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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For those who are not aware, the changes to the tax credits system will deprive working families (that vast body of people so beloved of leading politicians in their party broadcasts, literature and conference speeches) of £6.2 billion over the next four years.
    That compares with £5.5 billion saved by the Government from scrapping child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers and £5.3 billion from the housing benefit reforms.

    "According to the IFS, the protection given to schools, hospitals and defence means the four-year cuts package will hit state support for higher education teaching, social housing, the Department for the Environment, the Ministry of Justice and local government. The IFS said that the measures represented the deepest cuts since the 1970s, rather than the Second World War as previous government plans had implied, after Mr Osborne reduced the cuts from £83bn to £81bn."

    "the withdrawal of the educational maintenance allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds from poorer families in further education. They will lose £1,200 a year. Add these and other moves together, and you arrive at what the foundation is terming “stealth cuts” of £6.2 billion on those from lower-income households. "The sums we're talking about," says Kelly, "are on a much greater scale that those in the 10p tax furore [when the previous government removed the 10p tax rate for low earners] and they're much greater than families are going to receive from increases in personal allowances [trumpeted by the Government]. The pain for these working families is much greater than the gain." What we've seen to date smacks of "classic disinformation" as Cowdery terms it, in which the net effect of the Spending Review on those receiving moderate incomes has deliberately not been highlighted."
    All this and Cameron has agreed to an increase in EU funding; this is a government that rejects the voices of the common person and is meerly swayed by not hitting the Banks too hard.

    At least it's "fair"???
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You realise thats because the banks make up the biggest part of our economy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mods delete this party animal. Everyones getting sick of him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Mods delete this party animal. Everyones getting sick of him.
    Pot, kettle...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Lower income families tend to use public services more, in addition.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah yeah it's the Tories.

    We can't expect anything less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Pot, kettle...
    haha :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    haha :rolleyes:
    That's not even funny, you're seriously missing the point of this thread
    Hard-working taxpayers are facing even more cuts on top of record taxes whilst scroungers have hardly been touched.

    If you can't face it carry on enjoying your Daily Mail.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You realise thats because the banks make up the biggest part of our economy?
    You do realise that it was the Banks that caused the recession?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    That's not even funny, you're seriously missing the point of this thread
    Hard-working taxpayers are facing even more cuts on top of record taxes whilst scroungers have hardly been touched.

    If you can't face it carry on enjoying your Daily Mail.
    You wonder why people voted labour out. Its Labourites like you that give the party the bad name it has. Im not suprised in the slightest though because they'll stoop to any depths just to provoke a reaction. Perfect example is Ed Milliband and Alan Johnstone who were on of the major reasons were in this debt and they prance around on news channels as if they have done nothing wrong and criticise the tories for sorting their mess out what they created.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    You do realise that it was the Banks that caused the recession?
    This may come as a shock to you, since you seem to have the slenderest grasp imaginable on economics, but...

    ...we want the banks to do well, make profits etc.

    Since when was taxation there to 'punish' people anyway?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Officer Dibble)
    This may come as a shock to you, since you seem to have the slenderest grasp imaginable on economics, but...

    ...we want the banks to do well, make profits etc.

    Since when was taxation there to 'punish' people anyway?
    I don't see how you can make a conclusion on my economic understanding from what I have written. I have simply stated that which is known and irefutable. I didn't say I don't want the banks to do well; however, let me make it clear that banks should have increased regulation to enforce stability in the wealth of a nation. Taxation punishes people when it revolves around those who are more in need than in pleasure. I would like to see a greater form of re-distributive taxation which would provide equality and true fairness for those who are not so talented or priveledged.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    I don't see how you can make a conclusion on my economic understanding from what I have written. I have simply stated that which is known and irefutable. I didn't say I don't want the banks to do well; however, let me make it clear that banks should have increased regulation to enforce stability in the wealth of a nation. Taxation punishes people when it revolves around those who are more in need than in pleasure. I would like to see a greater form of re-distributive taxation which would provide equality and true fairness for those who are not so talented or priveledged.
    Does that not strike you as injustice? Those who have worked hard and produced results should have the results of their efforts taken away from them? You cannot have a system where somebody who contributes more gets the same as somebody who contributes less, it simply isn't feasible nor fair and certainly isn't 'equal'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Does that not strike you as injustice? Those who have worked hard and produced results should have the results of their efforts taken away from them? You cannot have a system where somebody who contributes more gets the same as somebody who contributes less, it simply isn't feasible nor fair and certainly isn't 'equal'.
    Those who have an exceeding amount of wealth enough to literally waste deserve to give back to the society which helped establish their status. I'm not saying equal income, i'm saying greater taxation for the wealthy. J. Rawls stated that a society of fairness is one that encourages natural talents but also provides for those who are not so gifted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    You do realise that it was the Banks that caused the recession?
    You do realise you're only half right.

    Fools spending more than they earned, getting into massive card debt or buying houses which were overpriced and then defaulting were also a major causes. Many people you'd term "working class" caused a lot of this **** storm by being stupid with their money or by recklessly spending other peoples money before playing the bankruptcy get out clause or simply being repossessed. These people are as much to blame and you should consider that closely.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Those who have an exceeding amount of wealth enough to literally waste deserve to give back to the society which helped establish their status. I'm not saying equal income, i'm saying greater taxation for the wealthy. J. Rawls stated that a society of fairness is one that encourages natural talents but also provides for those who are not so gifted.
    I don't really care what J. Rawls said. But these people do not 'waste' their wealth, how do you think they 'waste' their wealth hmm? Money is not 'wasted', when somebody rich buys something, it goes to somebody else... Who is anybody to dictate how they spend the fruits of their labour anyway?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    I don't really care what J. Rawls said. But these people do not 'waste' their wealth, how do you think they 'waste' their wealth hmm? Money is not 'wasted', when somebody rich buys something, it goes to somebody else... Who is anybody to dictate how they spend the fruits of their labour anyway?
    When the fruits of labour are unjustly priced then the state should step in and say "wait a minute, the 5th Ferrari can wait"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Those who have an exceeding amount of wealth enough to literally waste deserve to give back to the society which helped establish their status. I'm not saying equal income, i'm saying greater taxation for the wealthy. J. Rawls stated that a society of fairness is one that encourages natural talents but also provides for those who are not so gifted.
    And who is to say someone earning £100k or £200k is wealthy? They're only wealthy if they have more sense than the guy earning £15k. In most cases this simply isn't true.

    If you go and inspect the finances of a lot of people you seem to class as "rich" you'd see they're probably more indebted or stupid with their money than someone you think is poor. Thus by taxing them more you're really doing little to solve anything. It's easy to pick on a small group who you think are rich but it's an ill thought out misadventure. Fact is most people are thick when it comes to finances and money and a lot of people, regardless of what they earn on paper, don't have 2p to rub together.

    The biggest problem with this so called "progressive" tax is that there is simply nothing progressive about it. If you want to encourage economic literacy, innovation and aspiration the very last you thing you ought to do is tax people more as they earn more. That simply says to people - as you save more, earn more, invest more, you deserve to see LESS of it in return. What a sham. Then you end up with more people fiddling the system and paying LESS anyway. Double sham.

    It's a common left wing labouresque tactic to revert to picking on "the rich" when in reality genuinely rich people are relatively rare and when you "pick" on them, they simply fiddle out of it and you lose anyway.

    Have a flat rate for everyone. a) it's simple. b) it's harder to scam around it. c) when you earn more you get to keep the same proportion of it.

    And how about actually teaching people how to be sensible with money when they're growing up. Did you think to suggest this? How many hours did each of us spend learning about pythagoras theorem, reading some guff shakespeare play or cutting up a pigs heart to see what it looked like? Then think about how many hours were spent teaching people about investments, savings, how interest and compound interest works, how to buy a property or lease it. Is it any wonder people are complete clowns when it comes to money?

    But never worry...take your approach. You have it all worked out and have the bullseye attached firmly to the right targets. It's all the fault of the banks and the "rich" and they should therefore pay for it! If you take that approach and don't fix the actual faults in the system or in education you'll be back in another 15 or 20 years in the exact same position with the same tired "solutions" being bleated out.

    Idiot.

    (i got warned for this post. LOLOLOLOL)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    When the fruits of labour are unjustly priced then the state should step in and say "wait a minute, the 5th Ferrari can wait"
    But then they might well say, 'wait a minute, I could get my 5th Ferrari if I went abroad!' and leave, costing us the tax they already pay. This is why the 50p tax rate has not proved effective.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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

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