We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

What do you think so far of the Condem proposals on welfare/public sector reform?

What do you think so far of the Condems proposals to slash the debt (in terms of changes to the benefits system and reducing of the public sector)?

Do you agree or disagree with the Condem proposals to reduce the debt? 94 votes

I agree with the proposals
52% 49 votes
I disagree with the proposals
32% 31 votes
I'm undecided on whether I agree or disagree with the proposals
14% 14 votes
«13456

Comments

  • michaels
    michaels Posts: 29,213 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Slashing the deficit is being used as a smokescreen for reducing the share of the state in the national economy.

    In theory I am in favour of the govt only doing what the private sector won't.

    In reality trying to fix the deficit and make a fundamental shift in the economy at the same time is likely to result in avoidable suffering. Another example of the 5 year electoral cycle driving economic decision making rather than the long term interests of the country.
    I think....
  • purch
    purch Posts: 9,865 Forumite
    Is it not possible to call these the Governments proposals, rather than using the rather childish 'Condem' moniker ?
    'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'
  • silvercar
    silvercar Posts: 49,897 Ambassador
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Academoney Grad Name Dropper
    All a balance between those who cost the most (ie reliant on benefit) bearing most of the brunt and those that can afford to bear the costs doing so.
    I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    drc wrote: »
    What do you think so far of the Condems proposals to slash the debt (in terms of changes to the benefits system and reducing of the public sector)?

    What I think is not fit for printing on this forum. The Con-Dem approach to reducing the deficit is to inflict massive damage on public services and hit the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. One consolation for me is that at least now the irrelevant and pointless Lib-Dems will finally be buried in the next election.
  • I dunno yet. They haven't specifically stated what they will do. I shall maybe answer on 20th October :p

    To broad a question for a single answer anyway in all honesty.
  • FATBALLZ
    FATBALLZ Posts: 5,146 Forumite
    marklv wrote: »
    What I think is not fit for printing on this forum. The Con-Dem approach to reducing the deficit is to inflict massive damage on public services and hit the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. One consolation for me is that at least now the irrelevant and pointless Lib-Dems will finally be buried in the next election.

    How is it possible to cut spending without hitting the 'poorest' first, as inevitably the ones who actually use the services will be the ones who notice it, and these tend to be the poorer. Can we assume your alternative would be to put taxes up massively?
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    FATBALLZ wrote: »
    How is it possible to cut spending without hitting the 'poorest' first, as inevitably the ones who actually use the services will be the ones who notice it, and these tend to be the poorer. Can we assume your alternative would be to put taxes up massively?

    My alternative is to balance tax rises with cuts, the Con-Dem approach is to put 80% of the burden for deficit reduction on cuts alone, which is lunacy. The richest in society have done even better under Blair than they did with Thatcher, so it's time that they paid their fair share.
  • marklv wrote: »
    My alternative is to balance tax rises with cuts, the Con-Dem approach is to put 80% of the burden for deficit reduction on cuts alone, which is lunacy. The richest in society have done even better under Blair than they did with Thatcher, so it's time that they paid their fair share.

    But you would be dead set against them taking any type of fair share, wouldn't you ;)

    Remember, you can only take so much from people, before they take their resources elsewhere. The full burden of society cannot be paid for by the few. That's what a "fair share" is all about. You should just say "pay more", rather than talking about "fair".
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    But you would be dead set against them taking any type of fair share, wouldn't you ;)

    Remember, you can only take so much from people, before they take their resources elsewhere. The full burden of society cannot be paid for by the few. That's what a "fair share" is all about. You should just say "pay more", rather than talking about "fair".

    It's only right that those who have more should pay more - it stands to reason. I'm not just talking about the rich here, but the upper-middle strata who rake in the £100k+ household incomes.
  • Really2
    Really2 Posts: 12,397 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    marklv wrote: »
    It's only right that those who have more should pay more - it stands to reason.

    I agree, so with the public sector receiving so much money it stands to reason it takes a fair hit instead of just increasing taxes.

    Tax has gone up for the rich, public sector is now going to pay it's "fair share".
    Am I being cold? not really my wife finds out today if her public sector service is set to continue. She fully understands why cuts are being made, shame others cant see why the public sector is over blown.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.