Student protests

[bighairyfaeleith]

Give up any means of employment that pays over the trigger threshold?!?

Can't see this being a realistic 'get out' but it wouldn't be the first time a student remains in education in perpetuity. I went to school with a chap who left high school in '92, he started uni that summer and is still there, he has (IIRC) 3 degrees and a couple of doctorates/PHD's, very clever guy but probably wouldn't want, nor could he hold down, a meaningful well paid job.

Yeah that would work right enough, I reckon if there was free degrees you should only be able to get one then you pay for anything over and above.

[bighairyfaeleith]

There's an element of going round in circles here.

How about a more radical idea where, we please everyone and dont charge for education across the UK, just as it is here in Scotland.

How do we do this? Why not start by not wasting money elsewhere that we dont NEED to waste....for example, renewing an utterly pointless nuclear "deterent" that we're unlikely to ever want or need to use. And if we DO use it, we're all ****ed anyway. So, lets no have it.

**** it. Lets take the chance all out nuclear war WONT happen..........we'll use THAT money for starters. With the change, we'll invest in mair schools, doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists and all the other **** we DO actually need and ARE likely to want going forward?

Thats 1 ****ty waste of money...if someone, who had the time, could sit down and go through EVERY piece of Government expenditure from the moat cleaning expenses to the entire defence/attack/every other budget...we'd save a ****ing fortune.

Only pre-requisite for the job...job holder must possess a brain, common sense and be a-political, impartial and only looking at what we NEED.........

Far too ****ing radical tho.:grr:

It's alright mate cos the lib dems have got the decision on trident delayed until after the next election, that way they don't have to stand up to the tories. **** all use to anyone ofcourse but it helps clegg keep his jag!!

[RyeSloan]

graduate tax.

What does this actually entail? Why is is fairer than current propsals?




scottish set-up
welsh set-up

How sustainable are these? How will these set ups provide the extra finance they Scottish and Welsh Uni' say will be needed to ensure they can compete against the worlds best and maintain their standards? Is the money being provided out of the public purse sustainable in the long run?



tax top 300 FTSE busineses 1% of profits (green policy i think)


Ring fenced taxation on FTSE 300 companies above and beyond standard Corp Tax? This is daft and a total non starter of a policy.

[hibsbollah]

Ring fenced taxation on FTSE 300 companies above and beyond standard Corp Tax? This is daft and a total non starter of a policy.



Why is it 'daft'? I hope you're not suggesting it would hit their profits and make their business unsustainable? A significant proportion of Top 100 companies pay no corporation tax anyway due to avoidance schemes (Tesco, Vodaphone, News Corp to name but a few).

[Leicester Fan]

Why is it 'daft'? I hope you're not suggesting it would hit their profits and make their business unsustainable? A significant proportion of Top 100 companies pay no corporation tax anyway due to avoidance schemes (Tesco, Vodaphone, News Corp to name but a few).

What happens when a company drops out of the FTSE300, should they stop paying that tax? What about the company that replaces them, should they be hit with an extra tax because their share price has gone up? Don't you think there are ways of manipulating share prices?

[Beefster]

On the day that the latest rise in unemployment is announced, folk want to put a bigger tax burden on the very businesses that we need to create jobs. You couldn't make it up.

[RyeSloan]

Why is it 'daft'? I hope you're not suggesting it would hit their profits and make their business unsustainable? A significant proportion of Top 100 companies pay no corporation tax anyway due to avoidance schemes (Tesco, Vodaphone, News Corp to name but a few).

Do I really need to detail why I think it's daft linking FE funding to a ring fenced tax on profits made by 300 companies?

OK it's daft because:

There is no certainty on what tax take this would produce on a annual basis

Ring fencing of tax revenue is a dangerous precendent...where would it stop?

Corp Tax already exists to tax these businesses, this would require addtional legislation, enforcement and collection...hardly an efficient way to raise revenue.

Tax on corporations IS a significant factor in economic growth and inward investment, just ask Intel and the like why they are in Ireland and not Scotland.

Why should the top 300 companies (by market cap, not profits nor employees nor turnover) be expected to pay for FE education, where is the link?

Why should it only be publicly listed companies that pay this tax, why not large private organisations?

The list could go on but you get my drift, essentially it's a daft idea.

While I appreciate that a lot of big name companies may very well be creative in trying to avoid it (who isn't?) once look at the Tesco accounts shows £840m tax on £3.2bn of profit.....Large corporation taxation avoidance isn't just a UK problem though, there is considerable global issues on taxing companies overseas earnings.

Considering the last paragraph and the current and ongoing issues of tax collection on large corporations it makes creating an additional tax on these entities and then basing our FE eduction on the revenue even more strange I would say!

[Phil D. Rolls]

On the day that the latest rise in unemployment is announced, folk want to put a bigger tax burden on the very businesses that we need to create jobs. You couldn't make it up.

:faf:

[bighairyfaeleith]

On the day that the latest rise in unemployment is announced, folk want to put a bigger tax burden on the very businesses that we need to create jobs. You couldn't make it up.

Unemployment in scotland fell today, and our unis are free:greengrin

[Beefster]

Unemployment in scotland fell today, and our unis are free:greengrin

The SNP - economic gods. Who'da thunk it!

[Ants]

We all know what we are getting into once we decide our job prospects.

Study = uni = prospects of shi-t loads of money = expect others to pay.
Dinnae study = normal living = pay your own bills.
dinnae go to school = dinnae pay anything = its all paid for you.

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=hibsdaft;2660306]this is pretty ****ed up, and the line of questioning from a journalist i used to respect is pretty sick too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo&feature=youtu.be[/QU



Shameful from the BBC. 'There's a suggestion you were rolling towards the Police'. :bitchy:

[Sylar]

Glad to read that the Scottish Government are looking at imposing this rise in tuition fees for non-Scottish UK students.

My gut instinct when they announced the rise (other than disappointment) was that the Scottish government would need to do something to protect places at Scottish Universities for Scottish students, as the position seemed to suggest that if other UK based students came to Scotland, they would only pay the current rate (£1900), which would see a surge in applications to Universities up here.

They're also considering implementing a "graduate tax" - seems I've been VERY fortunate to have benefitted from free tuition, no endowment fee and now no post-graduation taxation.

[Beefster]

[QUOTE=hibsdaft;2660306]this is pretty ****ed up, and the line of questioning from a journalist i used to respect is pretty sick too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo&feature=youtu.be[/QU



Shameful from the BBC. 'There's a suggestion you were rolling towards the Police'. :bitchy:

Seemingly tried to assault a policeman earlier.

http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655

[hibsbollah]

Do I really need to detail why I think it's daft linking FE funding to a ring fenced tax on profits made by 300 companies?

OK it's daft because:

There is no certainty on what tax take this would produce on a annual basis

Ring fencing of tax revenue is a dangerous precendent...where would it stop?

Corp Tax already exists to tax these businesses, this would require addtional legislation, enforcement and collection...hardly an efficient way to raise revenue.

Tax on corporations IS a significant factor in economic growth and inward investment, just ask Intel and the like why they are in Ireland and not Scotland.

Why should the top 300 companies (by market cap, not profits nor employees nor turnover) be expected to pay for FE education, where is the link?

Why should it only be publicly listed companies that pay this tax, why not large private organisations?

The list could go on but you get my drift, essentially it's a daft idea.

While I appreciate that a lot of big name companies may very well be creative in trying to avoid it (who isn't?) once look at the Tesco accounts shows £840m tax on £3.2bn of profit.....Large corporation taxation avoidance isn't just a UK problem though, there is considerable global issues on taxing companies overseas earnings.

Considering the last paragraph and the current and ongoing issues of tax collection on large corporations it makes creating an additional tax on these entities and then basing our FE eduction on the revenue even more strange I would say!

Thanks for your response, even if it was a bit grudging:wink:

Lets be clear, companies choose where they invest based on a range of factors, but most important is the proximity to local and international markets. The fiscal regime in the host country is NOT the most important factor in most cases. The UK has the 2nd lowest corporation tax rates among Western economies (if you take tax avoidance into account, top 300 UK companies pay 22% tax, less than most small companies do) only just behind Ireland. You seem to be suggesting that we indulge in a 'race to the bottom' with Ireland in this respect in order to attract investment:confused: is this the only fiscal policy choice we have? Wouldn't promoting a well-skilled domestic workforce, trained in quality universities with students from all social groups, as is the case in most of continental Europe, be a valid policy?

The facts in the situation are this. We are being asked to swallow the myth that 'we're all in this together' while consecutive Coalition announcements demonstrate the exact opposite is the case. There is a massive democratic deficit in this country, and (even if you would prefer it wasnt) the issues of student debt, Government debt, bankers bailouts and Lib Dem policy U-turns are all interlinked. Its an issue of fairness as well as economic competence.

[Beefster]

Thanks for your response, even if it was a bit grudging:wink:

Lets be clear, companies choose where they invest based on a range of factors, but most important is the proximity to local and international markets. The fiscal regime in the host country is NOT the most important factor in most cases. The UK has the 2nd lowest corporation tax rates among Western economies (if you take tax avoidance into account, top 300 UK companies pay 22% tax, less than most small companies do) only just behind Ireland. You seem to be suggesting that we indulge in a 'race to the bottom' with Ireland in this respect in order to attract investment:confused: is this the only fiscal policy choice we have? Wouldn't promoting a well-skilled domestic workforce, trained in quality universities with students from all social groups, as is the case in most of continental Europe, be a valid policy?

The facts in the situation are this. We are being asked to swallow the myth that 'we're all in this together' while consecutive Coalition announcements demonstrate the exact opposite is the case. There is a massive democratic deficit in this country, and (even if you would prefer it wasnt) the issues of student debt, Government debt, bankers bailouts and Lib Dem policy U-turns are all interlinked. Its an issue of fairness as well as economic competence.

Even if companies were taxed more, is free higher education really the priority before increased investment in primary/secondary education, reducing crime, reducing poverty, the NHS, looking after the old and infirm, transport infrastructure and social housing?

I would have thought that, of all the population looking for the State's financial assistance, graduates earning > £21k per annum are amongst those who need the help least.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Even if companies were taxed more, is free higher education really the priority before increased investment in primary/secondary education, reducing crime, reducing poverty, the NHS, looking after the old and infirm, transport infrastructure and social housing?

I would have thought that, of all the population looking for the State's financial assistance, graduates earning > £21k per annum are amongst those who need the help least.

:confused: are they investing in any of that??

[RyeSloan]

Thanks for your response, even if it was a bit grudging:wink:

Lets be clear, companies choose where they invest based on a range of factors, but most important is the proximity to local and international markets. The fiscal regime in the host country is NOT the most important factor in most cases. The UK has the 2nd lowest corporation tax rates among Western economies (if you take tax avoidance into account, top 300 UK companies pay 22% tax, less than most small companies do) only just behind Ireland. You seem to be suggesting that we indulge in a 'race to the bottom' with Ireland in this respect in order to attract investment:confused: is this the only fiscal policy choice we have? Wouldn't promoting a well-skilled domestic workforce, trained in quality universities with students from all social groups, as is the case in most of continental Europe, be a valid policy?

The facts in the situation are this. We are being asked to swallow the myth that 'we're all in this together' while consecutive Coalition announcements demonstrate the exact opposite is the case. There is a massive democratic deficit in this country, and (even if you would prefer it wasnt) the issues of student debt, Government debt, bankers bailouts and Lib Dem policy U-turns are all interlinked. Its an issue of fairness as well as economic competence.

Oh that's not me being grudging...should see me when my cousin turns up for a pint without his wallet AGAIN :greengrin

As for your 'race to the bottom' I never suggested that or anything remotely close to that. I merely stated that overall tax burdens on companies is a factor in where they decide to domicile themselves. That's a fact, pure and simple.

I also only mentioned this as ONE of a number of reasons as to why I thought additonal tax on the biggest 300 publicly traded companies (by market cap) was a daft idea in terms of funding FE in the UK...did you read the rest of them and see my point?

I'm also unsure as to why I would wish to think that funding for FE education was not linked to government debt levels. Surely the fact that the coalition is making this move and the fact the UK has a record deficit are obviously interlinked...I would suggest the debate would be quite different if the Govt were sitting on a massive, ever growing, surplus.

I'm very interested in the fairness of this policy, that's exactly why I was asking what the credible alternatives were. The answer so far seems to be maintaining or increasing public subsidy, a graduate tax (for which I've not seen any strong arguments showing how this would be so much fairer) or the daft tax plan....none of these seem to be especially practical in addressing the situation as it stands so while I agree entirely that it's "an issue of fairness as well as economic competence" I have yet to see why the coalition proposal doesn't meet these requirements, or more to the point how any alternative does so in a better way.

[Beefster]

:confused: are they investing in any of that??

Are you asking if tax revenue gets spent on the things I mentioned?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Are you asking if tax revenue gets spent on the things I mentioned?

:greengrin you know what I meant

[Mibbes Aye]

On the day that the latest rise in unemployment is announced, folk want to put a bigger tax burden on the very businesses that we need to create jobs. You couldn't make it up.

And in January, George Osborne will put a bigger tax burden on everyone by hiking up the cost of buying goods from those very same businesses.

You're right. You couldn't make it up.

[bighairyfaeleith]

And in January, George Osborne will put a bigger tax burden on everyone by hiking up the cost of buying goods from those very same businesses.

You're right. You couldn't make it up.

Aye on the same day the IFS say Osbourne is going to put another 200000 children into poverty. The first time in 15 years more children will have went into poverty than came out.

My how I have missed the Tories.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Am I right in saying that, we can charge English students to learn in Scotland because we are effectively one country. However we cannot charge EU students due to EU law and because they are from other EU countries.

So if we became independent English students could study here for free?

[Beefster]

Am I right in saying that, we can charge English students to learn in Scotland because we are effectively one country. However we cannot charge EU students due to EU law and because they are from other EU countries.

So if we became independent English students could study here for free?

If we were independent within the EU, students from the rest of the UK would have to be treated the same as Scottish students.

[bighairyfaeleith]

If we were independent within the EU, students from the rest of the UK would have to be treated the same as Scottish students.

I thought that was right, cheers

[easty]

Am I right in saying that, we can charge English students to learn in Scotland because we are effectively one country. However we cannot charge EU students due to EU law and because they are from other EU countries.So if we became independent English students could study here for free?

I had never heard of that before a couple of days ago. It surprised me (well it did and it didn't, in that with all the bloody EU laws/regulations very little actually surpises me). I think it's ridiculous though, free uni in Scotland should be for us and us only.

That isn't to say I feel uni should necessarily be free for us, that's another point entirely.

[Bad Martini]

That would depend on whether or not, when we vote for independence, we remove ourselves from the financial drain and general PITA that is "europe"...which would require a further referendum, but IMHO, wouldn't be a bad idea to vote on too.....

Do both, and we can charge who we want, how much we want, when we want.

A marvellous idea.

Note: when I say "remove ourselves from Europe" I obviously am making no reference to hauling out some JCB's and physically extracting the land mass known as Scotland from the continent of Europe...merely cutting our deal with the EU/EEC/WTF :greengrin .... if we DID go doon that route, if I may suggest we are replanted somewhere warm, nae wind with plenty natural resources and nae stupid annoying neighbours....somewhere near the Equator for example. Plant us next to Tenerife, that'd dae fine :greengrin

[Beefster]

That would depend on whether or not, when we vote for independence, we remove ourselves from the financial drain and general PITA that is "europe"...which would require a further referendum, but IMHO, wouldn't be a bad idea to vote on too.....

Do both, and we can charge who we want, how much we want, when we want.

A marvellous idea.

Note: when I say "remove ourselves from Europe" I obviously am making no reference to hauling out some JCB's and physically extracting the land mass known as Scotland from the continent of Europe...merely cutting our deal with the EU/EEC/WTF :greengrin .... if we DID go doon that route, if I may suggest we are replanted somewhere warm, nae wind with plenty natural resources and nae stupid annoying neighbours....somewhere near the Equator for example. Plant us next to Tenerife, that'd dae fine :greengrin

Without taking the thread off-topic, if we hadn't been in the UK or EU when the banking crisis began, we'd have been absolutely goosed. Worse than Iceland - who are now trying to get into the EU.

[RyeSloan]

And in January, George Osborne will put a bigger tax burden on everyone by hiking up the cost of buying goods from those very same businesses.

You're right. You couldn't make it up.

Mibbes Aye - The person who opposes budget cuts AND tax rises while the nations debt continues to grow

You're right. You couldn't make it up :greengrin

[speedy_gonzales]

Without taking the thread off-topic, if we hadn't been in the UK or EU when the banking crisis began, we'd have been absolutely goosed. Worse than Iceland - who are now trying to get into the EU.

,,,but would we? We'll never know but perhaps our government spending/investing, local authority fiscal management, would have been different?
It was only in the news a couple of days ago but it was mentioned that a vast percentage of the bail-out to RBS (80/90%) would have had to come from London/England as that is where the investments/failures were made! Only one case but I s'pose we'll just never know!

[bighairyfaeleith]

,,,but would we? We'll never know but perhaps our government spending/investing, local authority fiscal management, would have been different?
It was only in the news a couple of days ago but it was mentioned that a vast percentage of the bail-out to RBS (80/90%) would have had to come from London/England as that is where the investments/failures were made! Only one case but I s'pose we'll just never know!

If we where independant say ten years ago then more than likely RBS and HBOS would have moved there HQ's because London would have been too competitive so actually it is very unlikely that scotland would have footed the bill.

Just been watching newsnight and the lib dems desperate attempts to divert us from uni fees back to banking is really giving me the boak.

[Mibbes Aye]

Mibbes Aye - The person who opposes budget cuts AND tax rises while the nations debt continues to grow

You're right. You couldn't make it up :greengrin

Unfair :rolleyes: :greengrin

You've seen me post, acknowledging that some areas could and should be cut.

And if you've not seen me post this, rest assured I think there's room for certain tax rises.

It's pretty sickening and pretty false though, when the argument is that we must not increase tax on businesses making profits from people in a recession, but it's okay to tax ordinary people more, when they have to buy goods from those businesses.

Especially when that tax hits our pensioners and the unwaged harder.

Trickledown economics doesn't work. If there's scope for tax breaks, then let's see it directed to everyone and benefit the disadvantaged most, by not increasing VAT in January.

[Beefster]

Trickledown economics doesn't work. If there's scope for tax breaks, then let's see it directed to everyone and benefit the disadvantaged most, by not increasing VAT in January.

Possibly something like increasing the tax threshold and taking another million out of income tax?

[Leicester Fan]

Possibly something like increasing the tax threshold and taking another million out of income tax?

The evil Tory *******s.:greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Possibly something like increasing the tax threshold and taking another million out of income tax?

Do you not need a job to benefit from this though, given the amount of people the tories are making unemployed it could be perceived as a sick joke:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Possibly something like increasing the tax threshold and taking another million out of income tax?
We've been here before. It sounds great on the surface but in truth it affects people who were only paying tax on a tiny proportion of their income anyway.
The VAT rise in January more than wipes it out.
And of course, pensioners and the unwaged get all the pain of the VAT rise and none of the minor gain from income tax.

So how does that square wth 'sharing the pain' or those with the broadest shoulders bearing the biggest burden?

Looks to me like pensioners and folk who have lost their jobs are being hit harder, wouldn't you agree?

[Beefster]

We've been here before. It sounds great on the surface but in truth it affects people who were only paying tax on a tiny proportion of their income anyway.
The VAT rise in January more than wipes it out.
And of course, pensioners and the unwaged get all the pain of the VAT rise and none of the minor gain from income tax.

So how does that square wth 'sharing the pain' or those with the broadest shoulders bearing the biggest burden?

Looks to me like pensioners and folk who have lost their jobs are being hit harder, wouldn't you agree?

You're going to have to be consistent. You were talking about tax breaks being aimed at everyone and I gave you one. It's not very good form to just ignore the bits you want but use the rest as a stick to beat something with.

The tax threshold is going to continue to rise, taking even more people out of tax. I don't think further VAT rises have been announced.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're going to have to be consistent. You were talking about tax breaks being aimed at everyone and I gave you one. It's not very good form to just ignore the bits you want but use the rest as a stick to beat something with.

The tax threshold is going to continue to rise, taking even more people out of tax. I don't think further VAT rises have been announced.

That's a guarantee is it? Given the broken Tory promises on NHS funding; on the EMA; on child benefit and on knife crime, how can you be so sure? What services are going to be cut to find the money?

And please do explain how an adjustment to income tax thresholds is aimed at people who don't pay income tax, like the pensioners or people who have just been made redundant?

[Beefster]

That's a guarantee is it? Given the broken Tory promises on NHS funding; on the EMA; on child benefit and on knife crime, how can you be so sure? What services are going to be cut to find the money?

And please do explain how an adjustment to income tax thresholds is aimed at people who don't pay income tax, like the pensioners or people who have just been made redundant?

You want benefits to go up?

PS We should move this to the 'Better Way' thread.

[Mibbes Aye]

You want benefits to go up?

PS We should move this to the 'Better Way' thread.

You said you had a tax break aimed at everyone.

How do pensioners and the unwaged gain from an adjustment to the income tax threshhold?

And getting back to your claim that the income tax threshhold will rise, given the broken Tory promises on NHS funding; on the EMA; on child benefit and on knife crime, how can you be so sure?

What services are going to be cut to find the money?

Agree with you, this should be on the other thread.....

[RyeSloan]

Unfair :rolleyes: :greengrin

You've seen me post, acknowledging that some areas could and should be cut.

And if you've not seen me post this, rest assured I think there's room for certain tax rises.

It's pretty sickening and pretty false though, when the argument is that we must not increase tax on businesses making profits from people in a recession, but it's okay to tax ordinary people more, when they have to buy goods from those businesses.

Especially when that tax hits our pensioners and the unwaged harder.

Trickledown economics doesn't work. If there's scope for tax breaks, then let's see it directed to everyone and benefit the disadvantaged most, by not increasing VAT in January.

Your "room for certain tax rises" is not enough though is it...you seem to be suggesting the Tories are simply raising taxes and cutting benefits for a laugh or as part of some evil grand plan to destory the workers.

Again you use total generalisations to make yout point "Especially when that tax hits our pensioners and the unwaged harder"

What is the average income of pensioners? From the ONA:

"In 2008/09, pensioner couples received average income of £564 per week, compared with £304 per week for single men and £264 per week for single women"

So on average pensioners WILL benefit from any tax code changes....since they pay tax on their income like everyone else.

It's also a bit disingenuios to suggest that an across the board rise in a consumption tax is actaully a targeted tax rise on the poorest. Considering the VAT rise will not effect:

Basic foodstuffs
Domestic Fuel bills
Newspapers and Book
Baby Products
Insurance Services
Prescriptions
Provision of health services
Burial (this one is for your pensioners)
Welfare Services provided by charities at below cost

The list goes on.


Again you are busy painting the worst case possible using hyperbole and conjecture to try and paint the coalition in the worst light possible....As I said on the other thread this does little to suggest you are approaching any of these issues in a realistic or balanced manner.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your "room for certain tax rises" is not enough though is it...you seem to be suggesting the Tories are simply raising taxes and cutting benefits for a laugh or as part of some evil grand plan to destory the workers.

Again you use total generalisations to make yout point "Especially when that tax hits our pensioners and the unwaged harder"

What is the average income of pensioners? From the ONA:

"In 2008/09, pensioner couples received average income of £564 per week, compared with £304 per week for single men and £264 per week for single women"

So on average pensioners WILL benefit from any tax code changes....since they pay tax on their income like everyone else.

It's also a bit disingenuios to suggest that an across the board rise in a consumption tax is actaully a targeted tax rise on the poorest. Considering the VAT rise will not effect:

Basic foodstuffs
Domestic Fuel bills
Newspapers and Book
Baby Products
Insurance Services
Prescriptions
Provision of health services
Burial (this one is for your pensioners)
Welfare Services provided by charities at below cost

The list goes on.


Again you are busy painting the worst case possible using hyperbole and conjecture to try and paint the coalition in the worst light possible....As I said on the other thread this does little to suggest you are approaching any of these issues in a realistic or balanced manner.

You should be careful with your accusations of generalisations.

The figures you are citing are based on averaging-out income, which for a large number of pensioners will include pension credits, which are not taxed. That makes these figures unrepresentative for this purpose.

As you'll have also noticed, the figures for couples are increased by nearly a third, reflecting paid earnings. That's not exactly people who are relying on a pension or savings is it?

You have illustrated a fair point though - for the pensioners who are reliant on the state pension and pension credits, the rise in VAT is a harder burden than for the rest. They don't come near paying income tax.

Even when they're hitting the poor hardest, they find a way to hit the poorest of the poor harder :bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

You should be careful with your accusations of generalisations.

The figures you are citing are based on averaging-out income, which for a large number of pensioners will include pension credits, which are not taxed. That makes these figures unrepresentative for this purpose.

As you'll have also noticed, the figures for couples are increased by nearly a third, reflecting paid earnings. That's not exactly people who are relying on a pension or savings is it?

You have illustrated a fair point though - for the pensioners who are reliant on the state pension and pension credits, the rise in VAT is a harder burden than for the rest. They don't come near paying income tax.

Even when they're hitting the poor hardest, they find a way to hit the poorest of the poor harder :bitchy:

Well at least we have made some progress, unlike the vision you were attempting to paint you have admitted that actually it's not all pensioners that are being hit hardest and in fact quite a large portion may well benefit from tax code changes.

I repeat again that VAT is a consumption tax. Basic foodstuffs, domestic heating and housing rental are all exempt…this in itself brings protection to the poorest as larger percentages of their income go on these items.

So we are left with the position that anything on top of that will cost the poorest 2.5% more than it would have before…exactly the same as the rest of the population.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should have a split VAT rate depending on income or even that the VAT rise itself is not required?

[Bad Martini]

Without taking the thread off-topic, if we hadn't been in the UK or EU when the banking crisis began, we'd have been absolutely goosed. Worse than Iceland - who are now trying to get into the EU.

Not sure about that...and also unsure as to what mess we would or would not have been in, had we been independent either...


,,,but would we? We'll never know but perhaps our government spending/investing, local authority fiscal management, would have been different?
It was only in the news a couple of days ago but it was mentioned that a vast percentage of the bail-out to RBS (80/90%) would have had to come from London/England as that is where the investments/failures were made! Only one case but I s'pose we'll just never know!

Aye...this is my point mate. A good one ye make anaw :greengrin


If we where independant say ten years ago then more than likely RBS and HBOS would have moved there HQ's because London would have been too competitive so actually it is very unlikely that scotland would have footed the bill.

Only if we ****ed it up and made Scotland an unattractive place for business. Given the financial sector we have in Edinburgh, I am not so sure we'd have lost them all to London...Im not suggesting Edinburgh's sector is to rival the city but equally, Im not sure the big players would have all ****ed off...


Just been watching newsnight and the lib dems desperate attempts to divert us from uni fees back to banking is really giving me the boak.
:agree: ... Id go further and say everything those *******s DO, gives me the boak. And, most of the things they say......

[Mibbes Aye]

Well at least we have made some progress, unlike the vision you were attempting to paint you have admitted that actually it's not all pensioners that are being hit hardest and in fact quite a large portion may well benefit from tax code changes.

I repeat again that VAT is a consumption tax. Basic foodstuffs, domestic heating and housing rental are all exempt…this in itself brings protection to the poorest as larger percentages of their income go on these items.

So we are left with the position that anything on top of that will cost the poorest 2.5% more than it would have before…exactly the same as the rest of the population.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should have a split VAT rate depending on income or even that the VAT rise itself is not required?


You must have missed the bit where the Tories announced they were cutting housing benefit too. Funny, because it was quite a big story.

And since when was domestic heating exempt from VAT (it's a different rate, but it's still charged)? You can "repeat again" all you like, but if you were wrong in the first place, you're not going to get any more correct, however many times you say it. :agree:

Vince Cable said the Tories were going to cut the winter fuel payment. He also said they were going too far, too fast.Other ministers are saying Osborne and Cameron are out of touch and insincere.

They can see it. Why can't you?

[Mibbes Aye]

And another thing :greengrin

Not really putting this up for a response, it just struck me as a bit incongruent.

There have been a few posters on this thread who elsewhere have been posting that the Coalition is dead right to make swingeing cuts to public spending - that any hint of debt has to be wiped out, even if it's stimulus spending to invest in a better future for us all.

And then they're on here, talking about tuition fees, saying that actually, people should get into a much bigger debt than they currently face, because it's investing in a better future and it will all be fine.

I'm absolutely not suggesting anybody's right or wrong. It just amuses me :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

And another thing :greengrin

Not really putting this up for a response, it just struck me as a bit incongruent.

There have been a few posters on this thread who elsewhere have been posting that the Coalition is dead right to make swingeing cuts to public spending - that any hint of debt has to be wiped out, even if it's stimulus spending to invest in a better future for us all.

And then they're on here, talking about tuition fees, saying that actually, people should get into a much bigger debt than they currently face, because it's investing in a better future and it will all be fine.

I'm absolutely not suggesting anybody's right or wrong. It just amuses me :greengrin

I'm positive you understand the concept of things being relative.

£25k of debt to secure qualifications for a job that will earn you above average wages for the rest of your working life.

National Debt of £1,000 Billion (and still growing at a record pace) equal to over 70% of GDP.


Hardly comparable are they.

[(((Fergus)))]

And another thing :greengrin

Not really putting this up for a response, it just struck me as a bit incongruent.

There have been a few posters on this thread who elsewhere have been posting that the Coalition is dead right to make swingeing cuts to public spending - that any hint of debt has to be wiped out, even if it's stimulus spending to invest in a better future for us all.

And then they're on here, talking about tuition fees, saying that actually, people should get into a much bigger debt than they currently face, because it's investing in a better future and it will all be fine.

I'm absolutely not suggesting anybody's right or wrong. It just amuses me :greengrin

And what I don't understand about that is why the trillion quid or whatever we have borrowed already hasn't provided the stimulus we need to achieve nirvana. How many more billion will it take?

[RyeSloan]

You must have missed the bit where the Tories announced they were cutting housing benefit too. Funny, because it was quite a big story.

And since when was domestic heating exempt from VAT (it's a different rate, but it's still charged)? You can "repeat again" all you like, but if you were wrong in the first place, you're not going to get any more correct, however many times you say it. :agree:

Vince Cable said the Tories were going to cut the winter fuel payment. He also said they were going too far, too fast.Other ministers are saying Osborne and Cameron are out of touch and insincere.

They can see it. Why can't you?

Domestic Heating is exempt from the VAT rise.

Didn't miss the housing benefit cut proposal thanks. This cut is an attempt to reform a benefit that is costing £20bn a year and growing up to 15% a year..I suppose you would just leave as is and grow the debt even more.

Vince Cable, great timing of wheeling him out to support your cause :greengrin

What politicians being calle dout of touch and insincere...wow now that is grounds for concern. :rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

Domestic Heating is exempt from the VAT rise.

Didn't miss the housing benefit cut proposal thanks. This cut is an attempt to reform a benefit that is costing £20bn a year and growing up to 15% a year..I suppose you would just leave as is and grow the debt even more.

Vince Cable, great timing of wheeling him out to support your cause :greengrin

What politicians being calle dout of touch and insincere...wow now that is grounds for concern. :rolleyes:

Welfare in general and housing in particular is far more complicated than to be reduced to something as simplistic as you have there.

The Tories are creating a narrative around their cuts that says there is no choice, there is much waste and they're not shy about associating people on benefits with general laziness and lack of use to society.

Sadly, many folk seem happy to unconditionally accept that and parrot it without thinking about it.

I'm glad you mentioned housing benefit. I'll take your figures as accurate. And I'll ask you this.

Currently, we spend a massive amount, literally billions, on the care of old folk. Nearly half of all NHS spending and social care spending on something like one-sixth of the population. A huge chunk of that goes on putting people into care homes because they can't be looked after at home.

Those billions are only going to rise - we are facing a huge growth in the number of old folk. I think the number of people over 75 is expected to double over the next twenty years.

If we keep putting old folk into care homes, like we're doing just now, we would have to be building one every two weeks for the next twenty years. I think there are projections that hypothesise that were this to happen, eventually every school leaver would have to go into work there, just to meet the demand.

Obviously we can't do that. We can't afford to do that. We need to keep old folk at home for longer. And that's possible, where people are supported with services that help them stay at home, whether it be a home help, or moving to a sheltered housing site for example.

Older people aren't exactly the richest in our society though. To keep them out of care homes, whether in their own tenancy or a sheltered housing or extra care housing tenancy, often is dependent on housing benefit being available to meet the rent.

And it's cheaper than putting folk in a care home. And more importantly, it's what people want. In a lot of cases they don't need to be in a care home, they can stay in their own communities, continue to offer something perhaps.

It's a similar situation for people with physical disabilities or learning disabilities. It's also the case with families, working families, who are at risk of homelessness. If they do become homeless then the local authority has a duty to house them, which often means paying a fortune for B+Bs because there isn't an alternative.

Housing benefit stops these people, in their millions, having their lives hugely worsened. And it stops a far greater financial cost to the country.

And that's the real story, not the odd tale of a Bangladeshi family of fourteen staying in a mansion in Kensington that the Tory press occasionally runs with, pressing those buttons of a lack of fair play and latent racism that so exercise a sizeable percentage of our population.

And the biggest part of the story is around housing benefit saving money, especially when it comes to keeping old folk out of care homes. That's a cost this country simply can't afford.

So yes, I can see why housing benefit might need to grow. Can you?

[Beefster]

Housing benefit stops these people, in their millions, having their lives hugely worsened. And it stops a far greater financial cost to the country.

I'm trying not to get dragged back into this because it sucks the life out of you. However, you don't think £400 a week is enough for the State to pay for someone to live in a house?

If not, where do I apply for you to pay my mortgage?

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm trying not to get dragged back into this because it sucks the life out of you. However, you don't think £400 a week is enough for the State to pay for someone to live in a house?

If not, where do I apply for you to pay my mortgage?

:agree: :greengrin

Re your post I'm genuinely confused, it will be me not getting it I'm sure.

My point is that we are potentially looking at more people being supported with HB in order to reduce a need to spend more elsewhere.

I don't know where your £400 figure comes from, but given that a nursing home place costs substantially more, I can see which is the better option.

There's something else that's being overlooked here as well, should have mentioned it in the original post.

The cost of HB is met by central government. Cutting that evidences the government 'saving money'. As I've described though, it means the likelihood of far greater use of care homes, B+Bs etc. This is a cost met by local government.

So basically, the Tories get to look tough on benefits. The Tories get to show they've saved some money on benefit. The councils, and it will be predominantly Labour ones I'm sure, have to find even more money though, and this is on top of their funding already being cut.

The thing is, all these pounds, whether they are spent centrally or locally, are the taxes we are paying.

Why should we pay more than is necessary?

Money we don't need to pay, so that the Tories can score political points while making people's lives worse?

[Beefster]

:agree: :greengrin

Re your post I'm genuinely confused, it will be me not getting it I'm sure.

My point is that we are potentially looking at more people being supported with HB in order to reduce a need to spend more elsewhere.

I don't know where your £400 figure comes from, but given that a nursing home place costs substantially more, I can see which is the better option.

There's something else that's being overlooked here as well, should have mentioned it in the original post.

The cost of HB is met by central government. Cutting that evidences the government 'saving money'. As I've described though, it means the likelihood of far greater use of care homes, B+Bs etc. This is a cost met by local government.

So basically, the Tories get to look tough on benefits. The Tories get to show they've saved some money on benefit. The councils, and it will be predominantly Labour ones I'm sure, have to find even more money though, and this is on top of their funding already being cut.

The thing is, all these pounds, whether they are spent centrally or locally, are the taxes we are paying.

Why should we pay more than is necessary?

Money we don't need to pay, so that the Tories can score political points while making people's lives worse?

On the assumption that we're still talking about Housing Benefit rather than anything else, £400 per week is what the maximum Housing Benefit is being cut to.

I'm genuinely confused as to how a benefit of between £1,000 and £1,600 a month will mean that B&Bs will have to be used more. A quick search of Edinburgh, one of the most expensive places in the UK for property, shows that you'd need to be looking for a 4 bedroom (or above) flat in the most affluent areas of town before you went above that amount.

[Mibbes Aye]

On the assumption that we're still talking about Housing Benefit rather than anything else, £400 per week is what the maximum Housing Benefit is being cut to.

I'm genuinely confused as to how a benefit of between £1,000 and £1,600 a month will mean that B&Bs will have to be used more. A quick search of Edinburgh, one of the most expensive places in the UK for property, shows that you'd need to be looking for a 4 bedroom (or above) flat in the most affluent areas of town before you went above that amount.

It's not rocket science Beefster.

The £400 per week you cite is the maximum for a four-bedroom house. Even the likes of the Daily Mail have acknowledged that, for example, that will mean 200,000 people (that's including children), being forced to move out of London alone.

Apart from the fact that we're witnessing social cleansing on an unprecedented scale, how exactly are local authorities meant to house these people?

You might well argue that it's wrong that someone supporting a family, who has lost their job, shouldn't be allowed to continue living in the house they were able to afford when they were working. I can see why you would say that.

It spectacularly misses the point however, that if they can't live there then there's a statutory duty for them to be housed somewhere.....

I'm not surprised you went with your £400 a week figure though.

You wouldn't want to go with the fact that when the full changes are made, by the government's own assessment, 800,000 households will be worse off. Households that were already struggling.

Cameron and Clegg said we were all in this together. That those with the biggest shoulders would carry the greatest burden. You were happy to back them up.

It's clearly not happening. The poorest are being hit but we're not seeing the wealthy taking the strain too.

Why is that, Beefster?

[Bad Martini]

Cameron and Clegg said we were all in this together. That those with the biggest shoulders would carry the greatest burden. You were happy to back them up.

It's clearly not happening. The poorest are being hit but we're not seeing the wealthy taking the strain too.



Simples...the torrie bassas never change. The only difference here is, they have the stupid shower of hangers on in the name of the Lib Dems who are there to take the rap for the ***** the torries implement and by definition, cannot win - they will not get their flagship policies by the torries (see this debate were on now :greengrin) and when the torries implement their ****ty plans, the fib dems cop it.

Cameron is probably delighted he's got this coalition to blame for everything.

ENDOF

[Beefster]

It's not rocket science Beefster.

The £400 per week you cite is the maximum for a four-bedroom house. Even the likes of the Daily Mail have acknowledged that, for example, that will mean 200,000 people (that's including children), being forced to move out of London alone.

Apart from the fact that we're witnessing social cleansing on an unprecedented scale, how exactly are local authorities meant to house these people?

You might well argue that it's wrong that someone supporting a family, who has lost their job, shouldn't be allowed to continue living in the house they were able to afford when they were working. I can see why you would say that.

It spectacularly misses the point however, that if they can't live there then there's a statutory duty for them to be housed somewhere.....

I'm not surprised you went with your £400 a week figure though.

You wouldn't want to go with the fact that when the full changes are made, by the government's own assessment, 800,000 households will be worse off. Households that were already struggling.

Cameron and Clegg said we were all in this together. That those with the biggest shoulders would carry the greatest burden. You were happy to back them up.

It's clearly not happening. The poorest are being hit but we're not seeing the wealthy taking the strain too.

Why is that, Beefster?

I knew it was a mistake getting back into it. If we fundamentally cannot agree that somewhere between £250 and £400 a week is enough for someone to be housed at the State's expense then we're never going to agree.

To be honest, the argument about people being worse off is relative to the amounts being paid out under the old scheme. Housing Benefit isn't there to supplement anyone's income so as long as those in receipt of the benefit are housed somewhere (as you state), I don't see how it makes their lives any more difficult. Mrs B and I can't afford to move our family to a large townhouse in the centre of Edinburgh so I'm not sure why you think I should be contributing to allow someone else to do so.

Anyway, on that note, I'm out.

[Mibbes Aye]

I knew it was a mistake getting back into it. If we fundamentally cannot agree that somewhere between £250 and £400 a week is enough for someone to be housed at the State's expense then we're never going to agree.

To be honest, the argument about people being worse off is relative to the amounts being paid out under the old scheme. Housing Benefit isn't there to supplement anyone's income so as long as those in receipt of the benefit are housed somewhere (as you state), I don't see how it makes their lives any more difficult. Mrs B and I can't afford to move our family to a large townhouse in the centre of Edinburgh so I'm not sure why you think I should be contributing to allow someone else to do so.

Anyway, on that note, I'm out.

Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in a nursing home? Or in a general ward hospital bed? Or in a specialist bed in the likes of the Royal Ed? Or in a 'wet house' for alcohol and substance misuse? Or even in a prison cell?

It's an awful lot more than the "..somewhere between £250 and £400 a week at the State's expense" you are so unhappy about

What do you do if you're a council housing officer, faced with a family of four who've been evicted because they can no longer afford their rent and you have a legal duty to house them?

Because of the housing benefit cuts, this is the likelihood for hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands.......

I suppose at least you have the freedom to turn your back and say "I'm out".

[Beefster]

Do you know how much it costs to keep someone in a nursing home? Or in a general ward hospital bed? Or in a specialist bed in the likes of the Royal Ed? Or in a 'wet house' for alcohol and substance misuse? Or even in a prison cell?

It's an awful lot more than the "..somewhere between £250 and £400 a week at the State's expense" you are so unhappy about

What do you do if you're a council housing officer, faced with a family of four who've been evicted because they can no longer afford their rent and you have a legal duty to house them?

Because of the housing benefit cuts, this is the likelihood for hundreds of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands.......

I suppose at least you have the freedom to turn your back and say "I'm out".

Argh, I can't help myself....

The cost of a hospital bed or care home is as relevant to a debate about HB (although we've hijacked a student thread) as the cost of milk.

If I was a housing officer (I actually have a close relative who is one), I would put the family of four in a property that cost less than £340 a week (the limit for a 3 bedroom property). As I've already shown, there are plenty of properties within the limits.

[Mibbes Aye]

Argh, I can't help myself....

The cost of a hospital bed or care home is as relevant to a debate about HB (although we've hijacked a student thread) as the cost of milk.

If I was a housing officer (I actually have a close relative who is one), I would put the family of four in a property that cost less than £340 a week (the limit for a 3 bedroom property). As I've already shown, there are plenty of properties within the limits.

That's utterly meaningless Beefster. How many people in Edinburgh get that level of housing benefit?

The allowance for HB for private renting is set at the median of market rents. The Tories are cutting that down to thirty per cent, which means that families up and down the country are going to find themselves unable to afford their rent and having to move. And we're not talking about people living in mansions. We're talking about nearly a million people, forced into rent arrears or forced out their homes. And they're already people whose income is so low that they qualify for benefit!

Ten thousand households in Edinburgh alone worse off, and the more children you have and more bedrooms you need, the worse off you actually will be.

The Government's own expert advisers have warned against these cuts going ahead. They've said it will increase homelessness, increase crime and damage children's schooling.

They can see it. Why can't you?

As for the care homes and hospital beds they're very relevant, if you're capable of seeing the bigger picture. You might, it doesn't feel like the party you support can.

You can't make these sorts of cuts without implications. Something like 1.5 million pensioners are dependent on Housing Benefit. When that gets cut you're going to be looking at old folk forced to move, at best and if they can afford it, to less suitable accommodation that will invariably impact on their health and wellbeing, increasing the likelihood of them ending up needing to be admitted to hospital or into residential care. The knock-on effect is one of huge pressure on resources. The figures you're throwing about for maximum HB in a week don't cover one day in a hospital bed.

[Leicester Fan]

The allowance for HB for private renting is set at the median of market rents. The Tories are cutting that down to thirty per cent, which means that families up and down the country are going to find themselves unable to afford their rent and having to move. And we're not talking about people living in mansions. We're talking about nearly a million people, forced into rent arrears or forced out their homes. And they're already people whose income is so low that they qualify for benefit!



I doubt that there'll be many forced to move. There'll be a few and the media will make a big deal out of it.
If landlords can't rent their houses to people on benefits then they'll be forced to reduce their rent.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I doubt that there'll be many forced to move. There'll be a few and the media will make a big deal out of it.
If landlords can't rent their houses to people on benefits then they'll be forced to reduce their rent.

That might not be the case though, a lot of people who currently have houses that are too small can't afford to upgrade, however they can afford a bigger house if they rent. So they rent there's out and take the bigger house.

The reason I mention this is I am thinking of it myself. So landlords might not be that pushed, in fact if banks don't loosen things up landlords might have quite a lot of demand.

[Leicester Fan]

That might not be the case though, a lot of people who currently have houses that are too small can't afford to upgrade, however they can afford a bigger house if they rent. So they rent there's out and take the bigger house.

The reason I mention this is I am thinking of it myself. So landlords might not be that pushed, in fact if banks don't loosen things up landlords might have quite a lot of demand.

Our house (that we are buying) is a bit too small for us but we can't really afford to move.

Solution; we make do.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Our house (that we are buying) is a bit too small for us but we can't really afford to move.

Solution; we make do.

Well bully for you:na na:

[RyeSloan]

That's utterly meaningless Beefster. How many people in Edinburgh get that level of housing benefit?

The allowance for HB for private renting is set at the median of market rents. The Tories are cutting that down to thirty per cent, which means that families up and down the country are going to find themselves unable to afford their rent and having to move. And we're not talking about people living in mansions. We're talking about nearly a million people, forced into rent arrears or forced out their homes. And they're already people whose income is so low that they qualify for benefit!

Ten thousand households in Edinburgh alone worse off, and the more children you have and more bedrooms you need, the worse off you actually will be.

The Government's own expert advisers have warned against these cuts going ahead. They've said it will increase homelessness, increase crime and damage children's schooling.

They can see it. Why can't you?

As for the care homes and hospital beds they're very relevant, if you're capable of seeing the bigger picture. You might, it doesn't feel like the party you support can.

You can't make these sorts of cuts without implications. Something like 1.5 million pensioners are dependent on Housing Benefit. When that gets cut you're going to be looking at old folk forced to move, at best and if they can afford it, to less suitable accommodation that will invariably impact on their health and wellbeing, increasing the likelihood of them ending up needing to be admitted to hospital or into residential care. The knock-on effect is one of huge pressure on resources. The figures you're throwing about for maximum HB in a week don't cover one day in a hospital bed.

So yet another benefit that should just remain unchanged and let the money flow...that's the money that the country still doesn't have by the way.

There is a strong argument for housing benefit being to be based on the bottom 30% of rent, why should a benefit provide the claimant an average rent across the whole market, how is that fair on low income families that do pay their way...Looking at the figures this 30% mark gives you almost £500 pm for a one bed flat in Edinburgh and almost £600pm for a two bed flat...hardly an out on the street benefit that.

You talk about seeing a bigger picture but rail against any change that will either substantially cut government expenditure or increase it's income despite the fact that the government is STILL running record deficits and borrowing record amounts. Are you really suggesting we simply just keep on paying and paying and paying? This benefit alone has doubled in a decade and without change is anticipated to cost an EXTRA £5bn EVERY year by 2015....where do you seriously suggest this extra money should be raised from?

You clearly see the state as a provider of everything to all that may need it come what may and your not about to change that stance. Fair enough stand up for the 'poor' and bang the drum all you want however simply saying it's unfair won't make it anymore affordable.

[bighairyfaeleith]

So yet another benefit that should just remain unchanged and let the money flow...that's the money that the country still doesn't have by the way.

There is a strong argument for housing benefit being to be based on the bottom 30% of rent, why should a benefit provide the claimant an average rent across the whole market, how is that fair on low income families that do pay their way...Looking at the figures this 30% mark gives you almost £500 pm for a one bed flat in Edinburgh and almost £600pm for a two bed flat...hardly an out on the street benefit that.

You talk about seeing a bigger picture but rail against any change that will either substantially cut government expenditure or increase it's income despite the fact that the government is STILL running record deficits and borrowing record amounts. Are you really suggesting we simply just keep on paying and paying and paying? This benefit alone has doubled in a decade and without change is anticipated to cost an EXTRA £5bn EVERY year by 2015....where do you seriously suggest this extra money should be raised from?

You clearly see the state as a provider of everything to all that may need it come what may and your not about to change that stance. Fair enough stand up for the 'poor' and bang the drum all you want however simply saying it's unfair won't make it anymore affordable.

Surely however the problem is that the government is basing these plans on being able to get better deals on rents at a time when the rental market is becoming heavily over subscribed due to the lack of mortgages available. It was on the radio saying that letting agencies are reporting that 3/4 of them have more people looking to rent than they have properties.

I agree that the previous government agreed to rentals which where wrong, however it is far from as straightforward as just saying we will cut the costs across the board.

[Bad Martini]

So yet another benefit that should just remain unchanged and let the money flow...that's the money that the country still doesn't have by the way.

There is a strong argument for housing benefit being to be based on the bottom 30% of rent, why should a benefit provide the claimant an average rent across the whole market, how is that fair on low income families that do pay their way...Looking at the figures this 30% mark gives you almost £500 pm for a one bed flat in Edinburgh and almost £600pm for a two bed flat...hardly an out on the street benefit that.

You talk about seeing a bigger picture but rail against any change that will either substantially cut government expenditure or increase it's income despite the fact that the government is STILL running record deficits and borrowing record amounts. Are you really suggesting we simply just keep on paying and paying and paying? This benefit alone has doubled in a decade and without change is anticipated to cost an EXTRA £5bn EVERY year by 2015....where do you seriously suggest this extra money should be raised from?

You clearly see the state as a provider of everything to all that may need it come what may and your not about to change that stance. Fair enough stand up for the 'poor' and bang the drum all you want however simply saying it's unfair won't make it anymore affordable.


Surely however the problem is that the government is basing these plans on being able to get better deals on rents at a time when the rental market is becoming heavily over subscribed due to the lack of mortgages available. It was on the radio saying that letting agencies are reporting that 3/4 of them have more people looking to rent than they have properties.

I agree that the previous government agreed to rentals which where wrong, however it is far from as straightforward as just saying we will cut the costs across the board.



Boys...boys...boys....yer both right. We need the money to pay for these hooses and aw that stuff so, here's the answer.



































































Let's put up tuition fees 2937429374 x what they were and make the tax-dodging students pay for the ****ing lot :devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::faf:

....11 pages worth of mentalness surely needs this simple answer :aok:

It makes nae odds anyway. We're aw ****ed as Armageddon is coming in 2012 when the planets align...therefore, fill yer boots, debt yerself up and spend spend spend. SORTED!!!!!!!!

GLORY GLORY

Note: someone tell Petrie aboot this impending end of the world, he might loosen the purse strings and bring in Messi ... that'll **** the huns and the yams and the sellick :thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

Surely however the problem is that the government is basing these plans on being able to get better deals on rents at a time when the rental market is becoming heavily over subscribed due to the lack of mortgages available. It was on the radio saying that letting agencies are reporting that 3/4 of them have more people looking to rent than they have properties.

I agree that the previous government agreed to rentals which where wrong, however it is far from as straightforward as just saying we will cut the costs across the board.

I agree to an extent, the initial re-basing of what people pay (or are able to pay once their benefit has been adjusted) may well prove to be painful and may necessitate some to move (although this in no way will effect all recipients of the benefit) however the bottom 30th is the bottom 30th so no matter how much rents rise that figure will still move upwards with the market.

In fact if there is a long term upwards pressure on rents then it could be argued that in times of required fiscal prudence it is exactly the right time to move to the new measure otherwise the projected £5bn extra a year costs associated with doing nothing may prove to be an underestimate!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

I agree to an extent, the initial re-basing of what people pay (or are able to pay once their benefit has been adjusted) may well prove to be painful and may necessitate some to move (although this in no way will effect all recipients of the benefit) however the bottom 30th is the bottom 30th so no matter how much rents rise that figure will still move upwards with the market.

In fact if there is a long term upwards pressure on rents then it could be argued that in times of required fiscal prudence it is exactly the right time to move to the new measure otherwise the projected £5bn extra a year costs associated with doing nothing may prove to be an underestimate!!

True, however would it not be better to look at a scheme where the government actually buys properties, given the market prices are down just now, and becomes the landlords. This would mean they are not held to ransom by landlords and the money essentially comes back into there own pot. The properties once they are paid off could then be sold as affordable housing at a reasonable cost showing a profit for the taxpayer and helping people onto the property market.

I think they used to be called council houses:greengrin

I'm not in principle against the idea of cutting costs in this area, I just think the implementation has been chosen because it's quick and easy for the government without actually thinking through alternatives which in the long term may prove cheaper and better for the country.

[RyeSloan]

True, however would it not be better to look at a scheme where the government actually buys properties, given the market prices are down just now, and becomes the landlords. This would mean they are not held to ransom by landlords and the money essentially comes back into there own pot. The properties once they are paid off could then be sold as affordable housing at a reasonable cost showing a profit for the taxpayer and helping people onto the property market.

I think they used to be called council houses:greengrin

I'm not in principle against the idea of cutting costs in this area, I just think the implementation has been chosen because it's quick and easy for the government without actually thinking through alternatives which in the long term may prove cheaper and better for the country.

Possibly but you will not be surprised to hear that I am fundamentally opposed to central (or even local) government being direct landlords. :greengrin
Governments should facilitate not participate in markets.

The rather horrific record of the management of most local councils housing stock would suggest that this is not a particularly efficient or cost effective method of providing good quality social housing.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Possibly but you will not be surprised to hear that I am fundamentally opposed to central (or even local) government being direct landlords. :greengrin
Governments should facilitate not participate in markets.

The rather horrific record of the management of most local councils housing stock would suggest that this is not a particularly efficient or cost effective method of providing good quality social housing.

Trouble is a free market won't help the people that need it most. Housing associations etc will try, but they need help from the government as they can't compete with private businesses for land / houses during the good times as was seen in Edinburgh in the last ten years.

I'm not really for an interfering bigger government, however I think there are certain areas where the government really is the only way to ensure the poor are looked after in the best / most economical way. I think the last few years have shown that private landlords will always seek to abuse any relationship where the government is footing the bill.

For me the issue is that all these policies don't really join up together to form a better society. They are cutting huge amounts of government budgets which will lead to a lot more unemployed people. At the same time they are cutting the money to people who are unemployed and need help. I'm just not seeing anything being done to improve things, other than some hairy fairy talk about big society which no one understands.

I understand the need to cut the deficit, however we need to be careful the cuts don't end up costing us more in the long run. You can't make people unemployed, put people out of houses etc without some thought about the consequences of these actions. Just hoping the private sector will step in is not really enough.

[RyeSloan]

Trouble is a free market won't help the people that need it most. Housing associations etc will try, but they need help from the government as they can't compete with private businesses for land / houses during the good times as was seen in Edinburgh in the last ten years.

I'm not really for an interfering bigger government, however I think there are certain areas where the government really is the only way to ensure the poor are looked after in the best / most economical way. I think the last few years have shown that private landlords will always seek to abuse any relationship where the government is footing the bill.

For me the issue is that all these policies don't really join up together to form a better society. They are cutting huge amounts of government budgets which will lead to a lot more unemployed people. At the same time they are cutting the money to people who are unemployed and need help. I'm just not seeing anything being done to improve things, other than some hairy fairy talk about big society which no one understands.

I understand the need to cut the deficit, however we need to be careful the cuts don't end up costing us more in the long run. You can't make people unemployed, put people out of houses etc without some thought about the consequences of these actions. Just hoping the private sector will step in is not really enough./

Agree completely.

However it is also fair to say that continuing with ever more centralisation and higher government spending has been proven to fail.

You are right about landlords abusing the relationship where the Government is footing the bill, I’m sure it’s rife (which is another reason reform was required) …sadly that can be said for a lot of the population as well, it’s as if Britain as a collective doesn’t quite seem to realise the government doesn’t have any money of it’s own and fails to grasp that every pound it spends (apart from those borrowed!) has came from the pockets of the likes of you or I!

Each year the UK government undertakes a massive re-distribution of wealth through taking taxation and providing welfare..add in the huge tax credits re-distribution and you have a situation where you have massive government intervention...I believe this approach is completely untenable and unaffordable in the long term and action needs to be taken...sure some of those actions may not work and you can bet your bottom dollar some if not all will not be popular but I just don’t see the alternative.

[Mibbes Aye]

So yet another benefit that should just remain unchanged and let the money flow...that's the money that the country still doesn't have by the way.

There is a strong argument for housing benefit being to be based on the bottom 30% of rent, why should a benefit provide the claimant an average rent across the whole market, how is that fair on low income families that do pay their way...Looking at the figures this 30% mark gives you almost £500 pm for a one bed flat in Edinburgh and almost £600pm for a two bed flat...hardly an out on the street benefit that.

You talk about seeing a bigger picture but rail against any change that will either substantially cut government expenditure or increase it's income despite the fact that the government is STILL running record deficits and borrowing record amounts. Are you really suggesting we simply just keep on paying and paying and paying? This benefit alone has doubled in a decade and without change is anticipated to cost an EXTRA £5bn EVERY year by 2015....where do you seriously suggest this extra money should be raised from?

You clearly see the state as a provider of everything to all that may need it come what may and your not about to change that stance. Fair enough stand up for the 'poor' and bang the drum all you want however simply saying it's unfair won't make it anymore affordable.

Dear oh dear SiMar :greengrin

I know it's difficult for you to defend this Tory-led Government's policies. Trying to deflect by saying I'm not willing to look at cuts, or think the state should do everything, is just a cop-out though.

My issues around the cuts are about the speed and depth (both unnecessary), and about Cameron and Clegg's lies. Those with the 'biggest shoulders' aren't bearing the greatest burden at all. Here we are talking about people on low income losing more of their income just as the banks are about to announce billions in bonuses again.

You say you agree that we should be careful that cuts don't end up costing more. That we should be wary of centralisation.

Yet a senior Tory, the chair of the Public Administration Select Committee has come out and said that the Government's headline policy on quangos has been a disaster. He's said it's not going to save money, it's going to cost more.

And where has the accountability for these public services gone? Why, back to Whitehall!

Cuts that cost more than they save - that's what happens when you rush policy, when your changes are for ideological reasons rather than about what's best for the country.

What a shambles :bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

Dear oh dear SiMar :greengrin

I know it's difficult for you to defend this Tory-led Government's policies. Trying to deflect by saying I'm not willing to look at cuts, or think the state should do everything, is just a cop-out though.

My issues around the cuts are about the speed and depth (both unnecessary), and about Cameron and Clegg's lies. Those with the 'biggest shoulders' aren't bearing the greatest burden at all. Here we are talking about people on low income losing more of their income just as the banks are about to announce billions in bonuses again.

You say you agree that we should be careful that cuts don't end up costing more. That we should be wary of centralisation.

Yet a senior Tory, the chair of the Public Administration Select Committee has come out and said that the Government's headline policy on quangos has been a disaster. He's said it's not going to save money, it's going to cost more.

And where has the accountability for these public services gone? Why, back to Whitehall!

Cuts that cost more than they save - that's what happens when you rush policy, when your changes are for ideological reasons rather than about what's best for the country.

What a shambles :bitchy:


Fair enough, you are happy to stand and watch Rome burn, what size of deficit and expenditure gap would there need to be for you to think substantial action is needed?

I'm happy to admit that far from everything the coalition is doing is right or having the intended consequences and that I think their changes should be focussed on decentralising and reducing government expenditure (the mere fact that they have stated this as a target is a substantial change from the past) but at least they are trying to turn the tanker around, your approach seems more akin to the Captain of the Titanic….

Quangos…who are they accountable to again? Better to have some accountability than none at all I would suggest. Sure the changes proposed may not be perfect but considering there is over a 1,000 Quangos, Agencies and Non-Ministerial Departments receiving government funding of about £65bn spending there is a very strong argument for rationalisation. Some of the changes look entirely rational..merging Sport England with UK Sport, National Lottery Commision with the Gambling Commison, Pensions Ombudsman with the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman etc etc etc…wouldn’t you agree?

Liking your ‘what’s best for the country’ line though…continuing to increase a record deficit and continuing record borrowing would be just the ticket for that right enough wouldn’t it!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Fair enough, you are happy to stand and watch Rome burn, what size of deficit and expenditure gap would there need to be for you to think substantial action is needed?

I'm happy to admit that far from everything the coalition is doing is right or having the intended consequences and that I think their changes should be focussed on decentralising and reducing government expenditure (the mere fact that they have stated this as a target is a substantial change from the past) but at least they are trying to turn the tanker around, your approach seems more akin to the Captain of the Titanic….

Quangos…who are they accountable to again? Better to have some accountability than none at all I would suggest. Sure the changes proposed may not be perfect but considering there is over a 1,000 Quangos, Agencies and Non-Ministerial Departments receiving government funding of about £65bn spending there is a very strong argument for rationalisation. Some of the changes look entirely rational..merging Sport England with UK Sport, National Lottery Commision with the Gambling Commison, Pensions Ombudsman with the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman etc etc etc…wouldn’t you agree?

Liking your ‘what’s best for the country’ line though…continuing to increase a record deficit and continuing record borrowing would be just the ticket for that right enough wouldn’t it!

Why is disagreeing with the current governments plans always portrayed as wanting to keep increasing our debt???

That's just the same insulting nonsense Cameron keeps shouting and it is fast alienating people.

[Leicester Fan]

Why is disagreeing with the current governments plans always portrayed as wanting to keep increasing our debt???
.

Because if you don't cut spending by a large amount that's exactly what will happen.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Because if you don't cut spending by a large amount that's exactly what will happen.

Yes but there are different ways to achieve the cuts. There is also an argument over how much how quick to cut.

None of that translates to saying lets just keep spending and increasing our deficit for ever more.

The condem line on this one is simply insulting to voters.

[Beefster]

Yes but there are different ways to achieve the cuts. There is also an argument over how much how quick to cut.

None of that translates to saying lets just keep spending and increasing our deficit for ever more.

The condem line on this one is simply insulting to voters.

You're over-spending £160bn a year. How would you cut it?

PS 'Condem' is about as witty as 'Liebour'.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You're over-spending £160bn a year. How would you cut it?

PS 'Condem' is about as witty as 'Liebour'.

Sorry I'm not witty enough for you :not worth

[Beefster]

Sorry I'm not witty enough for you :not worth

That's okay.

So, how are you eliminating a deficit of £160bn?

[bighairyfaeleith]

That's okay.

So, how are you eliminating a deficit of £160bn?

I'm not as I'm not in government and it worries me how often we hear the current government responding with this sort of line. It's a really poor form of argument to ask people who are not in possession of all the facts to come up with a full financial government policy just because they dare to question the current policies.

If however I was in charge I would start by doing the following

1. Reduce the amount of unemployed, the cost of 2million+ on the dole is crippling, if these folks where working the deficit would be a lot smaller. Not an easy fix but the best fixes never are, hence the reason cameron and co are not doing it!!

2. Trident - Scrap the ****er

3. Keep VAT at 17.5% - Increasing VAT hits the majority who we need to keep spending to help us get out of this slump. Less spending on the high street is going to hit everyone at some point, and with the increase in fuel and costs of living this stupid increase couldn't have been times worse.

4. Invest in capital projects - Keep up investing, don't cut back. This will help feed growth and increase employment. Growth earns the government more money in tax revenues. I'm not suggesting investment like we had in 2009-2010 but 2006 levels would be fine.

5. Reduce the budget deficit slower, I would go with six years rather than four. This would help to keep a lot more people in jobs, keep money going round, and keep the recovery moving.

Now I don't have access to all the figures to say how I would account for £160million exactly, however other people do and lots of there arguments are very persuasive and the condems(sorry not witty I know but now I know it annoys you:greengrin) continual insistence on there current path is showing there policies to be idealogical rather than anything else.

Increasing unemployment, increasing VAT, decreasing housing payments, charging students for university in several years time. None of this adds up to policies that are joined up and geared up for growth.

I have seen companies do this in the past, they get obsessed with cutting costs and forget how to grow, they forget that growth generates revenue and that cutting back just keeps the bottom line looking ok in the short term. The problem is the more you cut back, the less you grow, so you have to cut back more to cover up for it and you end up in a very vicious circle.

[Beefster]

I'm not as I'm not in government and it worries me how often we hear the current government responding with this sort of line. It's a really poor form of argument to ask people who are not in possession of all the facts to come up with a full financial government policy just because they dare to question the current policies.

If however I was in charge I would start by doing the following

1. Reduce the amount of unemployed, the cost of 2million+ on the dole is crippling, if these folks where working the deficit would be a lot smaller. Not an easy fix but the best fixes never are, hence the reason cameron and co are not doing it!!

2. Trident - Scrap the ****er

3. Keep VAT at 17.5% - Increasing VAT hits the majority who we need to keep spending to help us get out of this slump. Less spending on the high street is going to hit everyone at some point, and with the increase in fuel and costs of living this stupid increase couldn't have been times worse.

4. Invest in capital projects - Keep up investing, don't cut back. This will help feed growth and increase employment. Growth earns the government more money in tax revenues. I'm not suggesting investment like we had in 2009-2010 but 2006 levels would be fine.

5. Reduce the budget deficit slower, I would go with six years rather than four. This would help to keep a lot more people in jobs, keep money going round, and keep the recovery moving.

Now I don't have access to all the figures to say how I would account for £160million exactly, however other people do and lots of there arguments are very persuasive and the condems(sorry not witty I know but now I know it annoys you:greengrin) continual insistence on there current path is showing there policies to be idealogical rather than anything else.

Increasing unemployment, increasing VAT, decreasing housing payments, charging students for university in several years time. None of this adds up to policies that are joined up and geared up for growth.

I have seen companies do this in the past, they get obsessed with cutting costs and forget how to grow, they forget that growth generates revenue and that cutting back just keeps the bottom line looking ok in the short term. The problem is the more you cut back, the less you grow, so you have to cut back more to cover up for it and you end up in a very vicious circle.

1. You don't think the coalition is trying to facilitate jobs in the private sector? Or are you advocating the public sector expanding?

2. I'd agree with you there.

3. Something had to give. Better to increase VAT than a tax on working. Remember they're trying to raise tax whilst growing jobs, encouraging aspiration and persuading benefit claimants to work.

4. Spend more. Right.

5. The recovery is moving at the moment. I'm of the view that the slower you do it, the longer the cuts go on but I understand differing ideologies see it differently.

You seem to equate a smaller public sector to rising unemployment. The idea is that the private sector takes up the slack (as they have in the past). I don't agree that decreasing Housing Benefit or charging more for university when a graduate is earning a good wage will affect growth but hey ho.

Every company that I've ever worked for have been obsessed with minimising costs whilst increasing sales. Again though, it's the government's job to facilitate growth of the economy - not to do it themselves via the public sector.

The fact is none of us 'plebs' know the best way to cut the deficit. I'm happy to trust the machinery to do the best thing for the country, you're not. That's politics.

[bighairyfaeleith]

1. You don't think the coalition is trying to facilitate jobs in the private sector? Or are you advocating the public sector expanding?

2. I'd agree with you there.

3. Something had to give. Better to increase VAT than a tax on working. Remember they're trying to raise tax whilst growing jobs, encouraging aspiration and persuading benefit claimants to work.

4. Spend more. Right.

5. The recovery is moving at the moment. I'm of the view that the slower you do it, the longer the cuts go on but I understand differing ideologies see it differently.

You seem to equate a smaller public sector to rising unemployment. The idea is that the private sector takes up the slack (as they have in the past). I don't agree that decreasing Housing Benefit or charging more for university when a graduate is earning a good wage will affect growth but hey ho.

Every company that I've ever worked for have been obsessed with minimising costs whilst increasing sales. Again though, it's the government's job to facilitate growth of the economy - not to do it themselves via the public sector.

The fact is none of us 'plebs' know the best way to cut the deficit. I'm happy to trust the machinery to do the best thing for the country, you're not. That's politics.

No I don't think the government is trying to facilitate jobs in the private sector. They are saying the words but I'm not seeing any actions. By decreasing the size of the public sector there adding around half a million to the dole queue. The private sector is not strong enough to pick up this tab yet, so slowing down the rate of cuts would give the private sector more time to grow and be able to pick up the slack.

The VAT rise is not a fair tax however, it hits the poorest the hardest. It also seems it is here to stay if camerons words on the andrew marr show this morning are to be believed. So not just to help the deficit in the short term then???

I am not actually saying spend more, I am saying keep spending enough to keep growth. Stopping spending on capital projects will be very damaging and continuing at 2006 levels would be sustainable. The 2009/2010 levels where always designed as a short term fix and would always need to be scaled back.

My point though, going back several posts was that it is possible to back cuts without backing every step the government takes. The fast pace of the cuts which haven't yet been fully felt by us is worrying to me and a lot of other people. I simply don't believe that they can have thought it all through properly. It's just too quick.

Lets hope I'm wrong.

[RyeSloan]

No I don't think the government is trying to facilitate jobs in the private sector. They are saying the words but I'm not seeing any actions. By decreasing the size of the public sector there adding around half a million to the dole queue. The private sector is not strong enough to pick up this tab yet, so slowing down the rate of cuts would give the private sector more time to grow and be able to pick up the slack.

The VAT rise is not a fair tax however, it hits the poorest the hardest. It also seems it is here to stay if camerons words on the andrew marr show this morning are to be believed. So not just to help the deficit in the short term then???

I am not actually saying spend more, I am saying keep spending enough to keep growth. Stopping spending on capital projects will be very damaging and continuing at 2006 levels would be sustainable. The 2009/2010 levels where always designed as a short term fix and would always need to be scaled back.

My point though, going back several posts was that it is possible to back cuts without backing every step the government takes. The fast pace of the cuts which haven't yet been fully felt by us is worrying to me and a lot of other people. I simply don't believe that they can have thought it all through properly. It's just too quick.

Lets hope I'm wrong.

Japan has spent billions and billions on government fiscal expansions including huge capital expenditure on infrastructure in an attempt to turn around the fortunes of their economy…..the policy has failed as it is fundamentally flawed. Although to be fair Britian’s infrastructure is in desperate need of renewal and in it’s current state can only be limiting growth….there is as ever though alternatives to the rather wasteful approach of Governments taxing and borrowing and then splurging on delayed and costly infrastructure projects.

The fact is Governments cannot create genuine growth in the economy, the more they tax and the more they spend can only do harm in the long term. The bloated size of the UK Public Sector and the relatively high pay, good pensions, lack of productivity measures (how many bad teachers are ever removed from the classroom?) combined with the sheer scale of the public v private sector in parts of the UK make this one of the main problems…sadly that means there will need to be redundancies and rationalisation, there is no two ways about it but it needs to be done to secure the health of the country as a whole for all of it’s citizens. We cannot continue to increase the amount and size of tax users compared to a reasonably flat amount of tax payers…it’s already well out of kilter hence the huge PSBR.

No one wants the poorest to be hit hardest and I hear your comments on how the coalition are being attacked for ideological changes however to me it seems just as bad in reverse…no matter what the coalition are trying to do or why they are trying to do it there just seems to be a wail of “same old Tories” without any real constructive criticism or more importantly viable alternatives being offered…simply saying do less more slowly is no where near good enough when you look at the size of the structural deficit.

That structural part of the deficit MUST be closed somehow…there is only two ways, more tax or less expenditure. Rather bizarrely the opposition seem to be saying that too much of it is based on expenditure cuts yet (i.e we should tax more). Yet when a tax is increased there is further wails of “it’s not fair”…yet the tax in question is a consumption tax so the more you consume the more you will pay with some basic items like foodstuffs, rent and heating excluded from the rise, would you rather income tax and NI was pushed up instead?

I’m in no way backing everything the government has done or has said it will do but on the other hand I see the task at hand as a very urgent one and that all options and importantly a wide range of tools must be used. To me it seems there is just too many vested interests on the opposition benches for my liking (Mr Milliband does have the Unions to thank for his job…Unions that exist almost exclusively in the public sector domain) and the unending attacks on the ideological Tories as nothing much more than noise….so far I have heard very very little in terms of credible alternatives from the opposition or to be fair on here…do less more slowly is not an alternative so what is?

Finally for all the talk about cuts the UK government recently had to borrow a record amount…I think that shows just how hard it is to turn off the government money tap once it is turned on which therefore makes you wonder just how much of that money is being well spent or needing spent at all.