IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Budget Cuts
Phil_D11102
post Oct 20 2010, 09:29 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



Yesterday the axe swung on the military. As one who took volunatry redunancy in the early 90's, I was lucky enough to find a job before I took off my uniform for the last time. The prospect of losing thousands of police, civil servants, it doesn't look good.

Cutting back on manpower whether it be in the civil service ranks, military, police, etc will just leave gaps and overwork those still in jobs. Standards will slip, which will just leave both the public and those who are to run these agencies disgruntled.

Earmarking education funding for poorer areas being paid for by those who are supposedly more affluent taxpayers is not equal, as the school curriculum should be the same across the UK. How about leveing a tax on those parents who kids don't attend schools or leave without at least C grade GCSE's in English, Math, Citizenship and Science. If you don't have a legitmate reason for obtaining those grades, then you were surely wasting taxpayer money. It then seems that these same people will be the ones on lower incomes and seeking to obtain benefits. Education is the key to success.

Now that tution fees are due to increase, what is next, paying for you children to attend pre university education?

Surely if the reason behind this is to reduce the budget defecit, then there has got to be other ways to do it. Get the banks to pay back what they owe sooner. Cut foreign aid by at least 2/3's and give only for humanitarian aid and those projects being run by allies who truly support democracy.

I am not a communist, socialist, anarchist, or even a lib dem. I am just a tax payer who wants in power those who seem to want to do the best job for EVERYBODY. Will the next winter of discontent come from the middle class?

I don't think making huge cuts in public services produces positive results. The UK is in crisis mode, and the saying is "Charity begins at home". Wasn't the third world debt was eliminated by the global powers in 2000? For a couple of years we need to close ranks and get our own house in order before we are on a footing to help others.

Again, stop sticking it to the taxpayers, and begin to look for alternative means to get the UK back on a solid footing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 09:36 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



I just don't understand why everything seems to be aimed at the middle class and poorest sections of society. A couple living in a council house earning £25-£30k between them now face higher rents, more tax and less public services. What changes will the really affluent face?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blake
post Oct 20 2010, 09:47 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 507
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 75



I agree with a lot your points Phil.

What disgusts me is that this economic catastrophe we are now saddled with (for many years it would seem) is the result of LABOUR'S destructive years of mismanagement.

Isn't it funny now how Blair, Brown and Mandelson have gone into hiding now and are conspicuously absent from the current debate. That is because they and they inability to manage the financial sector led to this outrage. Labour always wanted to destroy capitalism and now they look as though they may have almost done it. Now we all suffer.

Thanks for nothing Tony!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 09:49 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 10:36 AM) *
I just don't understand why everything seems to be aimed at the middle class and poorest sections of society. A couple living in a council house earning £25-£30k between them now face higher rents, more tax and less public services. What changes will the really affluent face?


A higher rate of income tax? The problem is the Country is spending far more than we can afford and have been for a while. If I had an overdraft and if every year it got bigger at some point it would have to be reduced. To do this I would have to spend less. The same applies to the economy. I don't like the cuts, don't want the cuts, but they have to happen in order to get our house in order. If the IMF thought we were delaying this action then interest rates would rise on our debt, leading to more debt and the Country could be in real danger of losing its Credit Rating. This could lead to a 'Greece' type scenario.

The main reason (but not the whole reason) for the level of debt we find ourselves in is because of the mis-selling by investment bankers in the Financial World that led to the crisis and bail out of the banks that the previous Labour Government watched over. Regulation was poor and whilst the banks generated vast profits and gave billions to the Treasury the Treasury was prepared to turn a 'blind eye'. Now the real problem. If you punish the banks too hard the they would relocate and a lot of income that is necessary for the recovery would be lost. That means us poor suckers have to foot the bill for the idiocy of the Financial World. I don't like it. You don't like it but what alternatives do we have?

Unfortunately a lot of militant union leaders will not accept that we are all in this together (both the Private and Public Sector) and I expect a lot of industrial action that will not help anyone...

My rant over!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



but we aren't really in it together. A lot of what is happening is aimed at people who are worse off than me, and that's why it upsets me. People I grew up with bearing the brunt when George and Dave get to go to banquets drinking £8,000 bottles of wine.

The crisis was caused by the banks, and yes Labour bailed them out. But what if the banks had been allowed to collapse??? We would have all lost our savings. The bail outs are in the way of loans and we will recieve the cash back with a hefty return.

There needs to be changes to the way we run this county. Welfare, public spending and financial services. But they need to be well thought out, and we can't slash jobs in the current economic situation. We have already gone from strong growth in the spring to post election gloom. By going the same route as Ireland (which the IMF gave the green light to), we face ending up in the situation that they are in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 10:20 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 11:05 AM) *
but we aren't really in it together. A lot of what is happening is aimed at people who are worse off than me, and that's why it upsets me. People I grew up with bearing the brunt when George and Dave get to go to banquets drinking £8,000 bottles of wine.

The crisis was caused by the banks, and yes Labour bailed them out. But what if the banks had been allowed to collapse??? We would have all lost our savings. The bail outs are in the way of loans and we will recieve the cash back with a hefty return.

There needs to be changes to the way we run this county. Welfare, public spending and financial services. But they need to be well thought out, and we can't slash jobs in the current economic situation. We have already gone from strong growth in the spring to post election gloom. By going the same route as Ireland (which the IMF gave the green light to), we face ending up in the situation that they are in.


Of course Tony and Gordon never attended banquets...... laugh.gif

Interestingly David Finkelstein in the Times writes...

"The deficit was the result of economic miscalculation (that we could go on spending because the boom would never end in a bust) and of political calculation. And the political calculation is that we - you and me - wouldn't stand for tax rises (Tony Blair) and wanted public spending rises (Gordon Brown). So we'd just have to borrow. And who can say, reviewing the politics of the past 15 years, that this calculation was wrong?

"The deficit isn't the fault of the banks. The deficit is the amount we borrow each year because we are spending more than the amount of tax that is coming in. We are not doing that to prop up the banks. We paid out to support the banks and that has left us with historical debt, but that is not the same thing as the deficit that we are incurring each year."

This would suggest that this action would have to have been taken whoever inherited this mess from the last Labour Government. Or should we fiddle whilst Rome burns?? You only have to look at the history of Labour to know that when they leave power they leave it with the Country in a Financial maelstrom. Thats why some pathetic whitehall junior ministers leave post-it notes stating 'There is no money left' for any new Government. angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Oct 20 2010, 10:28 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 11:05 AM) *
but we aren't really in it together. A lot of what is happening is aimed at people who are worse off than me, and that's why it upsets me. People I grew up with bearing the brunt when George and Dave get to go to banquets drinking £8,000 bottles of wine.

You may want to avoid the issue but what is happening now is a direct result of 13 years of Labour governments failure. Face up to it and move forward.
QUOTE
The crisis was caused by the banks, and yes Labour bailed them out. But what if the banks had been allowed to collapse??? We would have all lost our savings. The bail outs are in the way of loans and we will recieve the cash back with a hefty return.

Same comment as above.
QUOTE
There needs to be changes to the way we run this county. Welfare, public spending and financial services. But they need to be well thought out, and we can't slash jobs in the current economic situation. We have already gone from strong growth in the spring to post election gloom. By going the same route as Ireland (which the IMF gave the green light to), we face ending up in the situation that they are in.

You are correct in that there have to be changes made in running the country and the new government is doing it.
Loss of services and jobs is now inevitable thanks to gross mis-management over the last 13 years. Don't blame the coalition for this as they are cleaning up the mess they have inherited.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Oct 20 2010, 10:49 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



QUOTE
The main reason (but not the whole reason) for the level of debt we find ourselves in is because of the mis-selling by investment bankers in the Financial World that led to the crisis and bail out of the banks that the previous Labour Government watched over. Regulation was poor and whilst the banks generated vast profits and gave billions to the Treasury the Treasury was prepared to turn a 'blind eye'. Now the real problem. If you punish the banks too hard the they would relocate and a lot of income that is necessary for the recovery would be lost. That means us poor suckers have to foot the bill for the idiocy of the Financial World. I don't like it. You don't like it but what alternatives do we have?


The banks ran into problems because of poor standards and practices...

As the banks borrowed our money why now doesn't payback the money and pass the debt to the government, who collects directly from the borrowers.

Those who owe more than 25K in any sort of mortage, loan, etc, is barred from borrowing from at least 5 years. The government now increases their "tax" by 5 or 10 percent, which is above the lending rate. The good thing now is they are not faced in getting turfed out in the street or paying stupid intrest rates and can sleep a little easier. Those who cannot afford to pay back has their homes signed over to the government who rents is back to them. Also, those who cannot pay back or in long term unemployment work on gov't schemes to clean up parks, roads, whatever they need to do unless they are a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc).

The problem also lies at the feet of the government who did not regulate the banks. If the banks didn't collaspe, they would be happier as a pig in muck still collecting big money and paying big bounses. At the end of the day, the average tax payer is getting hosed either by the banks or the gov't.

There are other ways, but the gov't would rather cut and run by saying it would cost too much to manage these programs when in the long run it would balance out. Even before the bank bailouts the gov't always seemed never to have enough money. Again, close ranks, stop foreign aid, and help your own people for a change as we are now the ones who need it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 01:53 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



Council funding will be cut by 7.1%.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 02:08 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 02:53 PM) *
Council funding will be cut by 7.1%.


And? Perhaps they will be a little more 'prudent' as gordon liked to say before he blew all the countries cash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 02:12 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



Puts the welfare system on a sustainable footing, making net welfare savings of £7 billion a year, including through withdrawing Child Benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer, reforming Employment and Support Allowance, controlling the cost of tax credits, and capping the amount a workless household can receive in benefits to no more than an average family gets by going out to work;

Good!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 02:16 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



Again, I'd advise you to look at the detail when it emerges before praising the chancellor. One of the things I agree with is the cap of benefit at £26,000 per year, and some would say even that is quite high.

The poorest 10% are amongst the hardest hit in this budget. George Osborne was saying that this budget would be fair, but it seems it was more rushed than fair. Over the next few days when the detail emerges, you will see some clear examples of the effect this will have on the vulnerable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Oct 20 2010, 02:26 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 03:16 PM) *
Again, I'd advise you to look at the detail when it emerges before praising the chancellor. One of the things I agree with is the cap of benefit at £26,000 per year, and some would say even that is quite high.

The poorest 10% are amongst the hardest hit in this budget. George Osborne was saying that this budget would be fair, but it seems it was more rushed than fair. Over the next few days when the detail emerges, you will see some clear examples of the effect this will have on the vulnerable.

Yes, that will probably be the case however we will also see the effect it has on the workshy Benefit scroungers too. One of the reasons we are in this position.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 02:40 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



There does need to be benefit reform. I can't speak for my colleagues in Westminster, but here in West Berkshire we are realistic. This being said, decisions taken need to be thought through and fair. From the evidence so far, I would say that this whole process as been rushed through on Tory ideology rather than neccessity. Why on earth were the Tories and Libs cheering these savage cuts??? Why was the Lib MP Bob Russell cracking jokes during the announcement of the pension cuts???? Why was Cameron laughing and joking??? Hardly trying to win over hearts and minds.

We need to move away from what the red tops are saying, this crisis was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the murky financial services industry. In 2007, the tories were calling for less regulation on the banks, now they are blaming the crash on Labour!!! With regards to the defecit, lets be clear. If Labour had not bailed out the banks we would have lost our jobs, homes, the lot. The money we get back from the banks will include a huge profit. Are you suggesting that the Tories would not have bailed out the banks???

What it comes down to now is that the Tories want to cut too fast, they say they want to go down the same route as Ireland. Look at the state they ended up in. Regardless of your political bias, look at this with a common sense view, not rose tinted (or blue tinted) spectacles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Oct 20 2010, 02:48 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 03:40 PM) *
There does need to be benefit reform. I can't speak for my colleagues in Westminster, but here in West Berkshire we are realistic. This being said, decisions taken need to be thought through and fair. From the evidence so far, I would say that this whole process as been rushed through on Tory ideology rather than neccessity. Why on earth were the Tories and Libs cheering these savage cuts??? Why was the Lib MP Bob Russell cracking jokes during the announcement of the pension cuts???? Why was Cameron laughing and joking??? Hardly trying to win over hearts and minds.

We need to move away from what the red tops are saying, this crisis was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the murky financial services industry. In 2007, the tories were calling for less regulation on the banks, now they are blaming the crash on Labour!!! With regards to the defecit, lets be clear. If Labour had not bailed out the banks we would have lost our jobs, homes, the lot. The money we get back from the banks will include a huge profit. Are you suggesting that the Tories would not have bailed out the banks???

What it comes down to now is that the Tories want to cut too fast, they say they want to go down the same route as Ireland. Look at the state they ended up in. Regardless of your political bias, look at this with a common sense view, not rose tinted (or blue tinted) spectacles.

I'm sorry, this is political claptrap. All I am hearing is repetition of the excuse that all of this crisis was the banks fault. It wasn't , it was the fault of 13 years of bad government and this country will suffer in all areas of it's infrastructure because of it.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 02:55 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Bloggo @ Oct 20 2010, 03:48 PM) *
I'm sorry, this is political claptrap. All I am hearing is repetition of the excuse that all of this crisis was the banks fault. It wasn't , it was the fault of 13 years of bad government and this country will suffer in all areas of it's infrastructure because of it.


See my earlier post....

Interestingly David Finkelstein in the Times writes...

"The deficit was the result of economic miscalculation (that we could go on spending because the boom would never end in a bust) and of political calculation. And the political calculation is that we - you and me - wouldn't stand for tax rises (Tony Blair) and wanted public spending rises (Gordon Brown). So we'd just have to borrow. And who can say, reviewing the politics of the past 15 years, that this calculation was wrong?

"The deficit isn't the fault of the banks. The deficit is the amount we borrow each year because we are spending more than the amount of tax that is coming in. We are not doing that to prop up the banks. We paid out to support the banks and that has left us with historical debt, but that is not the same thing as the deficit that we are incurring each year."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 20 2010, 03:28 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 03:40 PM) *
here in West Berkshire we are realistic.

Who are "we"? I thought you were a prospective Labour candidate, which in this area is a bit of a pointless fantasy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Oct 20 2010, 03:32 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,316
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 20 2010, 04:28 PM) *
Who are "we"? I thought you were a prospective Labour candidate, which in this area is a bit of a pointless fantasy.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Oct 20 2010, 05:12 PM
Post #19





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 07:40 AM) *
There does need to be benefit reform. I can't speak for my colleagues in Westminster, but here in West Berkshire we are realistic. This being said, decisions taken need to be thought through and fair. From the evidence so far, I would say that this whole process as been rushed through on Tory ideology rather than neccessity. Why on earth were the Tories and Libs cheering these savage cuts??? Why was the Lib MP Bob Russell cracking jokes during the announcement of the pension cuts???? Why was Cameron laughing and joking??? Hardly trying to win over hearts and minds.

We need to move away from what the red tops are saying, this crisis was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the murky financial services industry. In 2007, the tories were calling for less regulation on the banks, now they are blaming the crash on Labour!!! With regards to the defecit, lets be clear. If Labour had not bailed out the banks we would have lost our jobs, homes, the lot. The money we get back from the banks will include a huge profit. Are you suggesting that the Tories would not have bailed out the banks???

What it comes down to now is that the Tories want to cut too fast, they say they want to go down the same route as Ireland. Look at the state they ended up in. Regardless of your political bias, look at this with a common sense view, not rose tinted (or blue tinted) spectacles.


This is good advice, but it should extend to red and yellow tinted spectacles.

I am sick and tired of hearing divisive nonsense about who did what, who is to blame. It's this type of stupidity that has contributed to a general mess of a system. Instead of genuinely working for the good of the country, it seems to be the primary objective of politicians to sling mud.

Newsflash, every political party is going to offer up countless examples of either poor policy or politicians making poor judgement calls. Harping on about the past and pointing the finger does nothing but make one look petty and blinkered.

One massive issue faced across the world, is the demographic timebomb. The majority of systems around the world rely on current taxation and social insurance contributions to pay for pensions. With the baby boomer generation hitting retirement age and with improved medical care leading to longer lives, we face a declining working population supporting an increasing retired population and this cannot be sustained.

Something that should have been started to be addressed 20 years ago was shelved year after year as it would have been such a political hot potato that it likely could have lost the election at the time, even though it would be for the long term good.

If politicians (be they Labour, Conservative, LibDems or otherwise) as a rule were less worried about their own status and office and more worried about actually governing the country responsibly, things would be so much better. Instead all we hear is, Labour did this, the Tories did that and it gets us absolutely nowehere. Don't tell me about what the other guy does wrong, tell me what can be done to fix it.

Trouble is most 'good' decisions that need to be taken rarely are as they are tough.

I also point to a large amount of the blame being at the shoulders of us the public. Whilst governments have enabled our behaviour to a large extent, there is over-spending on the individual basis (think credit card debt and unsustainable mortgages) that have aggregated into the macro-economic problems we now face. Rare is it that I meet people who think they aren't 'entitled' to spend more than they have or even more than is affordable and that is sad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 05:30 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



When Ed became leader of the Labour party, he made it clear he would not oppose every cut. What he did say was that cuts and reform must be fair. What seems to be happening in London is that a lot of these decisions have been rushed through, leaving some anomalies such as the child benefit. For whatever reason, the Tories have decided to cut deeper and faster than they proposed in the build up to the election. They say the IMF and the IFS have approved the CSR, but the IFS came out straight away calling this review "more regressive than progressive". Cameron points to Ireland as an example. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

The main point of difference is the speed of the reduction. Is it sensible to slash during an unstable economic period? Labour say it isn't, and if we go into recession again, it will prove that they were right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th January 2022 - 06:04 PM