George Osborne warns £25bn more cuts needed

SailorSam

spacey2012 wrote: »

How much is the Foreign aid budget ?
I mean the real one.

I would have thought he could find a lot of this at the stroke of a pen and gain support of most of the country in one move.
Let India and Pakistan pay for their own space rockets.
We are supposed to be skint.

Plenty of others that money can be found for as well ........ Nuclear Defence None of these missoles will ever be used.
This new supa-train how much is that costing at a time of cuts.
Osbourne could make his savings without hitting the poor.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

And why id that party feel the need to pump money into the system?

Because thousands of people who were unable to work were working thus the vast increase in disability benefit during Labour's time in office?

Now that would beg the question how all these unable to work people were doing something they are incapable of doing? Or is it that we had a wave of disabling injuries during the Labour government, and if so why wasn't it in the news?

N1AK

SailorSam wrote: »

Plenty of others that money can be found for as well ........ Nuclear Defence None of these missoles will ever be used.
This new supa-train how much is that costing at a time of cuts.
Osbourne could make his savings without hitting the poor.

Don't spend money on HS2 and you'd still need to spend money on increasing capacity on other lines so the saving would be far less than the HS2 budget... Furthermore, the majority of comments on using the HS2 saving to decrease the cuts have been comparing £50 billion to £25 billion pa. In practice dropping HS2 and spending half as much on welfare instead would provide £1 billion pa. Thus we'd still need £24 billion in cuts or tax rises.

I'd be entirely in favour of joining into a European programme of nuclear defence in order to decrease what we spend on it. I'm not entirely sure that I'd be in favour of dropping nuclear weapons completely.

Sibley

We need to stop all benefits.

That is the answer.

SailorSam

ALL benefits ?
Are you including pensions ?

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

In order to win elections. Why else would you increase benefit spending during a boom?

Certainly A reason I guess that is why Osborne pledged to maintain it and introduce the £1m Inheritance Tax break and rapidly moved to reduce income tax for higher earners. Not to mention RTB under a previous administration.


Absolutely nothing to do with chronic under investment by by previous administrations or poorly conceived ideas to keep people working, in accommodation, shuffle the tax take, fight some cross party supported wars and foreign aid payments?

Those pesky polticans eh.

Never mind the roof will soon get some much needed repairs, house prices are going up, employment is falling, GDP rising and PMI numbers all looking positive what could possibly go wrong?

SailorSam

N1AK wrote: »

Don't spend money on HS2 and you'd still need to spend money on increasing capacity on other lines so the saving would be far less than the HS2 budget... Furthermore, the majority of comments on using the HS2 saving to decrease the cuts have been comparing £50 billion to £25 billion pa. In practice dropping HS2 and spending half as much on welfare instead would provide £1 billion pa. Thus we'd still need £24 billion in cuts or tax rises.

It's not just the money that HS2 is costing or the benefits it may bring but it's going to devide the nation even more.
More industry will move to the south leaving even more in the north depending upon a life living on benefits. Those living near to where these trains stop may find they do well, but if you're not in that area work will move away.

JencParker

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Chalk and Cheese.

Pensioners (who had children) already received their child benefit, although years ago it was less generous and only applied from child 2 onwards.

Pensions are a different type of benefit altogether. Paid to everyone, subject to having met NI qualifications. Pensioners, as a group, have already been "dealt with" to an extent, by raising the retirement age.

Birth rate (per 1000 of population) runs in the order of 11 to 12, although it ramped up 16% in 2010 and is now running above 12.

Death rate (per 1000 of population) runs at below 10, although was above 10 at the start of the century.

That looks perfectly OK to me.

If we believe that birth rate will susbstantially continue without child benefit (as I do) do not need to fear removing child benefit.

If we believe that birth rate would significantly drop without child benefit, then we are effectively admitting that many people have children for [short term] economic reasons. I happen to believe this is not a good idea.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Child benefit is not enough to raise a child - if you were referring to child tax credits, then that would be different.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Because thousands of people who were unable to work were working thus the vast increase in disability benefit during Labour's time in office?

Now that would beg the question how all these unable to work people were doing something they are incapable of doing? Or is it that we had a wave of disabling injuries during the Labour government, and if so why wasn't it in the news?

Look on the bright side it brought the unemployment figures down something tells me AN Other party wouldn't be to keen to see it classified as unemployment.

MS1950

N1AK wrote: »

Because thousands of people who were unable to work were working thus the vast increase in disability benefit during Labour's time in office?

Now that would beg the question how all these unable to work people were doing something they are incapable of doing? Or is it that we had a wave of disabling injuries during the Labour government, and if so why wasn't it in the news?

http://wpeg.group.shef.ac.uk/Archive/papers2007/47AnyadikeDanes.pdf

(page 5)

“the evolution of the IB register

the ’history’ of working age men (16 to 64 year old) on IVB/IB divides quite neatly into three periods.

1. From its beginning in 1971 and up to the end of the first half of the 1980s there were around 750,000 men on IVB/IB.

2. A decade of steep growth (1987 to 1996) doubled numbers (growth averaged 10% per annum).

3. Growth stopped in 1996, and the register has since remained at or around 1.5 million.

The history of working age women (16-59) on IVB/IB, broadly parallels that of men, but with numbers around 500,000 lower.

1. An early phase with around 250,000 claimants.

2. A growth phase (1987 to 1996) during which claimant numbers tripled from 250,000 to 750,000.

3. Slower growth since 1996”.