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

Tax Credit Tears turns out to be Super Striver! watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34552721

    So the BBC managed to get hold of Michelle Dorrell who was the Women who cried about Tax Credits on Question Time.

    This lady is a Women after my own heart; she is a Beautician and she operates her own business from the front room of her house. She is currently running her business at a loss at the moment since she hasn't broke even.

    This women is the striver which the Tories always talk about. She must be working everyday to keep her business open every hour. She also has a website which she manages so while she isn't in her shop she is making money online.

    Yet the Government don't give a dam about the self-employed.

    As I said in a previous thread Tax Credits are being almost halved for those who are disabled or with children. This Women's business will likely close which will lead to another boarded up shop.

    Tories don't care.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This is the 'aspirational' type of voter which the Tories hark on and on about. A woman from a fairly poor background starting off her own business. She voted Tory and they are rewarding her by cutting her tax credits which she needs to live.


    So when the Tories say 'make work pay' they don't mean it. They made a promise not to cut tax credits and have done just that.

    Interestingly this woman also praised Corbyn highly. Yes that's right, a Tory voter switching to Corbyn's Labour Party. The very type of voter that the Tories have been telling us don't exist.

    There is a chance for Labour here as Tory cuts are now going to start biting Tory voters. This woman, despite everything in the media is switching to Labour.

    The Tories biggest weakness may well be their complacency. If they think 'ah Labour under Corbyn are unelectable' and let the mask of being 'centrist' slip, it could be their undoing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The government shouldn't be made to subsidize a failed business plan.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is the aspirational Tory voter who would see their business pick up when Tory economic policies help wages grow, precisely because the population now has spare money to spend on non-essential goods and services.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The government shouldn't be made to subsidize a failed business plan.
    Ironic that when already rich bankers get bailed out for billions all is good, and when quantitative easing continues to roll in it is fine. All this is paid for by people who are much poorer than them.

    However, when someone who isn't greedy like the above but is a good person trying their hardest the government shouldn't subsidise them.

    If the government doesn't want to support failing businesses, how about it takes that view rather than bending over backwards for rich businesses that fail. If they get bailed out they stay state owned or sold off at prices that aren't a huge loss.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Ironic that when already rich bankers get bailed out for billions all is good, and when quantitative easing continues to roll in it is fine. All this is paid for by people who are much poorer than them.

    However, when someone who isn't greedy like the above but is a good person trying their hardest the government shouldn't subsidise them.

    If the government doesn't want to support failing businesses, how about it takes that view rather than bending over backwards for rich businesses that fail. If they get bailed out they stay state owned or sold off at prices that aren't a huge loss.
    Do you know what the impact would've been had Darling (labour) not bailed the banks out. Bailed isn't really the right term as they were loaned money.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Ironic that when already rich bankers get bailed out for billions all is good, and when quantitative easing continues to roll in it is fine. All this is paid for by people who are much poorer than them.
    The government shouldn't be made to subsidize failed business plans.

    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    However, when someone who isn't greedy like the above but is a good person trying their hardest the government shouldn't subsidise them.
    I don't see anything to suggest she is trying her hardest, or that she isn't greedy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Ironic that when already rich bankers get bailed out for billions all is good, and when quantitative easing continues to roll in it is fine. All this is paid for by people who are much poorer than them.

    However, when someone who isn't greedy like the above but is a good person trying their hardest the government shouldn't subsidise them.

    If the government doesn't want to support failing businesses, how about it takes that view rather than bending over backwards for rich businesses that fail. If they get bailed out they stay state owned or sold off at prices that aren't a huge loss.
    Because the closing down of the banks and the closing down of a random woman's beautician business would have similar effects

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Because the closing down of the banks and the closing down of a random woman's beautician business would have similar effects

    Who said that? No one? Good good.
    The government is all to happy to continue with failed plans when it suits them.
    Has there been suitable reform to make sure another crash won't happen? No. Not in terms of the bonus culture, not in terms of putting people in jail, not in terms of making sure the banks don't take too great risks, I could go on.
    But please, carry on putting Homer Simpson pictures up-it shows the intellectual level you are comfortable with.

    The government is all to happy to allow some businesses to continue pissing public money down the drain in huge sums; yet when a smaller business does it people lose their minds. A perfectly valid point. I mean complain about the thousands a year this woman costs, but don't care in the slightest about when banks do it for billions? Cool. Homer Simpson would approve.

    So rather than reform the big issue in society we will focus on the small. Cool.
    If the government want to give tax payers money to the banks to bail them out they should put in place measures to make sure it won't happen again. Until they do, it will happen again. Since the government have done, quite frankly, not enough to do this they are simply picking on the small fish and letting the big ones go.

    Then again, Homer Simpson is pretty much your intellectual level so I guess that will be lost on you. It is perfectly fine to support failed banks and just keep chucking money at them-who cares about reforming them.

    I read work by people such as Stiglitz, you spend your time watching cartoons and putting those pictures up

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Do you know what the impact would've been had Darling (labour) not bailed the banks out. Bailed isn't really the right term as they were loaned money.
    Yes. I have an issue in the way they were bailed out and what has been done to stop it happening again. Or more accurately, what hasn't been done.
    It is a bit condescending that you don't think I know about the banking crisis, and funny you drop in Labour bailed them out like I am a Labour supporter.

    They were loaned the money? I think you are the one who needs to learn about the impact of the banking crisis. Look at the terms they were given this money and the subsequent QE; It looks much less like a loan and more like a gift. Labour gave it and the Tories would have done exactly the same and are continuing their refusal to deal with the problems that caused the crisis. But by all means, blame Labour; The Tories also pushed for deregulation. I'm not even a Labour supporter anyway, so as if you mentioning it somehow means anything...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Who said that? No one? Good good.
    The government is all to happy to continue with failed plans when it suits them.
    Has there been suitable reform to make sure another crash won't happen? No. Not in terms of the bonus culture, not in terms of putting people in jail, not in terms of making sure the banks don't take too great risks, I could go on.
    But please, carry on putting Homer Simpson pictures up-it shows the intellectual level you are comfortable with.

    The government is all to happy to allow some businesses to continue pissing public money down the drain in huge sums; yet when a smaller business does it people lose their minds. A perfectly valid point. I mean complain about the thousands a year this woman costs, but don't care in the slightest about when banks do it for billions? Cool. Homer Simpson would approve.

    So rather than reform the big issue in society we will focus on the small. Cool.
    If the government want to give tax payers money to the banks to bail them out they should put in place measures to make sure it won't happen again. Until they do, it will happen again. Since the government have done, quite frankly, not enough to do this they are simply picking on the small fish and letting the big ones go.

    Then again, Homer Simpson is pretty much your intellectual level so I guess that will be lost on you. It is perfectly fine to support failed banks and just keep chucking money at them-who cares about reforming them.

    I read work by people such as Stiglitz, you spend your time watching cartoons and putting those pictures up



    Yes. I have an issue in the way they were bailed out and what has been done to stop it happening again. Or more accurately, what hasn't been done.
    It is a bit condescending that you don't think I know about the banking crisis, and funny you drop in Labour bailed them out like I am a Labour supporter.

    They were loaned the money? I think you are the one who needs to learn about the impact of the banking crisis. Look at the terms they were given this money and the subsequent QE; It looks much less like a loan and more like a gift. Labour gave it and the Tories would have done exactly the same and are continuing their refusal to deal with the problems that caused the crisis. But by all means, blame Labour; The Tories also pushed for deregulation. I'm not even a Labour supporter anyway, so as if you mentioning it somehow means anything...
    Interesting person Stieglitz. A great theoretical economist at odds with many other mobrl laureate economists.

    Best balance your reading list out.

    We appear to have come through
    A financial crisis although many on the left still seem to think The end is nigh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How does one board up a house?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Interesting person Stieglitz. A great theoretical economist at odds with many other mobrl laureate economists.

    Best balance your reading list out.

    We appear to have come through
    A financial crisis although many on the left still seem to think The end is nigh.
    My reading is perfectly balanced; I will take his view on this particular issue, since it agrees that of my own education in finance, over the cartoons of some and intellectual requirements needed for the military career? of you. I trust in my own education and interests to make me suitably well read thank you very much.

    A bit condescending being told what I should read, and "do you know what would have happened if the banks hadn't of been bailed out?". Yes, I do know. And he is far from the only Nobel Prize winner as prominent member of organisations such as the world Bank and Clinton administration to say the same thing. Yes, he is quite controversial, but on this topic he is bang on.
    If a poor person shoplifts three times in the US they get put in jail under the tree strikes rule. If a banker does it? Who cares.

    Who cares about Libor? I could list the examples of their misinformation strategy but it is not even debeatable. Who cares? Let them continue with their dodgy dealings and we can bail them out again. This isn't the first time banks have been bailed out due to greed in my lifetime. Other nations have had the same problem (and some very different solutions).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34552721

    So the BBC managed to get hold of Michelle Dorrell who was the Women who cried about Tax Credits on Question Time.

    This lady is a Women after my own heart; she is a Beautician and she operates her own business from the front room of her house. She is currently running her business at a loss at the moment since she hasn't broke even.

    This women is the striver which the Tories always talk about. She must be working everyday to keep her business open every hour. She also has a website which she manages so while she isn't in her shop she is making money online.

    Yet the Government don't give a dam about the self-employed.

    As I said in a previous thread Tax Credits are being almost halved for those who are disabled or with children. This Women's business will likely close which will lead to another boarded up shop.

    Tories don't care.
    Single and 4 kids - blimey. Probably due to the terrible divorce laws in this country no worthy man decided to marry her.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Ironic that when already rich bankers get bailed out for billions all is good, and when quantitative easing continues to roll in it is fine. All this is paid for by people who are much poorer than them.

    However, when someone who isn't greedy like the above but is a good person trying their hardest the government shouldn't subsidise them.

    If the government doesn't want to support failing businesses, how about it takes that view rather than bending over backwards for rich businesses that fail. If they get bailed out they stay state owned or sold off at prices that aren't a huge loss.
    The problem is mate the banks have that many assets and a large amount of money so what happens is the government has can't live with the banks, can't live without the banks and do not want to pay for it situation. What i mean by this is when the banks was in the mire they was too big to fail, that is the reason they could not live without the banks- the government could not live with the banks due to the debt burden and ultimatley they did not want to pay for the mistakes of the bankers but was beaten into submission due to people losing savings ad the banks being too big to fail
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    The problem is mate the banks have that many assets and a large amount of money so what happens is the government has can't live with the banks, can't live without the banks and do not want to pay for it situation. What i mean by this is when the banks was in the mire they was too big to fail, that is the reason they could not live without the banks- the government could not live with the banks due to the debt burden and ultimatley they did not want to pay for the mistakes of the bankers but was beaten into submission due to people losing savings ad the banks being too big to fail
    Who allowed them to be too big to fail? Who allowed all of them, to get away with a low actual cash in reserve ratio (and even that was of low liquidity)?
    Who allowed them to deliberately mis-sell mortgages and other products?
    Who allowed them to fix the rates they borrow at?
    Who allowed them to speculatively gamble as if they knew if it went wrong they would get a big bonus and someone else would foot the bill?

    I could go on and on. I don't have a problem with market failures-these things happen to the state, to the market, anyone. HOWEVER; the government has failed to minimise the risk of it happening again and on the theme of this thread it seems all to happy to support the bonuses and bail outs of its banker friends that are, actually, running a business that shouldn't exist.
    I mean this is essentially capitalism when things are going well, the few keep the proceeds. When things go wrong and there are losses socialism-the many should pay.

    Can't have it both ways. Well you can, but you shouldn't be able to. I mean People on here saying I am so left wing; not so. I am not. If you want capitalism fine by me, great. But just don't socialise the losses and refuse to change the system so that in the next crisis the same thing will happen. And no, giving them "loans" under ridiculous terms and huge amounts in QE is not a great idea since it merely encourages them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Another large scale recession is pretty much guaranteed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Who allowed them to be too big to fail? Who allowed all of them, to get away with a low actual cash in reserve ratio (and even that was of low liquidity)?
    Who allowed them to deliberately mis-sell mortgages and other products?
    Who allowed them to fix the rates they borrow at?
    Who allowed them to speculatively gamble as if they knew if it went wrong they would get a big bonus and someone else would foot the bill?

    I could go on and on. I don't have a problem with market failures-these things happen to the state, to the market, anyone. HOWEVER; the government has failed to minimise the risk of it happening again and on the theme of this thread it seems all to happy to support the bonuses and bail outs of its banker friends that are, actually, running a business that shouldn't exist.
    I mean this is essentially capitalism when things are going well, the few keep the proceeds. When things go wrong and there are losses socialism-the many should pay.

    Can't have it both ways. Well you can, but you shouldn't be able to. I mean People on here saying I am so left wing; not so. I am not. If you want capitalism fine by me, great. But just don't socialise the losses and refuse to change the system so that in the next crisis the same thing will happen. And no, giving them "loans" under ridiculous terms and huge amounts in QE is not a great idea since it merely encourages them.
    Are you not aware that is the way it works- if the elite lose money its balanced against the poorer people in society? It was in 2008.Even the tories would of bailed them out why ? because it was probably osborne& Cameron's mates who messed up in the first place
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Another large scale recession is pretty much guaranteed.
    Have to put all the scroungers in jail then. The Tories will likely blame the most vulnerable again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    This is the 'aspirational' type of voter which the Tories hark on and on about. A woman from a fairly poor background starting off her own business. She voted Tory and they are rewarding her by cutting her tax credits which she needs to live.


    So when the Tories say 'make work pay' they don't mean it. They made a promise not to cut tax credits and have done just that.

    Interestingly this woman also praised Corbyn highly. Yes that's right, a Tory voter switching to Corbyn's Labour Party. The very type of voter that the Tories have been telling us don't exist.

    There is a chance for Labour here as Tory cuts are now going to start biting Tory voters. This woman, despite everything in the media is switching to Labour.

    The Tories biggest weakness may well be their complacency. If they think 'ah Labour under Corbyn are unelectable' and let the mask of being 'centrist' slip, it could be their undoing.

    It's been worked out she's not even likely to be affected by tax credit changes since she has no income from her 'business'. She even admitted she didn't know if she'd be affected or not.
    So effectively she went on a big hysterical 'passionate' rant about something she didn't even have a clue about. If she's switching to Labour she'd fit in well there clearly.
    As for her rant- she keeps all the money she works hard for. Tax credits aren't money that she's 'earned', they're welfare from the government.
    Also, starting your own business but not making a profit so expecting the government to pay your salary in the form of benefits is hardly aspirational.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It's been worked out she's not even likely to be affected by tax credit changes since she has no income from her 'business'. She even admitted she didn't know if she'd be affected or not.
    So effectively she went on a big hysterical 'passionate' rant about something she didn't even have a clue about. If she's switching to Labour she'd fit in well there clearly.
    As for her rant- she keeps all the money she works hard for. Tax credits aren't money that she's 'earned', they're welfare from the government.
    Also, starting your own business but not making a profit so expecting the government to pay your salary in the form of benefits is hardly aspirational.
    Actually its clear you don't know how Tax Credits for self employed people works. You have to keep a dairy of everything you do for each week and then you give this to the Job Center to look at. Chances are She works almost everyday so 6 x 8 hours = 48 hours. That is enough to receive the max amount of Tax Credits for a self employed person.

    I speak the truth because I have many friends & wider family members who are self employed and some of them will lose out from tax credits being cut.

    Either get some evidence to back up what your saying else don't say it at all.

    https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-g...-hours-of-work

    I bet it really sucks to have a Social Justice Warrior quoting you and making your prejudice look like a lame comment.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: October 19, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.