and visit businesses for food and drink, buying souvenirs etc. will contribute directly to the economy. Since there are more people, the effect is greater than even all of those employed public service workers spending their money on goods.

    Does that make sense? More people spending money = more money contributing to the economy.
    It was a very simple sentence, there was no room for misinterpretation you just couldn't communicate your point effectively, or you were wrong.

    You're right that it would have increased public spending, but I don't see how you can't see that paying people more money would also increase public spending, and increase it in the long term. You hold a public funeral, people travel town spending money on trains and petrol, they stay in a hotel maybe, they buy some food, buy some souvenirs then they go back home to their normal lives. If you increase peoples pay then they have more disposable income, so they are spending more money throughout the year.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    You're right that it would have increased public spending, but I don't see how you can't see that paying people more money would also increase public spending, and increase it in the long term. You hold a public funeral, people travel town spending money on trains and petrol, they stay in a hotel maybe, they buy some food, buy some souvenirs then they go back home to their normal lives.
    Yes, so businesses get money and the government gets tax money to spend on further lovely things. The total value is much greater than £10m.

    If you increase peoples pay then they have more disposable income, so they are spending more money throughout the year.
    Only up to the value of that £10m. They can't magic money they don't have outside their salary.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Yes, so businesses get money and the government gets tax money to spend on further lovely things. The total value is much greater than £10m.
    Practically all government spending can be justified like this

    (Original post by MattKneale)

    Only up to the value of that £10m. They can't magic money they don't have outside their salary.
    Wrong again, lack of economic knowledge is showing, stick to medicine. It's called the fiscal multiplier, you get a pay increase and you spend that money in a shop, that shop reinvests and so on and so forth.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Wrong again, lack of economic knowledge is showing, stick to medicine. It's called the fiscal multiplier, you get a pay increase and you spend that money in a shop, that shop reinvests and so on and so forth.
    And that doesn't happen for events like this where people give their money to a shop and the shop reinvests it? Am I missing some magical multiplying money that only exists if it's given by the government in the form of a salary as opposed to private sector spending?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    When so many lives and livelihoods have been reduced to nothing as a result of her politics, I'm afraid it's difficult to respond in anything other than kind.

    Margaret Thatcher is being afforded a publicly-funded funeral because she was a politician with far-reaching influence. The proceedings and content are neither here nor there. I'm a man with a family and a personal life and I also have a job.

    I can't say I feel much admiration for anyone on the Left attending her funeral; they are the very people who claimed to represent those whose lives she ruined. There comes a point where the influence of a person becomes so devastating that it is hard to put differences aside.
    Without wanting to go into any argument, you forget that she also benefited the lives of many people - I think that is demonstrated by the fact that the crowd was made up of an overwhelming majority of supporters.

    Yes, the funeral was publicly funded but that doesn't stop it being a funeral after all. As such, the proceedings and content are of upmost importance, I think.

    All prime ministers divide people and I imagine many of the left, middle and even some of the right who disagreed with some of her policies, accept that that is the nature of politics. Perhaps I can't blame those who feel they would be too hypocritical to attend, but neither can I blame those who are willing to accept that being a politician was only any aspect of her life, and admire her not for her politics and ideology, but for the many other aspects of her life in which she was successful. It's an entirely personal decision on the part of those invited and I don't think we have any right to criticise them for either attending or not attending.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    And that doesn't happen for events like this where people give their money to a shop and the shop reinvests it? Am I missing some magical multiplying money that only exists if it's given by the government in the form of a salary as opposed to private sector spending?
    No, you were the one trying to create this difference when you were saying that public sector pay increases don't put money into the economy and a spectacle like this does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    So we reduce it to a celebration of soft scoop icecream and psychopathy?
    Creating Mr Whippy (if true) is an achievement in itself, don't you think?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Not only is that a completely cockend way of summing up the welfare reforms, I find the logic against the funeral costs rather dubious. Basically your saying that unless the government spends an extortionate sum of money on welfare, then it shouldn't spend anything at all?



    Well Osborne tried finding £100 billion down the back of his couch, but the search was fruitless.



    How'd he work out £100 k?
    I also like how he forgets to mention it's still higher now than it was for most of Labour's 13 years in power
    http://news.sky.com/story/1071663/id...t-benefit-bill
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    No, you were the one trying to create this difference when you were saying that public sector pay increases don't put money into the economy and a spectacle like this does.
    The point is that you get the fiscal multiplier regardless of where the money originates from. £10m would only pay for 400 public sector workers on a salary of £25,000 pa.

    It's not hard to see why this 'spectacle' can easily make up the costs from the spending of people who have come to the event.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rascacielos)
    Without wanting to go into any argument, you forget that she also benefited the lives of many people - I think that is demonstrated by the fact that the crowd was made up of an overwhelming majority of supporters.

    Yes, the funeral was publicly funded but that doesn't stop it being a funeral after all. As such, the proceedings and content are of upmost importance, I think.

    All prime ministers divide people and I imagine many of the left, middle and even some of the right who disagreed with some of her policies, accept that that is the nature of politics. Perhaps I can't blame those who feel they would be too hypocritical to attend, but neither can I blame those who are willing to accept that being a politician was only any aspect of her life, and admire her not for her politics and ideology, but for the many other aspects of her life in which she was successful. It's an entirely personal decision on the part of those invited and I don't think we have any right to criticise them for either attending or not attending.
    It's clear why the crowd were mostly supporters. Because a) the BBC won't be putting the limelight on the minority protesting, and b) Thatcher criminalised her adversaries; fitting to her legacy, protesters at her funeral will have been met with riot police, upscaling the cost. Her enemies will have done well to stay away on principle.

    My summarised point on active politicians attending is the following: it's all very well if you're apolitical or a supporter. But if you, an active politician, claiming to represent those that Margaret Thatcher persecuted and their descendants, you cannot disassociate yourself and say 'I'm coming to pay my respects to Thatcher the human and not the politician', because you're attending as a fellow politician; you would not be there if you were not in your current capacity. Plus, the whole issue of not only her supporters but her 'adversaries' claiming public money to be there..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    £10 of TAXPAYERS' money? Well, assuming you're a student you don't pay any tax anyway? That is, bar a little NI if you've got a job on the side of your studies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This sort of money would have to be spent no matter what - even without the VIPs and even without any pomp. So many of the public were going to turn up, no matter what, that a huge policing operation was required. There could have been violent protests or riots, there could definitely have been an IRA threat and there could have been a general terrorist threat, given the size of the crowd. The majority of this money probably went on policing and was about public safety rather than anything else.

    Then on top of this, all the VIPs came. And it was right that representatives from all the countries she had an impact on were able to come. With that number of VIPs in one place, the security costs would have gone up even further.

    The actual funeral costs were probably covered by the estate, with the exception of the military involvement. And once again, that involvement was entirely right. Like her or not, the military admired her greatly on the whole and the Falklands War was justified and hugely successful. She also respected the forces a great deal; I'm not sure if Tony Blair hand wrote a genuine letter to everyone who had died in his wars.

    So the majority of the costs were unavoidable, no matter what. She declined a fly-past and lying in state because of expense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    My summarised point on active politicians attending is the following: it's all very well if you're apolitical or a supporter. But if you, an active politician, claiming to represent those that Margaret Thatcher persecuted and their descendants, you cannot disassociate yourself and say 'I'm coming to pay my respects to Thatcher the human and not the politician', because you're attending as a fellow politician; you would not be there if you were not in your current capacity. Plus, the whole issue of not only her supporters but her 'adversaries' claiming public money to be there..
    I assume you also think it's inappropriate that Clement Attlee attended Churchill's funeral? After all, he fought against and beat Churchill to become PM. He clearly had hugely contrasting political views. Is it impossible that despite his differing political views, he respected Churchill for his character and for the achievements that he agreed with?

    The same applies to Thatcher.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KR1)
    £10 of TAXPAYERS' money? Well, assuming you're a student you don't pay any tax anyway? That is, bar a little NI if you've got a job on the side of your studies.
    Yep. If you smoke, drink or consume most other items, you pay tax.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Was referring more to PAYE. I wouldn't class buying a pack of **** contributing tax to society...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KR1)
    Was referring more to PAYE. I wouldn't class buying a pack of **** contributing tax to society...
    Why not? Tax makes up 80% of a packet of cigarettes' retail price, so someone who smokes 20 a day is contributing quite a lot in tax. They pay tax on them, therefore they are a taxpayer.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.