General Discussion
The very fabric of the role of what the State should provide in tax payers money to welfare, services and State pensions, is being whittled away under cover of reducing the deficit, and there is no opposition to it.
The Tory mantra of making painful cuts to reduce the deficit is little more than a smoke screen they hide behind to implement their ideology of reducing the size of the State, driving down wages, cutting benefits ect.
My guess is that they'd make pretty much the same decisions for ideological reasons even if there wasn't a deficit.
The cynic in me says how easy it is for the right wing comfortably well off, greed infested Tory supporters to ridicule and chastise people on the receiving end of Tory cuts in welfare. And how equally easy it is for the right wing press to encourage this, just to sell their papers.
The Thatcherist, hard line, anti social policies the Tory's are forcing on us all makes them feel superior. And they perpetuate the suffering while living in their comfy homes without a conscience.
The Tory's pretend to care about the pensioners having to choose between heating, or eating, the Tory's pretend to care about the family's wondering how they are going to feed their children today and tomorrow.
The Tory's since Thatcher have been the same !
No longer a small "c" left of centre Conservative party with a good social conscience.
No, since the 80's they have been ultra right wing, hardnosed, and with no compassion but to condemn the poor to a life of misery and no hope so long as they can live in relative luxury.
This is how they want it, to keep the masses under their eternal control. The Tories only aim is power and control.
For that reason the Tories love it when the economy is bad, so bad that they blame the masses of poor for it. It is malicious and insidious.
And what makes it even more appalling is that the Tories actually do believe they are superior intellectually to everybody else.
This will be their downfall!, and I hope that this will be at the next general election in 2015.
The Tories deserve to be out of office for decades to come, if only to stop their bare faced arrogance.
Food banks in 21st century Britain, is as bad as the chronic homelessness we have, the awful old age poverty, and the low waged economy the Tories have nurtured throughout their 18 years of running Britain, 1979- 1997, and I might add, New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, 1997- 2010, did nothing fundamental to reverse any of it.
Britain has suffered Thatcher's ideology for over 30 years.
_________
It's good to see a new contributor on this site, but just to be clear it isn't me. I do wonder why people don't give their full ID when posting on these sites. If you feel strongly enough to make a post you really should be prepared to own your statements IMHO
Thanks, much appreciated. I do wish everyone would use their full name to post, would lead to more reasoned debate and less personal abuse. On your main point, I don't agree with your generalised view of conservatives. I do however share the concern that the welfare changes will make life harder for many people who are already having a tough time
Michaelclayson. We havent got Conservatives in Government. We have ultra right wing Tory's, and they have been in Government since Thatcher.
The right of the Tory party believe in a small State and low income taxes, and this is what we have.
The coalition are busy reducing the State and cutting welfare under cover of reducing the deficit. And they are getting away with it.
Okay, so taking all that on board...
How do we as a nation stimulate the economy without maintaining low Income Tax?
How do we reduce the deficit (or isn't there one) without cutting spending?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html
heres something I read today
We all need to be clear what we mean by the terms "the country's deficit" and "the country's debt". They are not the same thing but the terms often get used as though they are.
Been trying to find a link that explains the difference between the two and in a way that we can all understand.
Found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt
Anyone else got another link that might explain it clearer?
(Just thought it important that we all know what it is we are talking about before this thread, and a very interesting thread it is turning out to be, gets any longer).
This is very short and to the point. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100412220722AAcEIer
HuwMatthews2.
But you havent read a word of my posting. The deficit it is being used as a cover to remove the role of the Starte and welfare.
What we need to do is build council houses putting tradesmen to work. And everything else will follow.
I agree Michael, get the economy going by doing exactly what you said, solve the housing crisis as well
Yes Brazilnut. But the Tories wont do this because they want people on unemployment benefit where they can be controlled.
No its true, Just like under Margaret Thatcher, millions are being made unemployed as an inflationary tool
It makes me wonder whether a financial crisis did exist in the first place.
After all the fuss about banks they are still trading paying bonuses and
not lending.
From the Wikipedia link that I posted above.
"Remedies for indebtedness
All the main political parties in Britain agree that the national debt is too high, but there is disagreement as to the remedy. As of 2012 the national debt was forecast to approach 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), far above the government’s sustainable investment rule of a national debt no greater than 40% of GDP.[3]
The size of the debt can be reduced in several ways:
- economic expansion, which tends to cause tax revenues to grow and also leads to lower spending on welfare benefits;
- an improvement in the banking sector, taking the pressure off government intervention;
- cuts to public spending;
- tax increases
- inflation, which reduces the total value of the existing debt
Unfortunately, large scale cuts in public spending have the potential to significantly dampen consumer demand and, by reducing economic growth, slow the increase in tax revenues.[3]
In Parliament, there continues to be disagreement between the political parties regarding the national debt, with Conservative Party politicians typically advocating a larger role for cuts to public spending. By contrast, the Labour Party tends to advocate fewer cuts and more emphasis on greater government spending in order to stimulate economic expansion."
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Coalition's policy to cut public spending? Thought so. Therefore it should be of no surprise that consumer demand has fallen and with it economic growth. Lack of economic growth = a fall in income tax and other tax revenues but with a corresponding increase in the numbers needing welfare benefits of one kind or another. Hence there is a deficit between government income and government expenditure and the difference has to be found by borrowing which in turn increases the national debt.
I was watching an Andrew Neil programme a few weeks back and he described what I have just written in that paragraph above as basic GCSE economics.
There is nothing intellectual about these cuts. The Tory's are using the deficit as a cover to reduce welfare because they dont believe in the welfare state, and the Tory'sdont believe in the role of the State either.
The poor are now being sacrifised on the alter of right wing Tory ideoligy, but nobody is saying this in the media.
Lynn, Again, the Toroes are using the deficit as a cover to dismantle the welfare State because they have an inherant loathing of it. Its that simple.
Dont look for answers, there arent any. People are being made unemployed and homeless on the alter of righht wing Tory ideology.
@Michael Thompson - i totally agree with you that it is conservative philosophy that the state should be small, public spending to be small and taxes to be small irrespective of the state of the national economy and that they are presently using the deficit as their excuse for cutting back on public spending eg Welfare.
If we had a surplus of national funds and a healthy economy with near full employment they would stil be pursuing the same policies as they are now.
So I disagree with you in that I believe there is an intellectual argument for the cuts. It is Tory philosophy. However, I don't agree with that Tory intellectual economic philosophy anymore than it appears you do.
As far as I am concerned if they want ultimately to reduce the deficit then they need to pump public money into the economy by way of capital building programmes. That should lead to more jobs= more tax revenue= more demand= more jobs= more tax revenue etc. with a corresponding reduction in welfare payments. (Course the salaries paid in these new jobs would need to be at least a living wage otherwise there will still be claims on tax credits/welfare benefits).
Lynne, that's just it, the Tories dont want to cut the deficit, they are using the deficit as a cover to reduce both the welfare State, and the role of the State.
That's it in a nutshell.
Lynne, on re- reading your posting, I have to say that this rolling back of the state began under Thatcher, Cameron is merely finishing off what she started.
There is nothing "present" about this. The British electorate have continually voted for right wing low income tax Government's since the 80's, and now it is being reaped, what has been sown.
"this rolling back of the state began under Thatcher,"
Yes, I agree.
And here's the rub.
The electorate may vote/have voted for low taxes, but they still expect good and plentiful hospitals, schools, police, armed forces, road sweepers, pot hole free roads, state pensions etc. etc.
Trouble is, it now seems there's not enough tax revenue to pay for all those things so many of us expect the state (ie us, collectively,) to provide.
So, who to blame? Not the taxpayer surely (or even some non taxpayers if you think of certain large international organisations who do all they can not to pay taxes in this country) .
I know. Let's all point the finger of blame about our lack of funds on the poor! 'Cos if we didn't have to give them all that money in the form of benefits everything would be okay wouldn't it.
Well, wouldn't it?
What's that you say? Someone's already pinched that line. Who might that be then?
""The electorate may vote/have voted for low taxes, but they still expect good and plentiful hospitals, schools, police, armed forces, road sweepers, pot hole free roads, state pensions etc. etc."". BANG ON. We want our cake and eat it.
.
But, and here's another rub.
Look at the money we spend abroad ? in all and everyway. ??????????????
I find it difficult to think people are looking forward to tax the working person more (thats taking more money away from your wages)...surely people would not be happy with that? As you say MT 'want our cake and eat it'.
I am sure people will return Labour next time and they will give everyone exactly what they want and no cuts ...dont know how many credit cards Ed's got lol.
And here's the latest on the government's attitude towards the minimum wage
I wonder if rents will get frozen as well? I only ask because if you are already only earning the minimum wage it is quite likely that you are a renter rather than someone buying their own home. So........let's say you're already on HB in order to help pay your rent. And let's say your wage doesn't increase but your rent does. Would that mean you would need to claim even more HB?
Oh dear! My brain must be getting addled cos I'll swear the government keeps going on about the need to reduce the national HB bill.
This is unbelievable, so give the low paid a higher tax allowance and then introduce this. Many low paid workers are struggling now and that is the reason for the high welfare state tax credits/child tax credits and hb, does this mob actually know what they are doing, I have trouble sleeping already wondering if the next announcement will affect me and yes this one will, I give up!!!!!!
What really gets me with all that's gone on since Thatcher, is the British apathy which mantains the states quo.
oh and let's not forget that the government wants to reduce overall the cost of all welfare benefits as well as HB in particular.
So......let me see if I have this right. A freeze on the minimum wage could lead to............not only an increase in the amount of HB being claimed but also an increase in the amount of various tax credits and any other in work benefits able to be claimed?
Now, they can't let that happen can they? Cos they can't allow the benefit bill to increase, can they?
So, what do you think they would do to stop the overall benefit bill from increasing?
Thoughts anyone?
Apathy excists on here that is obvious as Lynne and I know also Im struggling to get people to realise whats happening all the way round the sort of comments I get is its not affecting me so until it does why should you or I worry !!!!!,
Brazilnut. Ive been struggling for over 2 decades to wake people up from their slumber about this right wing dictarership we have had running Britain since tyhe 80's. You and Lynne, are not alone.
Hang on.....errr.....haven't we just had 10+ years of a socialist Labour Govt. who expanded the Welfare State beyond the bounds of sustainability?
I must have dreamt that then!
1997-2010 - Agreed. Labour was in power.
Socialist? That depends who you're asking.
Some redistribution of wealth perhaps?
Lynne,
1997- 2010-"New" Labour embrced Margaret Thatcher's right wing, low income tax, short term, deregulated free market. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ditched Labour's traditional core values to get the middle class vote.
Socialist ? No. Thatcherite ?, Yes.
No redistribution of wealth. Means tested handouts for the workers and the pensioners. Tax cuts for the top, again.
HuwMatthews2, No, we had a "New" right wing Labour Government who embraced Margaret Thatcher's free market policies for 13 years, which expanded the welfare State.
"Tax cuts for the top, again."
Saw this on the net:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
HuwMatthews2, Never has there been a greater excuse for ripping off the poor. And also where would they go to pay less income tax ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/dont-get-mad-about-use-of-philpotts-tarnish-poor
Superb article in Guardian by Zoe Williams about the right-wing vitriol of the Daily Mail against those on benefits. I see that Osborne today is jumping on the Tory band-wagon of tarring people on benefits with the same brush as Philpott.
Michael,
"Where would the go to pay less income tax?"
Pick one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
The point I am making HuwMatthews2, is that I cant see rich people being so greedy that they would move to a far off land, just to pay less income tax.
The is the nonsense view taken by the right wing, to justify the free market system that already rewards rich people with huge tax cuts at the expense of everyone else.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/388912/Britain-threatens-to-chop-foreign-aid-for-Pakistan
I thought we had to have these welfare cuts because we were skint, £300m the other day to help the Bhuttos win the election , now this !!!!!!!
Brazilnut. How can we be skint when we fight wars in the far east, uphold hird world countries and send billions a year to the EU ?
Exactly!! but thats what they want us to believe 
If we didnt get involved in all these conflicts and aid sending + EU we would be a very wealthy Country again, wouldnt we ?
We are a very wealthy country anyway, its just that all the wealth goes straight to the top in tax cuts. Its been this way since Thatcher in the 80's, while the rest of us have had to endure means tested top ups to low wages and state pensions becausae our system is subserviant.
"How can we be skint when we fight wars in the far east, uphold hird world countries and send billions a year to the EU ?"
"We are a very wealthy country anyway, its just that all the wealth goes straight to the top in tax cuts."
Well which is it?
I get the impression that it's not so much the Tories or New Labour that irks you Michael but rather the economic system i.e. capitalism.
I don't know of another workable system though - certainly not communism as has been (and can be) seen in countries that went that way. Far less workable would be some kind of Nationalist Communism which you appear to be expounding. I'm probably wrong but that is how your views are coming across to me.
Nope.
UKIP last time if it makes any difference and Libdem before that...and Labour before that!
Why?
I'm sure you can work that out for yourself!
I've given you enough info about me so come clean then - what are your voting preferences or are you a bit shy about that?
No I CANT ACTUALLY. iVE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT WE HAVENT HAD A lABOUR gOVERNMENT SINCE THE 70'S, SO i GUESS YOU VOTED PRIOR TO THE 70'S THEN ?
SORY ABOUT CAPS
Michael you are an extremist who I have no time for.
I voted Labour in 2001 - at least that's what it said on the card!
I note you still haven't said who you vote for - or do you not take up your constitutional right and remain one of the many who spouts lots but doesn't vote?
Re the tax explanation you posted above. Yes, I am aware that there is a question mark over its authorship. Seems it was not necessarily written by the person your posting says it was but another academic who wrote it as an exercise for his students to debate and discuss in a seminar. It does not necessarily follow that the academic who wrote it belived it rather that it was written to provoke debate (which it certainly has done although not necessarily in the way he intended!). Apparently it then got hijacked by the American right as proof that their attitude to taxation was/is the correct one.
If you or anyone else who is interested look further down that link I gave you will see another longer and more complex analysis of taxation in a capitalist system. It may ring (alarm) bells.
HuwMatthews, I am a "traditional" Labour supporter because "traditional" Labour were always the party that stood up for the working classes, the working man.
But when Tony Blaqir took Labour to the right in 1997, I withdrew my membership of the party.
"Extremist" ?, in what way ?, please elaborate ?
Lynne,
Sorry, I should have included the working woman. But when Labour was founded there were very few woman out at work, that is what I meant.