Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gr8wizard10)
    i'm absolutely aware, my family have been on benefits for the better part of around 15 years, before my mum started her own business.

    interesting statistics, thanks for that actually and what i'm saying is the NHS is inefficient due it being free, people are much more likely to exploit the service and exhaust it despite not necessarily needing to, leading to overcrowding and wasted funding. i'm not saying hike up the prices to unreasonable amounts but i would support a charge for visiting the doctors, as a preventitive measure which would not only save costs directly but also address some other related issues surrounding the problems with the NHS (waiting times etc..). and, truthfully, a somewhat privatised-like healthcare system is likely to encourage people to take greater care - you won't just be able to get your stomach pumped after excessive drinking at the expense of the taxpayer and would have to pay for your stupidity.

    regarding pensions, i think significant reforms can be made to ensure that the marginal cost associated with providing benefits to the elderly can be lowered in the form of encouraging firms to take further participations in providing pension services or making more attractive offers to employees regarding long term benefits to take some strain off the government. also i agree with age to be put up (tbh, if i had it my way i would rather no pension at all which would in essence force people to save), and money should be set for emergency purposes only which one would have to go through a sort of claiming procedure to show the necessity of that funding.

    interesting you should raise that about low wages. to me wages are simply a function of how much someone is willing to work for given the alternatives. so the idea of wages being pitifully low doesn't make sense as there are people willing to work for such given pay. again this goes on to support my reasoning of why incentives need to be addressed, such that people work their way up in society and aim for promotion, gain the required skills to improve their social standing.

    i think the fault is not so much on the private companies that pay low wages, but how the governments plan asolutely analliate that sense of "work your way up" by literally encouraging volunatry unemployment, given most of the people taking these unemployment benefits only really qualify for manual labour/low paid employment. i might be biased because of my position but i find it hard to justify a system where it's better to not work than it is to work. how to address this issue? i honestly don't know.. because i also don't think we should be fiddling around with a minimum wage, as the market should manage the equilibrium (under some guided regulation ofc). we have a macro-economic problem here in where there is a massive surplus of people overshadowing the low-skilled employment market giving employers dominance in setting wages. whether you want to blame that on immigration/over-population i don't know... and yeah it's very difficult to pinpoint a plausible solution without upsetting the stakeholder groups involved
    So you're aware that benefits mean you have to live on the breadline, but you still want them reduced? How do you expect the jobless to live then? From self-centered standpoint, do you think these people will just lay down and take it? Social unrest, many more homeless on the streets, rise in crime... meaning a rise in prison bills for your average taxpayer, £40k a year per prisoner last I checked.

    Dentists charge per visit, they still cost the country a decent amount of money I'm sure. Do you honestly think slapping on a £20 charge to visiting your GP will in any measurable way reduce the cost on the taxpayer? You're having a laugh surely. Drinkers actually pay for themselves through the taxes they pay on alcohol, and that's before you take into the account people who top themselves and save the government even more money as a result.

    "Work your way up" is always the mantra, but not everyone can. (I don't mean that as in, it's hard for some people... I mean literally not everyone can move up, someone has to sweep the floors)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevey396)
    Because those who actually work hard in life shouldn't have to subsidise those who can't be bothered. It's outrageous that we have to pay the government a significant proportion of our wages just so lazy, insipid benefit scroungers can get free healthcare (yes, I'm anti-NHS) and lots of pointless extras. Same with tuition fees - it is NOT my responsibility to pay for your education. The entitled, loony liberal attitude of insisting that everything should be free is disgusting and immoral. If you're not willing to work then **** off, I couldn't care less about you.
    Unemployment benefits are 0.47% of government spending.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-analyses-2015

    Every developed nation, with the exception of the US, has universal healthcare:


    We could scrap the NHS tomorrow, YOU would still have to fork out money to pay for healthcare costs, probably much more than you do now... people in the US are a testament to that.

    What are these pointless extras you speak of?

    Most graduates, especially those in prestigious universities and those studying the more valued courses would pay for themselves over their lifetime through taxes... besides, students are only demanding what those born only a few years ago, got either very cheaply or completely "free".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    Unemployment benefits are 0.47% of government spending.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-analyses-2015

    Every developed nation, with the exception of the US, has universal healthcare:


    We could scrap the NHS tomorrow, YOU would still have to fork out money to pay for healthcare costs, probably much more than you do now... people in the US are a testament to that.

    What are these pointless extras you speak of?

    Most graduates, especially those in prestigious universities and those studying the more valued courses would pay for themselves over their lifetime through taxes... besides, students are only demanding what those born only a few years ago, got either very cheaply or completely "free".
    Japan has people pay a certain amount of their healthcare - usually 30% of it - according to their income. I’d support that
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    My beliefs:

    - Competition is healthy and should be promoted;
    - Authority needs to be decentralised and the state should hold a minimal role in how things are run;
    - Promotion of democracy and democratic values. Far too many have suffered and died to provide us with this system of rule;
    - Freedom of speech and thought. You have the right to believe in whatever you like but this should not infringe on my right to mock and/or criticise said belief;
    - Change is good but revolution and populist movements can be detrimental. Any significant change should occur in stages and each stage assessed;
    - Free markets.

    Conservative parties tend to be the only ones who really defend these values (whether this is changing now is another discussion all together).
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I wouldn't say I'm a die hard Conservative but I fail to see any other party really representing what I believe:
    Pro monarchy
    Strong UK Defence (I'd increase this to 2.5% of GDP) & more police officers (I'm not supportive of the current Tory party's attitude towards police funding)
    Lower taxation but not at the cost of balancing the budget
    Im pro public NHS but not to the point where I wouldn't consider an alternative. I feel that a £10 charge for seeing a GP of you're over the age of 18 wouldn't be unfair & would increase funding by over £1 billion.
    Free market & generally for privatisation (albeit with restrictions on monopolies & I'm pro minimum wage)
    I'm naturally sceptical of tax credits - it seems like the Govt is topping up the wages of people who big companies aren't paying enough to.
    Harsher prison sentences - life means life like it does in the US. Those who can be reformed should be helped but the rest should have concrete cells with no access to TVs etc.
    Socially I'm more liberal - I'm for LGBT rights, gay marriages & I'm very sceptical of of all religions.
    I'm torn on drugs policy - I'm a believer that an Englishman's home is his castle so as long as what you do doesn't directly negatively affect your neighbour then feel free to do it. Therefore are you really harming anyone taking recreational drugs on your own property? That said, having a public NHS makes me less likely to accept decriminalisation.
    I'm very much against EU freedom of movement - I believe we should be able to choose who we want by the skills they have for all immigrants regardless of what country they come from to suit our economy.
    I’d agree with you two. Although I think that UKIP would be better for you guys, I guess that there’s that religious aspect of it
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'm very sceptical of of all religions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Japan has people pay a certain amount of their healthcare - usually 30% of it - according to their income. I’d support that
    So... like a tax then? :lol:
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gr8wizard10)
    i'm absolutely aware, my family have been on benefits for the better part of around 15 years, before my mum started her own business.

    interesting statistics, thanks for that actually and what i'm saying is the NHS is inefficient due it being free, people are much more likely to exploit the service and exhaust it despite not necessarily needing to, leading to overcrowding and wasted funding. i'm not saying hike up the prices to unreasonable amounts but i would support a charge for visiting the doctors, as a preventitive measure which would not only save costs directly but also address some other related issues surrounding the problems with the NHS (waiting times etc..). and, truthfully, a somewhat privatised-like healthcare system is likely to encourage people to take greater care - you won't just be able to get your stomach pumped after excessive drinking at the expense of the taxpayer and would have to pay for your stupidity.

    regarding pensions, i think significant reforms can be made to ensure that the marginal cost associated with providing benefits to the elderly can be lowered in the form of encouraging firms to take further participations in providing pension services or making more attractive offers to employees regarding long term benefits to take some strain off the government. also i agree with age to be put up (tbh, if i had it my way i would rather no pension at all which would in essence force people to save), and money should be set for emergency purposes only which one would have to go through a sort of claiming procedure to show the necessity of that funding.

    interesting you should raise that about low wages. to me wages are simply a function of how much someone is willing to work for given the alternatives. so the idea of wages being pitifully low doesn't make sense as there are people willing to work for such given pay. again this goes on to support my reasoning of why incentives need to be addressed, such that people work their way up in society and aim for promotion, gain the required skills to improve their social standing.

    i think the fault is not so much on the private companies that pay low wages, but how the governments plan asolutely analliate that sense of "work your way up" by literally encouraging volunatry unemployment, given most of the people taking these unemployment benefits only really qualify for manual labour/low paid employment. i might be biased because of my position but i find it hard to justify a system where it's better to not work than it is to work. how to address this issue? i honestly don't know.. because i also don't think we should be fiddling around with a minimum wage, as the market should manage the equilibrium (under some guided regulation ofc). we have a macro-economic problem here in where there is a massive surplus of people overshadowing the low-skilled employment market giving employers dominance in setting wages. whether you want to blame that on immigration/over-population i don't know... and yeah it's very difficult to pinpoint a plausible solution without upsetting the stakeholder groups involved
    People don't go see the doc for the fun of it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epic within)
    I believe in:
    Free market
    Low taxes
    Trident
    and people should be rewarded if they work hard.
    Conservatives are the closest party that I can relate to.
    But how does hard work under the Tories tally into better pay? I fail to see why you think the conservatives reward hard work. Or do you equate high paying jobs to harder work?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    But how does hard work under the Tories tally into better pay? I fail to see why you think the conservatives reward hard work. Or do you equate high paying jobs to harder work?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are get rewarded through work, tories increased the personal allowance which means you have more disposable income each month, labour introduced a 10p tax rate which means the poor get poorer, also they introduced tuition fees yet they complain how bad those things are but they were nowhere to be seen when those policies were introduced. High paying jobs are usually highly skilled for example neurosurgeons these kind of jobs are hard work, therefore they need be highly paid. If people don't like their crappy jobs and they are working there because they have no skills then they can join some apprenticeship scheme and stop complaining.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epic within)
    You are get rewarded through work, tories increased the personal allowance which means you have more disposable income each month, labour introduced a 10p tax rate which means the poor get poorer, also they introduced tuition fees yet they complain how bad those things are but they were nowhere to be seen when those policies were introduced. High paying jobs are usually highly skilled for example neurosurgeons these kind of jobs are hard work, therefore they need be highly paid. If people don't like their crappy jobs and they are working there because they have no skills then they can join some apprenticeship scheme and stop complaining.
    What about children who inherit into a highly paid position, nepotism?
    And the Tories trebled tuition fees did they not?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    What about children who inherit into a highly paid position, nepotism?
    And the Tories trebled tuition fees did they not?
    In 2006 labour increased tuition fees incase you forgotten. Their parents earned it and they choose to give it away to their children whats the problem in that, it doesn't matter what background someone is from they will give almost everything away to their children, taxing someones assets when they die will hurt the poor also
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    I’d agree with you two. Although I think that UKIP would be better for you guys, I guess that there’s that religious aspect of it
    I'm not British nor do I live there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I'm not British nor do I live there.

    oh lmao

    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    So... like a tax then? :lol:
    no, as it’s only taken when the service is used. on that logic would you say paying rent is a tax?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    People should be allowed to keep most of what they earn
    The nation state may not always be perfect, but we should be proud of it (patriotism, not nationalism), it gives you an identity and belonging
    The notion of the organic society is seen by many as wrong but society is always divided between the rich and poor, find me one society or movement that has created perfect equality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a conservative, but first and foremost a libertarian conservative, with some socially liberal leanings. I believe in:

    Free markets.
    Laissez faire capitalism.
    Small government.
    Low taxes, and a flat tax rate.
    Private healthcare.
    You pay for your education.
    Private charity and workfare - not social welfare.
    Free speech.
    Democracy.
    Strong national defence.
    A strong police force.
    Harsher sentences for repeat offenders.
    Constitutional Monarchy.
    Relaxed gun ownership laws.
    Patriotism.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Japan has people pay a certain amount of their healthcare - usually 30% of it - according to their income. I’d support that
    So what happens if I can't afford insurance and I get hit by a car and admitted to hospital for some very expensive surgery?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I'm a conservative, but first and foremost a libertarian conservative, with some socially liberal leanings. I believe in:

    Free markets.
    Laissez faire capitalism.
    Small government.
    Low taxes, and a flat tax rate.
    Private healthcare.
    You pay for your education.
    Private charity and workfare - not social welfare.
    Free speech.
    Democracy.
    Strong national defence.
    A strong police force.
    Harsher sentences for repeat offenders.
    Constitutional Monarchy.
    Relaxed gun ownership laws.
    Patriotism.
    Do you support monopolies or should they be regulated?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Do you support monopolies or should they be regulated?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm neither for nor against them - it depends entirely on how they are affecting people's freedoms and pursuit of happiness.

    But in my understanding of history and economics, regulation and government interference has acted to create and protect more monopolies than it dismantles.

    In a truly free market, a monopoly can always be challenged, either from foriegn competitors or producers offering alternatives. There's too much it has to fight off without a regulating authority to protect it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So what happens if I can't afford insurance and I get hit by a car and admitted to hospital for some very expensive surgery?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    it depends on your income, so if you couldn’t afford to pay it, then you don’t, whereas if you can, then you pay a certain percentage of it
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So what happens if I can't afford insurance and I get hit by a car and admitted to hospital for some very expensive surgery?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    if someone hit you, the other parties insurance will cover it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a conservative party supporter (although that's changing for sure) but they have reformed over the years and are delivering what the people want, with the current state of politics if i had a vote it would go to them. It's mainly because i like their shift in policy for education and jobs, it works!It builds the middle class and creates a larger emerging middle class which is cruical for the economy's future, not only that but i believe in the free market, do i think it should be regulated and monitored by the government? yes. Do i think the government should have control or influence? only a little. And that's pretty much a sum up of the conservatives policy. I'm all for New Labour or 'the third way' and today in politics I think the conservative party is close to that. The party also has a great history and conservative areas tend to be at a higher standard compared to Labour areas. And for the record, socialism does not work.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.