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

"Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government..." Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You are aware these cuts have been made across the board? It's not just the welfare budget that's being reduced. If you want to get angry, can you get angry at the people who have ring fenced Health spending and the International aid budget.
    Personally I find it atrocious the way they are pretending to have ring fenced Health whilst at the same time imposing massive backdoor cuts on the NHS via impossibly demanding 'efficiency savings' - newspeak for reductions in budget.

    International 'aid' is mainly spent with UK companies, a lot of it is tied to British contracts and procurement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Personally I find it atrocious the way they are pretending to have ring fenced Health whilst at the same time imposing massive backdoor cuts on the NHS via impossibly demanding 'efficiency savings' - newspeak for reductions in budget.
    Heaven's forbid the taxpayer gets some more value for it's money!
    The NHS is getting the same amount of money as it's always had. It will simply have to provide more service with that money. It's not really that hard of a concept to comprehend.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Personally I find it atrocious the way they are pretending to have ring fenced Health whilst at the same time imposing massive backdoor cuts on the NHS via impossibly demanding 'efficiency savings' - newspeak for reductions in budget.

    International 'aid' is mainly spent with UK companies, a lot of it is tied to British contracts and procurement.
    Both my parents work quite high up in the NHS so they know what's really going on. Although you are correct in saying they are trying to make these backdoor cuts, the reason they deny it is because the government would love to cut loads to the NHS but they can't because it would be absolute political suicide due to our 'often' misplaced romanticism of the institution. The short term spending is ringfenced that's a fact, however they are paving the way for longer-term savings through the backdoor privatisation.

    EDIT: And btw, the NHS is a complete and utter mess if you were able to see it from the inside not how its made to seem through the political propaganda. Its in no parties interest to criticise the NHS but the inefficiences are huge and the quality of nurses etc.. decreasing because they are paid awful salaries so are increasingly coming through with worse qualifications and worse standards many of them from outside the EU. The ones who do work really hard get no benefit from it as performance targets were chucked out the window by Labour and there really is no incentive to improve quality of care.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Personally I find it atrocious the way they are pretending to have ring fenced Health whilst at the same time imposing massive backdoor cuts on the NHS via impossibly demanding 'efficiency savings' - newspeak for reductions in budget.

    International 'aid' is mainly spent with UK companies, a lot of it is tied to British contracts and procurement.
    Even though real term spending on teh NHS has increased? You're misinterpreting efficiency savings with cuts aren't you? The more money that can be 'saved' can be re invested.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Heaven's forbid the taxpayer gets some more value for it's money!
    The NHS is getting the same amount of money as it's always had. It will simply have to provide more service with that money. It's not really that hard of a concept to comprehend.
    The issue with all major countries is that medical bills continue to rise inexorably with new treatments, modern drugs, discovery of ever more conditions and much greater longevity. There should be an open public debate about the best way to handle all that and (perhaps) medical committees to triage the care (and for this to be acknowledged - it happens semi-clandestinely at present via various methods), but the government prefers to strike a pose of ring-fencing, that's my beef. They should man up and admit that there are big cuts needed against demand and that the demands are infeasible through the current tax system, which permits corporations and the wealthy to pay zero effective tax rates.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by a729)
    Lowering the price of fuel significantly will lower the price of most goods- as they all have the price of the fuel used to transport them in their price
    You really think that if fuel duty was cut that that reduction would feed through to consumers?
    Reducing NI for employers would help stop an increase in unemployment/reduction in jobs
    But then you reduce the amount paid out in tax credits while at the same time reducing the amount brought into the government funds through NI.

    Why bother increasing NMW to a living wage if you're still going to give the subsidy back to companies through an alternate route?

    You do realise the main obstacle to raising the NMW is that it would lead to less people being hired/ people being hired for less hours both of which would increase the welfare bill
    I know that's the argument. It was the argument used against the introduction of NMW. When NMW was introduced it didn't result in any increase in unemployment, I don't completely buy that increasing NMW would result in any increase.

    Of course any change to NMW would have to be done alongside removing all of the get out clauses used by some companies to circumvent NMW rules (work program "placements" that don't lead to permanent work, apprenticeship schemes, "internships" in sought after industries). Otherwise those companies who're doing all they can to ignore the spirit of the NMW laws will have an unfair advantage over the companies the "do the right thing" for both their employees and the government (and by extension tax payers).

    [for the record - I'm not claiming to have any comprehensive answers to "sorting out" the benefits bill, just trying to explore some alternatives that I can't understand why the coalition haven't addressed. The costs of in-work benefits for people on very low pay make up a much larger proportion of the benefits pie chart than JSA - seems like an easy win area if the goal is to actually reduce the bill and not to reduce the bill while keeping Asda et al supplied with cheap labour]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oschene23)
    Both my parents work quite high up in the NHS so they know what's really going on. Although you are correct in saying they are trying to make these backdoor cuts, the reason they deny it is because the government would love to cut loads to the NHS but they can't because it would be absolute political suicide due to our 'often' misplaced romanticism of the institution. The short term spending is ringfenced that's a fact, however they are paving the way for longer-term savings through the backdoor privatisation.

    EDIT: And btw, the NHS is a complete and utter mess if you were able to see it from the inside not how its made to seem through the political propaganda. Its in no parties interest to criticise the NHS but the inefficiences are huge and the quality of nurses etc.. decreasing because they are paid awful salaries so are increasingly coming through with worse qualifications and worse standards many of them from outside the EU. The ones who do work really hard get no benefit from it as performance targets were chucked out the window by Labour and there really is no incentive to improve quality of care.
    And you're BTW bit explains the answers. I dare say that some of the problems are difficult to address as cutting teh waste means redundancies and the Unions rallying cry of 'Back door Privatisation.'
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The issue with all major countries is that medical bills continue to rise inexorably with new treatments, modern drugs, discovery of ever more conditions and much greater longevity. There should be an open public debate about the best way to handle all that and (perhaps) medical committees to triage the care (and for this to be acknowledged - it happens semi-clandestinely at present via various methods), but the government prefers to strike a pose of ring-fencing, that's my beef. They should man up and admit that there are big cuts needed against demand and that the demands are infeasible through the current tax system, which permits corporations and the wealthy to pay zero effective tax rates.
    That's pretty impessive how you've managed to somehow try and spin efficiency drives in a ringfenced budget into backdoor cuts and attacking the rich.
    What's your take on the pesonal allowance being raised to £10k? Let me guess, more proof that the Tories are planning on a mass cull of working class children to fund an invasion of Iran?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That's pretty impessive how you've managed to somehow try and spin efficiency drives in a ringfenced budget into backdoor cuts and attacking the rich.
    What's your take on the pesonal allowance being raised to £10k? Let me guess, more proof that the Tories are planning on a mass cull of working class children to fund an invasion of Iran?
    Not "attacking the rich", attacking the laissez-faire tax system that gives corporations and very rich people the right to make paying tax optional.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not "attacking the rich", attacking the laissez-faire tax system that gives corporations and very rich people the right to make paying tax optional.
    You realise the system has been that way for ages? Even during Labour? And that the Coalition is directing more resources than ever to tackling tax evasion?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You realise the system has been that way for ages? Even during Labour? And that the Coalition is directing more resources than ever to tackling tax evasion?
    I thought we were talking about 'now', not the 80s - wasn't the issue being discussed the current budget ring fences of the Coalition? Also, I hold no candle for New Labour's love affair with bankers and offshore tax havens.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You realise the system has been that way for ages? Even during Labour?
    I'm a bit confused by this assumption that everyone who disagrees with the coalition is a Labour supporter.

    Speaking for myself the fact that labour aren't offering a credible alternative and are trying to out-"hard working family" the coalition is a absolute ****ing betrayal of everything they stand for.

    I'd still prefer them to what we've got - they'd be cutting just as hard but I can't help but hope they'd be actually cutting rather than using cutting as an excuse to slash and burn all government spending while actually farming out tax payers cash to private industry and not reducing spending effectively - but that doesn't mean I approve of everything they do and everything they've ever done.

    Just because they're the main opposition party doesn't mean that everyone who opposes government policy is in their gang.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And now it's been announced that £10m - yes £10m of our money - will be spent on some woman's funeral.

    This is quite simply not happening on my watch. **** the government make me want to tear myself limb from limb.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    So, can we not afford to pay people benefits; but can give higher earners a tax cut?
    When considering this policy it is instrumental that you consider the supply side benefits of tax cuts for high earners. It is fact that taxing those with the highest incomes at lower rates leads to greater amounts of job creation within an economy, it does this by providing more capital to those with the means to distribute it to create macroeconomic growth and it provides incentives for people to continue to accumulate wealth, thus this can actually lead to an increase in the sum of tax revenue taken ( when the 50p tax came in tax revenue from high earners decreased) due to a di-incentive effect. A suitable level of tax needs to be set to balance these benefits with promoting a policy of reducing the level of income - inquality. For me this level is under 50% for the reasons stated above. Thank you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    And now it's been announced that £10m - yes £10m of our money - will be spent on some woman's funeral.

    This is quite simply not happening on my watch. **** the government make me want to tear myself limb from limb.
    It is happening on your watch, next Wednesday in fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    And now it's been announced that £10m - yes £10m of our money - will be spent on some woman's funeral.

    This is quite simply not happening on my watch. **** the government make me want to tear myself limb from limb.
    There will be protests in London, apparently Trafalgar square shall be the focal point. Go along if you feel so strongly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    There will be protests in London, apparently Trafalgar square shall be the focal point. Go along if you feel so strongly.
    Ironically the bigger the protests the more it will cost.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    Ironically the bigger the protests the more it will cost.
    Quite. Which is why I might as well just curl up, die and then get my family to get the government to pay for my funeral. Because I've no less right to that money being spent than her.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Quite. Which is why I might as well just curl up, die and then get my family to get the government to pay for my funeral. Because I've no less right to that money being spent than her.
    You were elected as prime minister three times? Mr...Mr Blair?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oschene23)
    Both my parents work quite high up in the NHS so they know what's really going on. Although you are correct in saying they are trying to make these backdoor cuts, the reason they deny it is because the government would love to cut loads to the NHS but they can't because it would be absolute political suicide due to our 'often' misplaced romanticism of the institution. The short term spending is ringfenced that's a fact, however they are paving the way for longer-term savings through the backdoor privatisation.

    EDIT: And btw, the NHS is a complete and utter mess if you were able to see it from the inside not how its made to seem through the political propaganda. Its in no parties interest to criticise the NHS but the inefficiences are huge and the quality of nurses etc.. decreasing because they are paid awful salaries so are increasingly coming through with worse qualifications and worse standards many of them from outside the EU. The ones who do work really hard get no benefit from it as performance targets were chucked out the window by Labour and there really is no incentive to improve quality of care.
    And how do you measure quality of care exactly?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2013
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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

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