Turn on thread page Beta

What will they cut instead of tax credits watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    doesn't look like it will happen anymore
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    doesn't look like it will happen anymore
    Is it the excuse to screw NHS, councils in poor areas and to sell of another publjc asset to pay for it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    Is it the excuse to screw NHS, councils in poor areas and to sell of another publjc asset to pay for it
    could this actually be an osborne master plan ?

    did he secretly know the lords would overturn it,

    because he wanted the unelected house of lords to save the poorest in society ?

    and thus give him a chance to slash the NHS and privatise it ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    could this actually be an osborne master plan ?

    did he secretly know the lords would overturn it,

    because he wanted the unelected house of lords to save the poorest in society ?

    and thus give him a chance to slash the NHS and privatise it ?
    I do not think it was Osbornes original plan google what Jeremy Hunt wants to do with it and how much a deficit the NHS is running at
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Tax Credits haven't been killed off. It's almost certain they'll return in a modified form that makes the changes over a phased, gradual time-scale rather than all at once.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    doesn't look like it will happen anymore
    It will. Just at a slower pace...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever form they'll be compromised into will come into effect in about three years - nice and close to the next election
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    could this actually be an osborne master plan ?

    did he secretly know the lords would overturn it,

    because he wanted the unelected house of lords to save the poorest in society ?

    and thus give him a chance to slash the NHS and privatise it ?
    Yet surprisingly, the strategy was to protect the most vunerable (those on full benefits) and raise the tax allowance and wage rates to compensate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    raise the tax allowance and wage rates to compensate.
    is this regarding those on working tax credits? As every single source on this clearly shows any "compensating" measure from the tax allowance and higher min wage doesn't even compensate 50% towards the cut in tax credits, more like 25% for many, I don't think anyone even Osborne has argued against what is a simple fact on that matter.

    Personally what I would do is look at the threshold that child tax credit is still available, outside of London, I'm not really sure it's necessary for someone with a household income of nearing £40k to be entitled to child tax credits. Scrapped it for the third child is also a good step.

    Makes me very frustrated though, you can't make people destitute, but someone working 30-35hrs in a min wage job (for many areas there's not a lot else around) getting say a £1,500 top up in tax credits so they can afford to live is much better than giving a family where no one has worked for 10+yrs all the money they need to pay rent, more money for each kid they pop out etc. They are not even trying to contribute to society at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    doesn't look like it will happen anymore
    since winning the election they have barely cut anything they need to sort this economy out fast so I hope they actually cut for once.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What about Trident, the elephant in the room?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bjornhattan)
    What about Trident, the elephant in the room?
    we need Trident.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    we need Trident.
    But why do we need Trident? Surely it just antagonises people. Without it, they would view us very differently.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bjornhattan)
    But why do we need Trident? Surely it just antagonises people. Without it, they would view us very differently.
    There is no doubt that the UK would be treated very differently; as an easy target. Would Russia have treated Ukraine like it did if Ukraine had not god rid of its nuclear weapons? I doubt it.

    As for the question in the OP; if they could stay out of wars (look much much Iraq/Afghanistan cost), reduce foreign aid, clamp down on tax avoidance, reduce corporate subsidies (so tax credits, they may have to raise wages first to get it past the Lords but eventually they will cut them) and leave the EU (£55 million a day) that would go a long way. The last one is an opinion, but the ones before should be where the Tories look. Note I said "should". They seem rather keen on ring fencing foreign aid for example.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Because that's a comparable situation... Can someone please permanently ban this fool from the TSR and his moronic posts?
    Amongst academics it has been a topic of discussion for many years.
    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0020.pdf

    Very intelligent people have argued for a long time that nuclear weapons were needed for Ukraine to keep the peace against Russia. It has only been discussed in educated circles admittedly so I appreciate you may have missed this. I admit, reading publications on foreign policy or other academic pieces of work is not everyone's cup of tea so I accept it may not have been common knowledge for you.

    With Russia regularly flying bombers and fighter jets into NATO airspace such a deterrent is useful for the UK. Also if any threats develop in the future Britain will be in a good position to defend itself. Iran, North Korea-these are all difficult situations and having a nuclear deterrent is vital to protect yourself in my view. (and the academic above).

    If you can understand it, see what is said about the ramifications of a war with Ukraine (which we now see) in terms of conflicts that arise as a result of it. For people who have an education my comparison really isn't a new idea, it is hardly news. For those who don't I can appreciate why they struggle to identify the similarities in the two situations-they don't look at the knock on effects of the war but merely look at a map, see the distance and think "it can't be compared". Again, I point you to the part where other NATO forces are discussed; also bear in mind that under NATO rules if one is attacked they all are. This can drag the UK into a war that it may have no direct need to be involved in. Don't underestimate this issue;
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10150565.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31899680

    And as for your crass insults; are you just upset because I owned you in two threads before this and, as it turns out, this one to? It looks that way, following me around on here and desperately trying to insult me. Aw bless, It has always backfired for you so far:console:

    EDIT; Trying to go back on topic;
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    we need Trident.
    Yes we do. The public is firmly in favour of this as well. Therefore whatever the opinion on this forum is (or indeed Scotland) it is quite likely that we will see Trident still on the books for the foreseeable future.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)

    Very intelligent people have argued for a long time that nuclear weapons were needed for Ukraine to keep the peace against Russia. It has only been discussed in educated circles admittedly so I appreciate you may have missed this. I admit, reading publications on foreign policy or other academic pieces of work is not everyone's cup of tea so I accept it may not have been common knowledge for you.
    You are correct that the Ukraine could probably use nukes right now. But the Ukraine is a former state of the former USSR. So to compare Ukraine to the UK in terms of defence requirements is fascicle.

    German, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Japan and the other 190 or so countries in the world get along quite happily without nuclear weapons. We need to get over the fact that we are no longer have an empire and we are not a world power militarily.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You are correct that the Ukraine could probably use nukes right now. But the Ukraine is a former state of the former USSR. So to compare Ukraine to the UK in terms of defence requirements is fascicle.

    German, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Japan and the other 190 or so countries in the world get along quite happily without nuclear weapons. We need to get over the fact that we are no longer have an empire and we are not a world power militarily.
    What I am saying is;
    1) that nuclear weapons can stop a powerful aggressor from attacking or threatening you.
    2) The UK may well be drawn in to a conflict due to the NATO arrangement.

    It doesn't matter if Ukraine was invaded for nostalgic reasons or if the UK is attacked for different reasons, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is a) the UK could be under threat and b) even if it isn't it could be forced to act anyway.

    As for your view, it represents more Corbyn and the Loony left that the whole country. I mean the proof is in the pudding; when the whole of England actively rejects your policy, when your leader cannot even get support from his own MP's for scrapping Trident, there will always be some who think it intelligent to just drop your defences at such a dangerous time.
    Of course like Corbyn they will insist they are right (like your matter of fact statement that we don't need nuclear weapons followed by a dig at the UK-Corbyn would approve and be very proud) but the whole country simply laughs and ignores them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Half a sec here. My leader? Corbyn isn't my leader. Please don't say otherwise. And I am not a leftie thank you very much (whatever one of those is). And the whole of England do not oppose my view. I am happy to debate these issues but get your facts right before you start criticising me and don't make assumptions on who I am or who I support!

    The nuclear deterrent may well deter states from invading, but it does not deter terrorism. Russia has more to lose by invading the west by force regardless of whether nuclear weapons are in use. As I stated earlier, the vast majority of the world get by without nuclear weapons. You still haven't told me why we can't be the same.

    As for NATO lead conflicts - well we have a good recent history to draw conclusions from there. It is looking increasingly likely that the Iraq war will be declared illegal by the Chilcot Report. Most (including Tony Blair) also agree that the world is more dangerous as a result of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the idea that tooling up will somehow make things better just doesn't wash with me. I can't think of any circumstance from knife crime to intercontinental cold wars where tooling up with weapons made you less likely to be involved in some sort of confrontation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Amongst academics it has been a topic of discussion for many years.
    http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0020.pdf

    Very intelligent people have argued for a long time that nuclear weapons were needed for Ukraine to keep the peace against Russia. It has only been discussed in educated circles admittedly so I appreciate you may have missed this. I admit, reading publications on foreign policy or other academic pieces of work is not everyone's cup of tea so I accept it may not have been common knowledge for you.

    With Russia regularly flying bombers and fighter jets into NATO airspace such a deterrent is useful for the UK. Also if any threats develop in the future Britain will be in a good position to defend itself. Iran, North Korea-these are all difficult situations and having a nuclear deterrent is vital to protect yourself in my view. (and the academic above).

    If you can understand it, see what is said about the ramifications of a war with Ukraine (which we now see) in terms of conflicts that arise as a result of it. For people who have an education my comparison really isn't a new idea, it is hardly news. For those who don't I can appreciate why they struggle to identify the similarities in the two situations-they don't look at the knock on effects of the war but merely look at a map, see the distance and think "it can't be compared". Again, I point you to the part where other NATO forces are discussed; also bear in mind that under NATO rules if one is attacked they all are. This can drag the UK into a war that it may have no direct need to be involved in. Don't underestimate this issue;
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10150565.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31899680

    And as for your crass insults; are you just upset because I owned you in two threads before this and, as it turns out, this one to? It looks that way, following me around on here and desperately trying to insult me. Aw bless, It has always backfired for you so far:console:

    EDIT; Trying to go back on topic;


    Yes we do. The public is firmly in favour of this as well. Therefore whatever the opinion on this forum is (or indeed Scotland) it is quite likely that we will see Trident still on the books for the foreseeable future.
    Owned me in two threads? I made an absolute fool of you in the religious thread by highlighting what an angry and bitter individual you are which supposedly caused you to block me. But I'm not surprised you're being outed as a liar again.

    As someone else said above Ukraine is not a comparable example to the Uk. The two are wholly different in terms of military, defence and also international standing. They don't have close, powerful allies like Britain does.

    Tell me, who are the powerful aggressors that UK's nuclear threat is deterring? (Hint, North Korea isn't a powerful aggressor).

    Iran? Lol

    Russia? Why would they attack Britain? And even if they were to somehow become involved in a conflict with the U.K. Do you honestly think that the UK's measly 200+ nukes would frighten a nation with over 7000?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Owned me in two threads? I made an absolute fool of you in the religious thread by highlighting what an angry and bitter individual you are which supposedly caused you to block me. But I'm not surprised you're being outed as a liar again.
    Yes. You were proven to be a rather angry and bitter person in this thread;
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post60319145
    You were then proven to be a) lying about having a job (why is it the unemployed always feel they know what to do best with other taxpayers money?) b) having a party when in reality you were sitting at home by yourself spending hours trawling through my posts and literally crying when I didn't respond. The liar is the person who lies about having a job, lies about having parties, lies about everything but is to silly to realise that said lies were clearly obvious


    As someone else said above Ukraine is not a comparable example to the Uk. The two are wholly different in terms of military, defence and also international standing. They don't have close, powerful allies like Britain does
    Irrelevant. If Britain gets dragged in to a conflict it will need the nukes. That is the point..

    Tell me, who are the powerful aggressors that UK's nuclear threat is deterring? (Hint, North Korea isn't a powerful aggressor).Isn't it? In the future it may well be and it is certainly a threat now.

    Iran? Lol
    Shows how interested in foreign affairs you are that you discount the problem with Iran


    Russia? Why would they attack Britain? And even if they were to somehow become involved in a conflict with the U.K. Do you honestly think that the UK's measly 200+ nukes would frighten a nation with over 7000?
    It shows how little common sense you have when you mention Russia attacking the UK; even when the principle of NATO has been explained to you it is still evidently too complex for you to understand.

    And the number of nuclear weapons is not important; that you think it is just shows how incredible you are. Do you really think that what matters in a nuclear war is how many nukes you have? That is precisely why they exist-if you have one that hits that will be enough. It is very different from a conventional arms race; in a conventional arms race more is better, with nukes not so.
    I can't believe I'm having to explain this to someone, I mean even little children learn this in school.
    Nuclear weapons exist for the exact reason that you don't need many of them to act as a deterrent and you can hold your own via MAD against much larger powers.

    I'm discussing this with a person who believes warfare involves dumping thousands of nuclear weapons on someone.
    Hilarious. Why is it the non-taxpayers always feel they have a say in what happens to tax payers money? The real reason you don't want Trident is so that the money can go to your benefits.

    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Half a sec here. My leader? Corbyn isn't my leader. Please don't say otherwise. And I am not a leftie thank you very much (whatever one of those is). And the whole of England do not oppose my view. I am happy to debate these issues but get your facts right before you start criticising me and don't make assumptions on who I am or who I support!
    The vast majority will not want the defence policies that are promoted by the hard left. Debate it all you like, the taxpayers want Trident. They vote. Tories are in. Stop wanting Trident to be spent on welfare.

    The nuclear deterrent may well deter states from invading, but it does not deter terrorism. Russia has more to lose by invading the west by force regardless of whether nuclear weapons are in use. As I stated earlier, the vast majority of the world get by without nuclear weapons. You still haven't told me why we can't be the same.
    Stop wanting to lower our defences to raise the benefits bill. I'm arguing with people on here who think the number of nuclear weapons is relevant

    As for NATO lead conflicts - well we have a good recent history to draw conclusions from there. It is looking increasingly likely that the Iraq war will be declared illegal by the Chilcot Report. Most (including Tony Blair) also agree that the world is more dangerous as a result of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the idea that tooling up will somehow make things better just doesn't wash with me. I can't think of any circumstance from knife crime to intercontinental cold wars where tooling up with weapons made you less likely to be involved in some sort of confrontation.
    You and that other guy can go on all you want; the general public agrees with me for a reason. You haven't convinced them. And I would take a guess that the taxpayers know what to do with their money better than the claimants. I mean the pair of you-lying about having a Fortune 500 job when in fact you have none, you oblivious to the fact that England has rejected the policy for a reason.

    The claimants and the hard left can bleat all they want-the nuclear weapons are staying, the public wants it to(apart from the hard left so yes claimants), and there is evidently a need as discussed by those responsible for the national defence of the UK. And they have more sophisticated reasons than "we need 7,000 to be competitive, I mean you need 7,000 to destroy a country don't you, 5 succesful hits wouldn't do the job perfectly".

    There is a reason only the hard left back this insane policy
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.