Effects of Austerity Cuts part 58
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 26 Jun 15 9.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 26 Jun 2015 9.25pm
That's a not untenable point of view,but avoids IMO the actual point about "austerity" now, The question is,if you buy the overwhelming need to cut the defecit argument that is (and there is more than one valid point of view on that), how you do it. A few (far from exhaustive) general choices/options: Emphasis on cutting the public sector,and state provided "services/benefits? Cut things like massively expensive nuclear weapons and what goes to the royal family? Higher and progressive taxation,including inheritance tax? Really act to close tax avoidance loopholes? Attack benefits recipients? Act to tax multinationals appropriately? Or protect and nurture the "wealth creators" to encourage "trickle down"? Seek to reduce or increase inequality in the process? A mixture? Edited by legaleagle (26 Jun 2015 9.40pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 26 Jun 15 10.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Personally,my humble opinon on that point concurs with your's fully. I outlined options (austerity max/austerity lite, other ways forward) as opposed to expressing my personal preferences on any particular option. The "received wisdom" the spinners spout is that there is only the option/s utilised since 2010...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Jun 15 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Justice system could grind to a halt as lawyers take unofficial action against cuts to legal aid. That tosser Gove is in charge, I can't see him budging.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Johnny Eagles  berlin 30 Jun 15 8.17am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 26 Jun 2015 9.43pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 26 Jun 2015 9.45am
It makes me laugh how everyone still talks about "austerity". National debt: FY 2015 £1.36 trillion Net borrowing (ie, the deficit) 2015: 87,3
The government is paying £43bn a year in interest on its debt. Households are paying around £60bn a year on interest repayments. If that's "austerity" then what are you going to call it when interest rates rise, taxes go up, the next financial crisis hits and nobody is willing to lend Britain any more money?
Depends which debt you mean. The government owes money to: "Investors" is a broad term, covering everything from sharp-suited hedge fund b*stards to pension funds. (Except the teachers' pension fund which is UNFUNDED - just thought I'd slip that in there Who in turn owe it to the above list. As Greece is finding out, if you have LOTS of debt, it stops being your problem and becomes the problem of the people to whom you owe the money. UNLESS you ever want to borrow money ever again. Then credit-worthiness becomes quite important.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
)| johnfirewall 30 Jun 15 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 26 Jun 2015 8.54am
Barnardo's estimate that the majority of kids living in poverty have someone in the family in work... Lets be consistent... "Why should the taxpayer feed your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer educate your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer treat your kids if they fall ill?" If you can't afford to pay for your kids' food,education and healthcare in full at market rates,don't have any....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 30 Jun 15 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 27 Jun 2015 10.18am
Justice system could grind to a halt as lawyers take unofficial action against cuts to legal aid. That tosser Gove is in charge, I can't see him budging. Michael Gove gets things done.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 30 Jun 15 8.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 30 Jun 2015 12.50pm
Quote legaleagle at 26 Jun 2015 8.54am
Barnardo's estimate that the majority of kids living in poverty have someone in the family in work... Lets be consistent... "Why should the taxpayer feed your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer educate your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer treat your kids if they fall ill?" If you can't afford to pay for your kids' food,education and healthcare in full at market rates,don't have any....
Edited by legaleagle (30 Jun 2015 8.22pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 30 Jun 15 8.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jun 2015 8.20pm
Quote johnfirewall at 30 Jun 2015 12.50pm
Quote legaleagle at 26 Jun 2015 8.54am
Barnardo's estimate that the majority of kids living in poverty have someone in the family in work... Lets be consistent... "Why should the taxpayer feed your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer educate your kids?" "Why should the taxpayer treat your kids if they fall ill?" If you can't afford to pay for your kids' food,education and healthcare in full at market rates,don't have any....
Edited by legaleagle (30 Jun 2015 8.22pm) This is probably covered in more depth in the 'boob job' thread but some people are more responsible than others when it comes to considering the implications of reproduction. I don't want to see people having to work 7 days a week and still not manage to feed their kids. Neither do I want people to have 12 for free.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 30 Jun 15 8.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes,but lets not miss the overriding point of the kids themselves, who are blameless,rather than a minority of parents who might act in an irresponsible and out of order way. Do we think as a country every kid should be guaranteed a certain minimum level of "sustenance",healthcare and education etc regardless of their parents' financial situation or behaviour.Kind of basic "equality of opportunity" stuff. Maybe some disagree with it. Edited by legaleagle (30 Jun 2015 8.48pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 30 Jun 15 9.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jun 2015 8.45pm
Yes,but lets not miss the overriding point of the kids themselves, who are blameless,rather than a minority of parents who might act in an irresponsible and out of order way. Do we think as a country every kid should be guaranteed a certain minimum level of "sustenance",healthcare and education etc regardless of their parents' financial situation.Kind of basic "equality of opportunity" stuff. Not really, no. We had a welfare state for decades, where people gave careful consideration to whether they were actually going to be able to provide for a child. Why should working parents now struggle to pay for the result of the thoughtlessness of others? What you're talking about is taking care of other peoples kids but we're the ones working while they're babysitting. I'm not saying let them starve but the message you're giving is wrong.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 30 Jun 15 9.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jun 2015 8.45pm
Yes,but lets not miss the overriding point of the kids themselves, who are blameless,rather than a minority of parents who might act in an irresponsible and out of order way. Do we think as a country every kid should be guaranteed a certain minimum level of "sustenance",healthcare and education etc regardless of their parents' financial situation or behaviour.Kind of basic "equality of opportunity" stuff. Maybe some disagree with it.
Agree with all your points Legal, but on the flip side - are we actually helping these children by allowing them to grow up with roll models who often have no sense of personal or civic responsibility.
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 30 Jun 15 9.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well,Tom,I don't think the answer (and I think you agree) is to deprive kids of the basics to give them an opportunity ... How you encourage kids to grow up a certain way and utilise opportunities (especially where there are very negative role models with power over their everyday lives) and "break the cycle" is perhaps a complex question for its own thread and certainly one worthy of more than any glib answers I could come up with on the spot... Also,you raise questions of things like the state possibly separating kids from a parent and/or intervening in other ways when you say "allowing them to grow up" with negative role models and that's another related whole big topic on its own. As with most things,a system (whether the legal system or "benefits" system) allows some people to take the piss.Generally,that's not a reason IMO to fundamentally change a system that legitimately provides a more level playing field/helps others legitimately.The system hasn't been invented yet that I've come across which offers protections/legitimate help for the many but is incapable of abuse by the minority.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.