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

A._Badger

marklv wrote: »

Nobody forces the 4X4 driving classes to send their kids to private school or pay £80 a month for private health and a similar amount each for gym membership, gold club membership, spa club membership etc. They do all this out of choice. If they were more conservative with their money instead of squandering it on inessentials they would be really well off, instead they moan about high taxes and the increasing cost of facials [sigh].

You've not quite grasped the concept of 'It's my money. I worked for it' yet, have you?

marklv

A._Badger wrote: »

You've not quite grasped the concept of 'It's my money. I worked for it' yet, have you?

I do know that an idiot and his money are soon parted - that much I do know.

neverdespairgirl

marklv wrote: »

Nobody forces the 4X4 driving classes to send their kids to private school or pay £80 a month for private health and a similar amount each for gym membership, gold club membership, spa club membership etc. They do all this out of choice. If they were more conservative with their money instead of squandering it on inessentials they would be really well off, instead they moan about high taxes and the increasing cost of facials [sigh].

Of course they choose to.

But it can hardly be said that they aren't "paying their fair share" when they are contributing a lot and drawing out little. On a household income of £100k a year, you'd be unlikely to own a new 4 x 4 and send children to private school and health insurance and all the rest of it.

PasturesNew

If I earnt £100k/year, I'd take home £65,311/year. *swoons*

Out of that I'd really live the high life, do stuff, have holidays, spend, spend, spend ... and save £50k of it every year, minimum.

God I'd have loads of stuff. I'd have a holiday home and .. er, shiny things... and do courses in interesting things. I'd even get an iPhone (or similar). And have one of those TV thingies that records things.

neverdespairgirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

If I earnt £100k/year, I'd take home £65,311/year. *swoons*

Out of that I'd really live the high life, do stuff, have holidays, spend, spend, spend ... and save £50k of it every year, minimum.

God I'd have loads of stuff. I'd have a holiday home and .. er, shiny things... and do courses in interesting things. I'd even get an iPhone (or similar). And have one of those TV thingies that records things.

there's only one of you, though. So you need to spend less on accommodation, and nothing on things like childcare, and only one person's travel / clothes / work costs.

If you are a London family, you'll spend quite a bit on housing, council tax, travel, work clothes (jobs for £50k+ tend to demand quite pricey clothing, for example), childcare, all the rest of it.

Physio88

It doesn't make sense that the proposed public sector cuts are going to be taking more jobs away from people who could be working, and putting them on benefits which are also going to be cut. The end result is going to be fewer people paying tax and more people claiming benefits, how can this possibly work? I know the conservatives have ruined this country before...but their current proposals seem to be aiming to do it intentionally.

smamst

Don't forget comrades and Land owners, it was the banks greed to lend to greedy people that got us in this mess.

Really2

Physio88 wrote: »

are going to be taking more jobs away from people who could be working, and putting them on benefits which are also going to be cut. The end result is going to be fewer people paying tax and more people claiming benefits,

Benefits are a lot less than a full time wage even in the worse case and no one found a job it is cheaper to have them on benefits.
But you would hope the redundant people would try to find work, presumably that was not tax payer funded.

tomterm8

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)?

We won't know enough to answer this question til october 20th.

What they have done so far is, frankly, quite minimal... they've cut projects that never really existed, and screwed the poor a little. On october 20th, they announce how they will screw everyone else.

blueboy43

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It does stand to reason. Hence, they pay 40% tax, soon to be 50% tax, on their income over the higher-rate threshold.

They usually consume less in terms of public resources, too. Likely to have private health insurance, or private education for their children, less likely to claim a whole range of benefits.

Or

Much more likely to have heavily subsidised higher education for their children.

Or

Likely to live significantly longer drawing a state pension. (life expectancy many years longer say comparing Dorest with Glasgow).