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!
Question Time
Comments
-
if only the government had the same intentions. i would do things slightly differently, rather than stopping giving anymore money at 3 kids i would just give less money per kid.Well for a start what about the example I gave. It would be very difficult to tell if someone wanted to work or didn’t so they should be given the minimum regardless. But there are categories of benefits which could be cut without putting people in genuine poverty and they should be looked at. If someone already on benefits has 3 children I don’t think they should be give another £60 a week and possibly the right to a larger house.0 -
its not someone else must pay its those who can afford to pay the most should take the majority of the pain.chewmylegoff wrote: »
Your viewpoint is just "not fair, someone else must pay, keep increasing benefits". I expect I might feel the same if I was in receipt of benefits, but the reality is that the only viable way to bring the deficit under control is to increase taxes AND cut public spending including benefits.
1. we have benefit cuts that affect those at the bottom.
2. we have tax rises that affect everyone.
3. we dont seem to have many tax rises that just affect those with more money.0 -
donnajunkie wrote: »3. we dont seem to have many tax rises that just affect those with more money.
Because its self defeating.
Why are the affluent French now heading for London?0 -
donnajunkie wrote: »if only the government had the same intentions. i would do things slightly differently, rather than stopping giving anymore money at 3 kids i would just give less money per kid.
The cost of subsequent kids is less than the first kid. After the cap you could still get £500 a week you would need to earn £34,000 a year to get that. When you consider the median full time salary is £25,900 I can’t see that the cap is to low.0 -
donnajunkie wrote: »its not someone else must pay its those who can afford to pay the most should take the majority of the pain.
1. we have benefit cuts that affect those at the bottom.
2. we have tax rises that affect everyone.
3. we dont seem to have many tax rises that just affect those with more money.
What apart from the new top rate of tax? (and the fact that, as you keep trying to ignore, the indirect tax increases affect those with more money the most).
You would have to increase the 40% band of tax to about 200% to clear the deficit - I think you can't probably understand why this wouldn't work in practice. This is the whole point, there are not enough rich people to tax, you have to tax the richer people more and cut benefits, it isn't a one or the other solution. There isn't a magic money tree...0 -
donnajunkie wrote: »yes but it has only been recently that immigration has been connected with keeping british people out of work. people say it is because they like being on benefits. so i pointed out how benefits have been in existence alot longer.
Disagree. The jewish families (mainly tailors/from the textile trade) were all alleged to be putting british people out of jobs. Thiose from abroad are always deemed to be a threat.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »Disagree. The jewish families (mainly tailors/from the textile trade) were all alleged to be putting british people out of jobs. Thiose from abroad are always deemed to be a threat.
I agree they have always been deemed a "threat" real or perceived.
In the earlier days of immigration often they would tend to concentrate in certain areas of particular cities/town and focus around their own communities.
Perhaps European immigrants are spreading further and wider so becoming more evident? Perhaps it is because jobs for everyone are becoming difficult to find?
."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 -
donnajunkie wrote: »its not someone else must pay its those who can afford to pay the most should take the majority of the pain.
1. we have benefit cuts that affect those at the bottom.
2. we have tax rises that affect everyone.
3. we dont seem to have many tax rises that just affect those with more money.
1. Why should it be assumed that benefit cuts affect only those at the bottom. Children's allowance for wealthier families ? Also though it's hard to get firm data because every case is different, it's pretty obvious that some are drawing more on benefits than others in the same circumstances are earning by working -- that's the knub of the problem (please don't come back with another of these unreasoned, parrot-like replies along the lines, "Believe me it's just those at the bottom" -- it's so tedious).
2/3 Those with more money already pay more tax, because income tax is weighed on all income over the allowances, and only the better off pay the higher rates. The comments savour of the tired old hard socialist notion that you just keep taxing the better off until you achieve equality of outcome for everyone. That's Planet Zog economics which has never worked anywhere, ever -- never can, and never will.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »1. Why should it be assumed that benefit cuts affect only those at the bottom. Children's allowance for wealthier families ? Also though it's hard to get firm data because every case is different, it's pretty obvious that some are drawing more on benefits than others in the same circumstances are earning by working -- that's the knub of the problem (please don't come back with another of these unreasoned, parrot-like replies along the lines, "Believe me it's just those at the bottom" -- it's so tedious).
Buy making un targeted broad attacks on on benefits though it is the people in the middle that hit disproportionately hard as working becomes less and less worthwhile. Those totally reliant are impacted less relatively..
Article on child poverty/ not eating/ impact on education on the BBC R5L commentator who specialised in the field made exactly that point.
Those wholly on benefit were largely shielded from it (where parents actually prioritised ), whilst those who worked, but earned marginal income couldn't actually access appropriate benefits and suffered as a consequence."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 -
Going back to the OP.
QT last night was awful apart from Lawson and Johnson who brought some sense and maturity..
At least many of the guest mentioned earlier in the thread actually make coherent points even if you disagree with them John Lydon was pointless and incoherent.
Quite like the butter advert though."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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
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