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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
£16 billion in savings needs to be found
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »My point was really, how, when you give people money to "waste" themselves they generally do.
Whether it be Rangers, Wolves or Sky TV subscription it doesn't really advance society.
Well I'd prefer to waste my money on things of my choosing rather than give it to someone else to waste.
A system which hands money to people to waste doesn't seem to advance society or encourage them to earn their own money to waste.0 -
Yes I did. It comes from the public, the same place as the money to pay for the private sector. You and me, we pay for the meals on wheels, and we pay for the financiers' banquets at the Fat Duck.You did not answer the question as to where the money to pay for teh public sector comes from."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Well, let's see. If I buy a meal in a restaurant, I get some food to stuff in my own gob.That's not true. If you have the money you get to spend it on things that make you happier. You win.
If I give the money to the Sally Army, I get the knowledge that some other poor sods will get a cup of soup.
If I pay taxes, then in principle I get the knowledge that the money is spent for the public good, and what is good will be decided by the collective deliberations of people who know a lot of things that I don't.
Which of those things should make me happiest?
What if I'm an archbishop, or St Francis, or the Chief Rabbi?
Does your argument assume that my happiness revolves around possessions and pleasures and the belief that I always know best? A sign of the times, yes, but how sad. What we need isn't austerity, it's humanity."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Yes I did. It comes from the public, the same place as the money to pay for the private sector. You and me, we pay for the meals on wheels, and we pay for the financiers' banquets at the Fat Duck.
It only comes from the public in the private sector though. Public sector employees are not net contributors (in cash terms). We do need a public sector, but we need a private sector even more to pay for it.0 -
Well I'd prefer to waste my money on things of my choosing rather than give it to someone else to waste.
A system which hands money to people to waste doesn't seem to advance society or encourage them to earn their own money to waste.
I am glad you like to "waste" money on things of your choosing as at least 20% goes to the exchequer.
Things that are not necessary to life should be taxed more IMO if it means that things that are critical, shelter, fuel, food, water and basic essentials are taxed less or not at all.
Not everyone who gets handouts from society is a layabout or a scrounger by choice.
There are 2.5m unemployed in this country, there are not 2.5m spare jobs, closer to >0.5m? largely in the wrong place. If they concentrated more on creating jobs and wealth for the country as a whole then there would be alot less pressure on them to find savings.
Of course they could also concentrate on collecting unpaid tax too."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
What a strange and ludicrous statement. Why would they be? Why should they be? How could they be? For what it's worth, which is nothing, private-sector employees aren't net contributors to the private sector either.It only comes from the public in the private sector though. Public sector employees are not net contributors (in cash terms).
Private-sector employees get wages, pay taxes, and spend money in shops.
Public-sector employees do the same.
Through taxes, some of the money passing through wage packets (private and public) is recycled to pay public-sector wages next month.
Through spending in shops, some of the money passing through wage packets (private and public) is recycled to pay private-sector wages next month. Where else do you think private sector wages come from? The shareholders?
You seem to think the public sector is something that has to be "paid for", while the private sector isn't. But they both have wage costs and all the other operating costs. And they both generate value from what they spend. And they both generate revenue, one way or another. If university tuition "pays for itself" now that it collects fees at the till, it was just as much "paying for itself" when the political preference was to collect the money via the taxation route."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I am glad you like to "waste" money on things of your choosing as at least 20% goes to the exchequer.
Things that are not necessary to life should be taxed more IMO if it means that things that are critical, shelter, fuel, food, water and basic essentials are taxed less or not at all.
Not everyone who gets handouts from society is a layabout or a scrounger by choice.
There are 2.5m unemployed in this country, there are not 2.5m spare jobs, closer to >0.5m? largely in the wrong place. If they concentrated more on creating jobs and wealth for the country as a whole then there would be alot less pressure on them to find savings.
Of course they could also concentrate on collecting unpaid tax too.
We weren't talking about tax. We were talking about the difference between me buying a Rangers season ticket or buying one for someone else on benefits instead.
You seemed to be arguing that as the net effect to Rangers is the same I shouldn't have any concerns with the arrangement.
Don't know why you think 20% of the money I waste goes in tax - I spend all my spare cash on pornographic magazines and internet bingo.0 -
Don't know why you think 20% of the money I waste goes in tax - I spend all my spare cash on pornographic magazines and internet bingo.
Ideal candidates for a luxury VAT loophole to be closed."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It's very tempting to say that would be a good place to start. The government could run a TV advertising campaign in which the bad guys waste their money on a season ticket, which only brings them pain as they watch their team get humiliated and relegated, while the good guys put their money into ISAs and live happily ever after.grizzly1911 wrote: »Heard a guy, on benefits, talking about the Rangers debacle saying he wished it would get sorted out as he saving for his season ticket.
Carry on like that and we'd be sorted in no time.
But really, not everything of value comes in a box, and we do need to appreciate the value of intangibles. Somebody who hasn't got much else may feel that being a Rangers supporter is the only thing making his life worth living. Do we really want to see our fellow human beings (fellow-countrymen even, for the racists) reduced to an existence of bare subsistence, as if they were no more than animals?
Social cohesion is important as well. We complain enough when there's a shortage of it - Islamic enclaves, sectarian violence, racism in football, etc - so presumably it's worth spending money on things that bring people together."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
What a strange and ludicrous statement. Why would they be? Why should they be? How could they be? For what it's worth, which is nothing, private-sector employees aren't net contributors to the private sector either.
Private-sector employees get wages, pay taxes, and spend money in shops.
Public-sector employees do the same.
Through taxes, some of the money passing through wage packets (private and public) is recycled to pay public-sector wages next month.
Through spending in shops, some of the money passing through wage packets (private and public) is recycled to pay private-sector wages next month. Where else do you think private sector wages come from? The shareholders?
You seem to think the public sector is something that has to be "paid for", while the private sector isn't. But they both have wage costs and all the other operating costs. And they both generate value from what they spend. And they both generate revenue, one way or another. If university tuition "pays for itself" now that it collects fees at the till, it was just as much "paying for itself" when the political preference was to collect the money via the taxation route.
Bottom line is a private sector could survive without a public sector. A public sector could not survive without the private sector. It would not be pleasant, but the public sector is a cost.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards