[Closed] So Mr Cameron

Good news, everyone! Tories back to normal.

Of all the ways to not fix something, this had to be at the top of the list.

and did you know that under 18's can't claim housing benefit anyway, as they should live at home...

Really useful for us and my son; he is on an apprenticeship in another town, and I need to pay his rent - as he earns the standard rate of £100 per week..., just over £2 per hour!

Why do you need welfare benefits anyway?

Amazing decision. We have the largest youth unemployment since records began and he decides these are the ones that need a kicking. If you want a job, there's a good chance you'll have to move away from home but good luck getting anything more than minimum wage so you'll barely cover the rent. He's doing a great job of ensuring anyone under 25 will never vote tory.

He's doing a great job of ensuring anyone under 25 will never vote tory.

....if only more people under 25 would actually vote at all! 🙁

I think, as a general rule, no one should ever vote Tory anyway. 😆

Tory is as Tory does; what do people expect from them?

So when he talks about the culture of entitlement is he referring to him and his rich tax-avoiding chums or people on benefits?

Cut taxes for the rich, let the banks/finance industry get off scot-free, then blame everything on the poor. Classic.

Am I the only one who thinks its a bit rich (no pun intended) listening to one of a group of multimillionaires, who inherited all their wealth from mummy and daddy, telling us they're stamping out a 'culture of entitlement'?

Its incredible that their collective eye-wateringly expensive educations allow them to make statements like this without a hint of irony. If it wasn't so serious, it'd be laughable

I think, as a general rule, no one should ever vote Tory anyway

when he talks about the culture of entitlement

I laughed when I heard this this morning too. He wants the LDs to veto this so it can turn into a traditional Tory v Lab battleground I expect.

Perhaps those young people who move away from home could live together. In fact, employers could put them up in their own accommodation. I would be even more efficient if these houses were on the same site as the work. They could be called work-houses or something. I reckon the Tories would approve of that.

Young people should not be allowed a penny in benefits of any kind. The buggers are here to replace us and treat us like sh1t when we are old. Babies and children are just the start of the conspiracy.

We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED.

So whats your point caller?

[i]We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED. [/i]

Yep, but that would be the pensions that take the big chunk - over 50%

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/files/2011/11/Benefits-pie-chart2.jp g" target="_blank">http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/files/2011/11/Benefits-pie-chart2.jp g"/> &w=655&h=512&ei=Fy3oT66QCZD88QPht_jCCg&zoom=1" rel="nofollow" >

So whats your point caller?

Possibly he don't give a crap about those who currently rely on those benefits? Possibly?

The State is currently taking over 50% of GDP in taxes. Does anyone in here feel under-taxed? It's always easy to point at some other guy and say "Make him pay" but we just have to stop living beyond our means.

That ring a bell Binners?

We spend more on benefits AND PENSIONS than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2012UKbn

You dont weant to be accused on misleading to make a point now do you

Tory right wing rhetoric to appeal to his Core voters who are smidgen to the left of fascists

Wont ever happen so who knows why he is saying it
What young people need is jobs and a future not a further kicking from the state.

The State is currently taking over 50% of GDP in taxes.

Is this make up stats day ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
or here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8048047.stm

Pensions make up the majority of that spending

So, you're saying that we need to cut pension's after all?

Hallelujah 😀

The State is currently taking over 50% of GDP in taxes. Does anyone in here feel under-taxed? It's always easy to point at some other guy and say "Make him pay" but we just have to stop living beyond our means.

So you're saying that we should all just shrug our shoulders, and say hey ho, Vodaphone avoided paying £6 billion in tax (that we know about), Phillip green funnelled £1.5 billion through Monaco, but I'm sure, in the grand scheme of things, it makes no difference to the way our society functions.

Yeah.. you're right. The books aren't balancing, not because of multi-squillionaire Tory party donors not making any contribution to society, but because of those bastard young unemployed people! The grasping selfish ****s!!!

we just have to stop living beyond our means.

You're so right, we do need to pay more tax.

So, you're saying that we need to cut pension's after all?

In the context of this debate I am saying that the statement is wrong as indeed are the claim it outstrips the others.
Obvioulsy you cannot defend that so you make a pointless dig as you cannot really argue.... you used to be a contender you know 😥

You might want to read this 😛
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/ok-your-pm-for-the-day-what-savings-would-you-make#post-3918054

Lets ask the OECD. I should have said State Spending as a Percentage of GDP, which includes spending financed by yet more debt, which has to be paid for later, through taxes. Nice situation we're leaving to our kids.

[img] [/img]

grum - Member

we just have to stop living beyond our means.

You're so right, we do need to pay more tax.

Fair enough, how much more tax are you happy to pay?

how much more tax are you happy to pay?

How about the same percentage of my income as Phillip Green pays?

Well if you dont want to leave this situation for your kids you have 3 choices

1. Spend less - This will be hard/impossible to achieve in a 5 year cycle. What with all the benefit payments [ you would be livid i assume] we would need to make if we cut the public sector further and , unlike last time under thatcher - we have no silverware left to fund the defecit - she marketed this as privatisation irrc. I do not really see that working
2. Tax more /prevent avoidance
3. Await the triumphant charge of capitlaism into the market place insoired by the banks fre elending and the enterpriseof culture engendere dby the givts policies - jury is still out on how succesful that has been but I would say it is not bearing any fruit though we could perhaps debate whether the seeds ahve been planted

Binners the solution is Philip Green paying the same as you and I along with lots and lots of other very very wealthy tax avoiders

I expect the Tories to talk tough and do **** all about this

2011 Taxation as a percentage of GDP - 38.9
2011 Government spending as a percentage of GDP - 47.3

So, Taxes need to be roughly 20% higher than at present to support our current lifestyle

VAT to 24%, standard rate income tax to 24%, petrol up twenty odd pence per litre

Fantastic solution there from the Lefties - thats going to have no effect on economic growth, is it 🙄

binners - Member

how much more tax are you happy to pay?

How about the same percentage of my income as Phillip Green pays?

In others words you dont want to pay more tax. Just like everybody else. Better find a way of cutting spending then.

Fair enough, how much more tax are you happy to pay?

Well I already pay a vastly higher proportion than say, Amazon or Google.

http://www.****/debate/article-2125883/Amazon-Google-sordid-reality-tax-avoidance.html

But I could afford to pay a bit more - as could virtually everyone on this forum given how people are constantly splashing out on bike bits they don't really need (me included).

Fantastic solution there from the Lefties - thats going to have no effect on economic growth, is it

I favour a Scandinavian model.

WASHINGTON — Forget the stereotypes about Scandinavian socialism and how its high taxes and expensive public health care system are destroying private enterprise.

[b]It turns out nothing could be further from the truth.[/b]

The Nordic countries have bested some of the world's hottest economies and dominate the top ranks of the list of most competitive economies in the world in a new ranking of the best places to do business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-compete.html

But just keep peddling the same neo-liberal bullshit that has got us into this mess - it seems fairly popular, especially with our glorious leaders.

Binners the solution is Philip Green [b]paying the same as you and I[/b] along with lots and lots of other very very wealthy tax avoiders

Hang on a minute

you're now campaigning for a flat income tax Junky?

you're actually asking for them to pay [b]the same[/b] as you - rather than to pay more than you?

Thats great Junky - I'm over the moon that you now see the inherent fairness of people paying [b]the same [/b] proportion of their income as taxes, rather than hitting the wealthy with a 50% income tax rate (that is largley irrelevant, as all your rich lefty mates dodge it anyway)

Zulu - perhaps we could alter the taxes the rich pay rather than your preferred method of increasing the taxes we all pay.

Could you explain how a further reduction in 20 % of govt spendingi s achieved - the knock on effect is unemployment which has the tiwn effects of ioncreased benefit spending and reduced taxation - what figure would they need to cut to actually save the 20%?

I dont think your preferred method is very well thought through either but perhaps you could explain your own view /solution rather than just crticise the "lefties".

i know you struggle when you have to think and debate like a grown up [rather than just gently mock/insult]but go on it is Monday ...give it a go and reach for the stars

Zulu I am saying he should pay the same as I do/everyone does - ie what the cireent tax rate is on his income as I do - it is a comment on his avoidance as you are well aware rather than redistributive or flat rate taxe.
if you wish to stretch points to breaking , for your own amusement, then knock yourself out

I cannot be bothered if you are going to do this dance again and just scribble furiously 🙄

In others words you dont want to pay more tax. Just like everybody else. Better find a way of cutting spending then.

Your logic is fantastic. I find it frankly offensive that the people who can most afford to, pay the least in tax. In fact some of them pay none at all. So the burden is shifted disproportionately on to the rest of us, who don't have the advantage of vast wealth

Your solution to this? Cut benefits to those in society who are most disadvantaged.

Brilliant! You are Ian Duncan Smith and I claim my five (tax free) pounds

Zulu - perhaps we could alter the taxes the rich pay rather than your preferred method of increasing the taxes we all pay.

Which is inconsistent with your statement up the page that

the solution is Philip Green paying [b]the same[/b] as you and I along with lots and lots of other very very wealthy tax avoiders...

So, which is it?

Personally, I think its more than fair that everyone should pay the same percentage - the rich still pay much, much more than the poor, thats how percentages work!

I favour a Scandinavian model.

Like the Icelandics?

There just arent enough so call fat cats to close the deficit run up by a nation of 60 million people.

Like the Icelandics?

Great point, except that Iceland isn't actually part of Scandinavia. Really good point though.

According to liberal thinkers, Scandinavian countries should have drowned in the current economic crisis with their bloated public sectors and a nanny-state mentality that stifles individual creativity.

[b]But the opposite has happened. Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where many people pay 50% of their income in taxes – with some even paying 60% – are coping better than most, in particular better than Britain.[/b]

"The outlook for these countries is good," says Christian Ketels, an economist at the Harvard Business School and the Stockholm School of Economics. "They are going to return to normal quicker, and in better shape, than everybody else."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/aug/05/scandinavia-recession-welfare-state

So Sweden, Denmark and Norway - really high standards of living, economies doing great, brilliant place to do business. But no, lets stick with our approach, it's really much better!

mcboo and Z11 - please explain how the Scandinavian countries have actually got it so wrong?

There just arent enough so call fat cats to close the deficit run up by a nation of 60 million people.

How about a cull? What would be your preferred method? I'd vote for carpet bombing Essex

the rich still pay much, much more than the poor, thats how percentages work!

Here's another crazy idea those Scandinavians got so very wrong.

[b]In the 1990s, the Scandinavian countries underwent difficult financial crises during which they introduced tighter regulation of their banking sectors. That has protected them during the current downturn.[/b]

Dickheads.

In addition, they have very competitive economies. Denmark and Sweden come third and fourth respectively in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness survey for 2008-2009, behind the US and Switzerland (the UK comes 12th).

This competitiveness is underpinned by their well-funded and large public sectors. In its survey, the World Economic Forum argues that high levels of investment in education and training have been the key to success

Oh....

We could get a bit more biblical, I suppose. How about killing the first born of anyone on benefits? The Daily Mail would champion that one. In which case it'd be a shoe in for the next Tory manifesto.

I reckon I've a future as Steve Hilton's replacement at number 10

[img] [/img]

The only thing stopping me is that my bikes are quite nice. Why do all Multi-squillionaire Tory posho's ride shite bikes?

Denmark;

Denmark is a net exporter of food and energy and has for a number of years had a balance of payments surplus

Sweden;

aided by timber, hydropower and iron ore. These constitute the resource base of an economy oriented toward foreign trade. The main industries include motor vehicles, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, industrial machines, precision equipments, chemical goods, home goods and appliances, forestry, iron and steel.

Norway;

Norway's economic growth has been fueled by an abundance of natural resources, including petroleum exploration and production, hydroelectric power, and fisheries

I'm seeing a few reasons why our economy will never be like theirs.

Well hopefully the government will introduce taxes based on a persons age? So all of those under 25 will get a lower rate of tax to reflect what they are entitled to claim.

If the government wanted to tackle the housing benefit costs, they should reintroduce rent controls. This would stop the government paying billions of pounds each year into the pockets of buy to let landlords, reduce rents, and go some way to making this country a cheaper and more competitive place to do business. But then Cameron and his mates (plus the Labour lot to be fair) all have their noses in the property trough so they won't do this.

I'm seeing a few reasons why our economy will never be like theirs.

Because we decided to base our entire economy on the financial services industry moving around imaginary sums of money, instead of actually making anything or doing anything useful you mean?

It's working out rather well isn't it.

Norway's economic growth has been fueled by an abundance of natural resources, including petroleum exploration and production, hydroelectric power, and fisheries

Scotland has all these things - and once they gain independence they'll probably have more sane politics/taxation as well. I plan on moving there before they rebuild the wall.

There just arent enough so call fat cats to close the deficit run up by a nation of 60 million people.

How about a cull? What would be your preferred method? I'd vote for carpet bombing Essex

Hows about, rather than a Cull, we just stop [b]even more[/b] people coming here?

after all - thats the new Labour party policy isn't it? "Enoch was right" 😉

We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED.

And tax avoidance (legal or otherwise) is valued at a third of what the benefits bill is. Why is there not a war on that? And I don't mean simply telling on Jimmy Carr to his mum.

It's like he's actively trying to outdo Maggie as if it's a competition…

Good luck with that. 😆
Where will you go if they don't get independence?

Because we decided to base our entire economy on the financial services industry moving around imaginary sums of money, instead of actually making anything or doing anything useful you mean?

Once Scotlandshire has ****ed off, we'll be sorted. They cost the rest of us a fortune. Everyone up there is a fried food guzzling, buckfast gurgling smackhead. I saw a film about it once

[img] [/img]

Where will you go if they don't get independence?

Scandinavia?

Hows about, rather than a Cull, we just stop even more people coming here?

Given that most of the people who come here are net contributors - how is that going to help?

bamboo - Member

If the government wanted to tackle the housing benefit costs, they should reintroduce rent controls. This would stop the government paying billions of pounds each year into the pockets of buy to let landlords, reduce rents, and go some way to making this country a cheaper and more competitive place to do business. But then Cameron and his mates (plus the Labour lot to be fair) all have their noses in the property trough so they won't do this.

completely agree with this

Why not have an immigration system based on points like the canadians, australians or americans?
Ensure that those coming have the skills we need, no benefits for any immigrants until they get citizenship (5 years or so), eject all immigrants for committing a crime (or getting caught).

[img] ?zz=1[/img]

Because we decided to base our entire economy on the financial services industry moving around imaginary sums of money, instead of actually making anything or doing anything useful you mean?

If we actually built anything of quality we wouldn't have had to do this - it is a bit poor when it takes Japanese companies like Nissan to show us how to build quality cars in this country.

Funny thing is I think it was a British guy who peddled his ideas about quality control to the Japanese after the war because no-one in Britain wanted them.

Plus it never seems to go down well whenever I suggest that someone should favor something built in this country over something like Shimano if the cost/quality is similar.

It is also funny how young people from Eastern European countries can afford to come over here and work, whereas young people from this country need housing benefit.

Isn't that because they all live in somebodies garden shed in East London? And exist exclusively on a diet of Perch stolen from the local angling club, marinated in vodka?

wrecker - you do realise that immigration in the UK is in fact governed by a system not dissimilar to Oz/Canada/USA where [non-EU migrants] must jump through various hoops to demonstrate they are bringing value, and those immigrants don't qualify for most benefits - or have you just been reading the daily mail too much?

But that only applies to non EU immigrants, doesn't it? And there are only 23 of those a year anyway. As opposed to 2 thirds of the adult population of Warsaw. Every week. Or something

And exist exclusively on a diet of Perch stolen from the local angling club, marinated in vodka?

Don't forget about the swans. They eat our swans you know.

or have you just been reading the daily mail too much?

I don't read the mail. Never have, I don't get told my opinion by a newspaper. I do have eyes though, and I see and speak to a variety of non EU people who have no obvious place to be during working hours.

and those immigrants don't qualify for most benefits

mcboo and Z11 - please explain how the Scandinavian countries have actually got it so wrong?

Because these countries aren't libertarian enough? Remember, when dealing with people like these two, they are coming from the point of "ME before country".

Maybe we need to be looking at immigration from within the EU in a similar style to non eu immigration?

Don't forget about the swans. They eat our swans you know.

Our swans? How dare you. They're Her Majesty's swans.

How can they catch the swans without having their arms broken?

You do realise that the Swedish government has been cutting taxes and reducing welfare payments since the financial crisis.

The Archbishop Canterbury said the Tory "Big Society" is a...

"deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable”

And I agree.

The economy needs sorting, but hammering the poor is not the right way to do it. How anyone can support throwing young families into situations where there is no food or clothing is beyond me. There are certainly a few who play the system, but better that than escalation of childhood suffering and mortality through abject financial hardship.

The economy needs sorting, but hammering the poor is not the right way to do it. How anyone can support throwing young families into situations where there is no food or clothing is beyond me. There are certainly a few who play the system, but better that than escalation of childhood suffering and mortality through abject financial hardship.

Because they only care for themselves. They know they are throwing these people on the skip because they didn't get the education, opportunities, or even have financial backing that those in charge got.

Our leaders live in another country.

The Archbishop Canterbury said ...

And I agree.

😯

Somebody on STW agreeing with the Church?

What is the world coming to *shakes head*

Everybody on here seems to think the Church should not be involved in politics or decisions that affect the nation ...

😉

I don't agree with the AofC's beliefs, but on social justice and responsibility, he speaks much sense. And fair dues to him for sticking his head above the parapet and saying what needs saying sometimes. He knows that he'll be listened to, so why not?

Seeing as under 25's will see reduced services, will we see reduced tax?

NO.

I don't agree with the AofC's beliefs, but on social justice and responsibility, he speaks much sense. And fair dues to him for sticking his head above the parapet and saying what needs saying sometimes. He knows that he'll be listened to, so why not?

+1

So why are the Tories not cutting benefits for the middle and upper class pensioners? The same people who hold very much more wealth than the current under-25's.

Or are people who no longer have any long term benefit for the country more important than those that do?

they may want to but that age group actually vote so why not annoy those who dont?

+2 for AoC

[i]So why are the Tories not cutting benefits for the middle and upper class pensioners? The same people who hold very much more wealth than the current under-25's.

Or are people who no longer have any long term benefit for the country more important than those that do?[/i]

Um.... because those people have proved their worth? (rather than people who simply assume they will make a contribution)

...and because they all vote Tory too.

Could we not cut the council tax bill by sorting out the housing shortage as all the money goes to landlords anyway?

Um.... because those people have proved their worth?

or just been lucky when they were born. My parents are sat on £1m of housing and they were only teachers when they bought the house / holiday home.

Could we not cut the council tax bill by sorting out the housing shortage as all the money goes to landlords anyway?

[b]You what?!!![/b]

[img] [/img]

[i]only teachers[/i]

Only?

ONLY?

Only the people we entrust the education of our young to?

I can tell they didn't smack you enough...

Um.... because those people have proved their worth? (rather than people who simply assume they will make a contribution)

What so the generations that helped bring us two world wars, mutually assured destruction, the depression in the 70's, Thatcherism, an ageing population crisis, rampant unsustainable consumerism and global warming, have contributed enough to get benefits they do not need?

[i]What so the generations that brought us two world wars, mutually assured destruction, the depression in the 70's, Thatcherism, an ageing population crisis, rampant unsustainable consumerism and global warming, have contributed enough to get benefits they do not need?[/i]

I think you may be blaming all the ills of the modern world on my mum and grandma, which is not entirely fair.

When you and your generation are in a position to look back, perhaps you may have a point. Until then you seem to be petulant.

My point still stands, why do they [i]deserve[/i] to get benefits they do not need, apart from having paid tax? Which all of us do and will do. In fact my generation will most likely end up paying more tax to keep senile old codgers warm over the next decade, then never get such support from the government ourselves when we are 80. Why should we carry the burden of an ageing population and not the individuals in question?

We will pay as much tax but receive much less support from the government than the 50 plus generation.