Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So because this one fact, we should tax the wealthy even more and give all the claimants some extra money?
    I'm not saying that. I'm saying we shouldn't cut welfare. To add to my previous comment - some people are taxed on their benefits / work and pay tax.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    hang on.........


    Nope, upon reading my post I can conclude at no point did i say this is a statement of the facts. it has and will always be my opinion, and the opinion of many others as a matter of fact.

    Anyway, since you like facts so much here is some for you.

    The uk's national debt stands at £1,130,023,000,000.00 (yes that is a trillion)

    The goverment is borrowing £91 billion this year. and £201 billion is been spent on welfare.

    Please tell me why you are happy to enslave future generations to a life time of public debt and misery, just so Jo Bloggs from Sunderland can by a 20 pack of Lambert & Butler and sit on his arse all day?
    yawm more fallacies that all benefit claimants are lazy and workshy, its not true you are just selfish. perhaps if the economic system you favour was fairer we wouldnt need welfare
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    I'm not saying that. I'm saying we shouldn't cut welfare. To add to my previous comment - some people are taxed on their benefits / work and pay tax.
    But if we dont cut welfare, national debt will continue to rise.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So thats your final answer?

    You want to drive this country into the ground simply to maintain our welfare system?
    Paragraph 1 is admitted.

    It is denied that such a view equates with wanting to drive the country into the ground.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    yawm more fallacies that all benefit claimants are lazy and workshy, its not true you are just selfish. perhaps if the economic system you favour was fairer we wouldnt need welfare
    where did I say the word "all"?

    I am simply suggesting that the welfare bill be reduced so we can get on with paying down the national debt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Paragraph 1 is admitted.

    It is denied that such a view equates with wanting to drive the country into the ground.
    Not cutting welfare = further debt
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    But if we dont cut welfare, national debt will continue to rise.
    The national debt will rise so long as we have a defecit and will fall so long as we don't. We could cut the defecit without cutting welfare, its not really an absolute requirement (though we are anyway).
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Thatcher's selling off of council houses was ideologically motivated. The council house represented, and still represents, an expression of how our basic human needs, for shelter, can be satisfied without us being subject to the money-grubbing practices of the market; in the form of not-for-profit homes. Such a prominent socialist provision just had to go and damn the many subsequent people who would go homeless or suffer extortionate rents, she didn't give a flying. I can't defend Labour on the issue though, they never made any attempt to re-establish council housing as a central socialist aim (they were no longer socialists when they got into power in 1997 of course).
    It was ideologically motivated? So what? She's a politician, after all and it was a very good ideology.

    I do genuinely struggle with the idea that selling council houses - to then become homes to people who would otherwise have been council tenants - is having a negative effect on the social housing stock. Certainly the quantity of social housing properties goes down - but so too does the demand in an almost 1:1 proportion.

    As for the ideological aim, I'm afraid I completely disagree with it. Social housing, so far as I'm concerned, is a bad thing - it entrenches poverty. For one, it makes people less able to move to find work. Many communities with high levels of social housing quite simply don't have jobs.

    This is one of the reasons why people with similar socio-economic characteristics are half as likely to be employed if they live in social housing than someone in the private housing sector. This engenders areas of multiple deprivation and passes on problems across generations: children in social housing are twice as likely to leave school with no qualifications as their socio-economic peers who are not.

    The UK still has an extremely high level of social housing. I want that to be reduced significantly. Yes, we have a problematic housing market at present, but when it comes to housing the future generations I hope the mistakes of the past - ie, new social housing - are not repeated and some more sustainable option found.

    You're right that there's something of a contradiction in my willingness to characterise Thatcher as evil, though to be fair I did, if imperfectly, qualify it. I guess that despite my understanding I still can't always step out of my instinctive human disposition to interpret behaviour in moral terms. Perhaps, if I was feeling more charitable, I should only refer to the consequences of her blindly ideological actions as evil.
    I'd find it a bit odd if you started calling consequences, which are at the control of chance, rather than human intent, to be evil.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Even arch-Labourite Ed Balls agrees with what you're saying here: he was on Channel 4 yesterday arguing for a reduction in welfare and a corresponding increase in private sector job creation to help ease the burden on the state, so if TSR intelligensia are taking issue it shows just how out of step with mainstream opinion they are! But I suppose its a different world here, a world of cradle to grave 'support' and endless supplies of money that grow on trees.
    The Labour Party does still have the odd intellectual in it. Ed Balls isn't one, but he is at least influenced by some.

    Ask your average person on a No Cuts protest what they hope to do about the deficit. They'll have some conception of the Keynesian argument that the state can spend to boost the economy. Which is fine. Ask them what they'd spend the extra cash on and you certainly won't get answers like infrastructure or indeed any other type of spending Keynes would've seen as being a return-yielding trade-off for borrowing.

    They'll talk instead about spending on welfare, most likely, or some other minor grievance du jour. Even by a Keynesian analysis, however, welfare is one of the best things to cut. Even by this world-view - and I don't agree with most of it - spending based on borrowing has to be well-targeted on things that will actually create growth.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    The problem is that capitalism will not suffer a barrier. Today there's more than enough wealth and production to ensure everyone has a decent home, decent food, decent clothing and so on but as these are all potential avenues of capital accumulation by the capitalist class they are as far as possible subject to marketisation as practicable.
    That the cash is available to provide something universally doesn't mean that the benefits of running a market model somehow disappear.

    It's probably only a matter of time before council houses, the NHS and state run police and prisons are handed over to profit-orientated enterprises. State education, I suspect, will be the last to go as without it the masses cannot be easily prepared for the labour they will be expected to do for the capitalist class - and God forbit they start educating themselves about politics, history and their conditions of alienation and exploitation. No, I think state education is probably the one concession which capitalism will make because it is its greater interest to provide via the capitalist-state.
    I would have some sympathy with your Marxist analysis did I not believe the state education system was already effectively run by a bunch of Bolsheviks.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd actually agree with privately run prisons.
    I was of the impression there were plenty of them already. There's certainly at least one in my dear old Scotland.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    where did I say the word "all"?

    I am simply suggesting that the welfare bill be reduced so we can get on with paying down the national debt.
    so why do you want to cut welfare for those who need it because they cannot work for whatever reason?

    i think instead of cutting welfare we should increase taxes for millionaires and companies instead of letting them get away with such morally bankrupt tactics of tax avoidance
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    so why do you want to cut welfare for those who need it because they cannot work for whatever reason?

    i think instead of cutting welfare we should increase taxes for millionaires and companies instead of letting them get away with such morally bankrupt tactics of tax avoidance
    Increasing tax on millionaires? What as opposed to the already 50% taken from them? Yes because that's fair, taking half their income which will never be used on them.

    Although yeah, increasing it is gonna be sure to make them pay.

    And yes, if I was subject to 50% tax and i could reduce that ofcourse I would, and so would you. That's an incredibly extortionate and uncompetitive rate.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    so why do you want to cut welfare for those who need it because they cannot work for whatever reason?

    i think instead of cutting welfare we should increase taxes for millionaires and companies instead of letting them get away with such morally bankrupt tactics of tax avoidance
    Yeah, raising taxes. That's a great way to grow an economy...

    Christ on a bicycle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Enormous misdirection. Addressing fraud in the benefits system is a tiny part of the government's welfare reform policies.



    Corporations are already compelled to pay the tax they are required to by law. Spending more and more on investigating tax evasion doesn't necessarily produce more cash for the Exchequer.
    It's a major part of their propaganda policy though isn't it..

    Do you actually follow current affairs? There is a coffee retailer called Starbucks which have been in media rather a lot recently.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    Increasing tax on millionaires? What as opposed to the already 50% taken from them? Yes because that's fair, taking half their income which will never be used on them.
    But you're not taking half their income. They pay 20% tax on their income up to whatever the threshold is, 40% up to the next threshold and then 50% on the next lot. It's not you earn £1m and they automatically take £500k off you. Some of what you take from them will pay for their state pension when they retire.

    Their taxable income will be used on them. Unless you're seriously telling me they're never going to use roads, emergency services, etc?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    But you're not taking half their income. They pay 20% tax on their income up to whatever the threshold is, 40% up to the next threshold and then 50% on the next lot. It's not you earn £1m and they automatically take £500k off you. Some of what you take from them will pay for their state pension when they retire.

    Their taxable income will be used on them. Unless you're seriously telling me they're never going to use roads, emergency services, etc?

    You are missing the point slightly......

    The 50% rate is idological. If I earnt 2 million pounds per year, I would not be happy giving up half of it to the goverment. Incrasingly so when the money is not put to good use.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The national debt will rise so long as we have a defecit and will fall so long as we don't. We could cut the defecit without cutting welfare, its not really an absolute requirement (though we are anyway).
    So what would you cut instead?

    Health? Police? Education?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    You are missing the point slightly......

    The 50% rate is idological. If I earnt 2 million pounds per year, I would not be happy giving up half of it to the goverment. Incrasingly so when the money is not put to good use.
    Define "good use". I assume that you never use any public services or claim(ed) any benefits then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Define "good use". I assume that you never use any public services or claim(ed) any benefits then?
    This isn't an appropriate place to disclose personnal details. But to satisfy your curiosity, I can conclude that I am a net contributor to the state over the course of my life time.

    As for "good use" thats another discussion all together. The tpa have some good ideas, so you might want to look there.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yeah, raising taxes. That's a great way to grow an economy...

    Christ on a bicycle.
    better than punishing the poorest by buying into the people on benefits are lazy lies.

    (Original post by rmpr97)
    Increasing tax on millionaires? What as opposed to the already 50% taken from them? Yes because that's fair, taking half their income which will never be used on them.

    Although yeah, increasing it is gonna be sure to make them pay.

    And yes, if I was subject to 50% tax and i could reduce that ofcourse I would, and so would you. That's an incredibly extortionate and uncompetitive rate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    better than punishing the poorest by buying into the people on benefits are lazy lies.
    How is it punishing someone to not give someone something they never had in the first place.

    What your suggesting sounds like state endorsed theft to me.
 
 
 
  • 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.