Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
around half a million brits have taking to the streets of london for the "March for the Alternative" demonstration, the people are demanding a stop to the speed and savageness of the government cuts, what do you think of this, is this a sign of things to come, a throwback to the 80's under the thatcher government maybe?, or do you think these cuts are necessary?
I've got friends who've gone on that march, but I didn't bother. These cuts wouldn't be necessary if the country hadn't spent more money than it had for year after year after year even when the economy was doing well. Nobody can have what they can't afford whether it's an individual or a country, it really is that simple. The only criticism I have is that the cuts are not affecting us all equally: teenagers are facing cuts to education funding, higher tuition fees, cutbacks to careers advice services, hostels for people coming out of the care system being closed, etc, while pensioners for example, who could have benefited from 15 years of economic boom, full employment, rising house prices and who had the chance to vote out the likes of Gordon Brown and stop him from overspending as much as he did still get their winter fuel allowance, free TV licence, free bus passes etc untouched.
...These cuts wouldn't be necessary if the country hadn't spent more money than it had for year after year after year even when the economy was doing well. Nobody can have what they can't afford whether it's an individual or a country, it really is that simple....
Bingo. Canada was in a smilar position in in the 80's and the government came in and made a lot of similar painful cuts - there was a lot griping, but in the end it worked and put the country back on its feet economically. What's more, it also helped to undermine the 'welfare mentality' that was so rampant.
I believe in socialism - but it can go overboard - as it did in Canada and as it has in the UK. The country cannot survive if it continues to spend like a drunken sailor.
I've got friends who've gone on that march, but I didn't bother. These cuts wouldn't be necessary if the country hadn't spent more money than it had for year after year after year even when the economy was doing well. Nobody can have what they can't afford whether it's an individual or a country, it really is that simple. The only criticism I have is that the cuts are not affecting us all equally: teenagers are facing cuts to education funding, higher tuition fees, cutbacks to careers advice services, hostels for people coming out of the care system being closed, etc, while pensioners for example, who could have benefited from 15 years of economic boom, full employment, rising house prices and who had the chance to vote out the likes of Gordon Brown and stop him from overspending as much as he did still get their winter fuel allowance, free TV licence, free bus passes etc untouched.
The school leaving age in the UK is 16 (and children start school a year earlier than they do in the US.)
Those who want to go to university to do a bachelor's degree have to do 2 more years of post-16 education to obtain the qualifications to go to university (where they will complete their bachelor's degree in 3 years as opposed to the 4 years it takes in the US.)
Those two years of further education are also free.
The 'cuts' in education funding mean that people in post-16 education will no longer be paid to be there. Payment to post-16 students was a relatively recent phenomenon (introduced after 2004) and although the country is still paying for the courses themselves (they are free) where is the money supposed to come from to pay people to take them?
How many pensioners are in full-time employment? How are they supposed to benefit from full-time employment?
There are 2 kinds of inflation in the UK. There's the kind the government uses when it decides by how much index-linked (if you're lucky enough to get one) pensions will rise and (small figure) then there's the amount by which prices rise (Somewhat larger figure.)
For many pensioners living in their own homes, local government taxes represent a significantly large percentage of their expenditure. In many places, local government taxes increased by an average of about 8.9% per annum under the last government.
Brown taxed pension plans, thus reducing their value significantly.
Free TV licences? For how many people? - Only those aged 75 or over get those. (Blind people get a reduced rate TV licence.)
I don't know how many people went on today's march. More than a million marched against the war in Iraq, but at the next general election, they stil voted Labour back into power.
Milliband voted against the cuts, but when asked what he would do instead, he was unwilling to commit himself. "Yes, there would be cuts under Labour." But he wasn't prepared to say where he would make the cuts or how big they would be.
When he was asked (a couple of months ago) whether Labour would reverse the proposed tuition fee increases - increases recommended by a review commissioned by his own party - he was unwilling to commit himself there, either.
The school leaving age in the UK is 16 (and children start school a year earlier than they do in the US.)
Those who want to go to university to do a bachelor's degree have to do 2 more years of post-16 education to obtain the qualifications to go to university (where they will complete their bachelor's degree in 3 years as opposed to the 4 years it takes in the US.)
Those two years of further education are also free.
The 'cuts' in education funding mean that people in post-16 education will no longer be paid to be there. Payment to post-16 students was a relatively recent phenomenon (introduced after 2004) and although the country is still paying for the courses themselves (they are free) where is the money supposed to come from to pay people to take them?
How many pensioners are in full-time employment? How are they supposed to benefit from full-time employment?
There are 2 kinds of inflation in the UK. There's the kind the government uses when it decides by how much index-linked (if you're lucky enough to get one) pensions will rise and (small figure) then there's the amount by which prices rise (Somewhat larger figure.)
For many pensioners living in their own homes, local government taxes represent a significantly large percentage of their expenditure. In many places, local government taxes increased by an average of about 8.9% per annum under the last government.
Brown taxed pension plans, thus reducing their value significantly.
Free TV licences? For how many people? - Only those aged 75 or over get those. (Blind people get a reduced rate TV licence.)
I don't know how many people went on today's march. More than a million marched against the war in Iraq, but at the next general election, they stil voted Labour back into power.
Milliband voted against the cuts, but when asked what he would do instead, he was unwilling to commit himself. "Yes, there would be cuts under Labour." But he wasn't prepared to say where he would make the cuts or how big they would be.
When he was asked (a couple of months ago) whether Labour would reverse the proposed tuition fee increases - increases recommended by a review commissioned by his own party - he was unwilling to commit himself there, either.
When I said 'cuts to education funding' what I meant was the EMA, but I phrased it the way I did because half the people reading this probably won't be from this country and won't know what EMA is/was. Also, funding for university education has decreased compared to what it was. I agree that EMA should go, I managed perfectly well without it as it didn't exist when I was that age and it's ridiculous to pay schoolchildren still living at home to go to school.
Somebody who's newly retired would probably have benefited from high employment over most of the last 15 years compared to a school-leaver today who's got the choice between racking up massive debts or competing for jobs in a market where every position demands a crapload of experience and has 50+ applicants. Most of the people I know who are retired are well off so perhaps my opinion is skewed - and if they've done well for themselves then well done them - but it seems crazy that I'm paying (or that should be 'was paying' - my company went bankrupt just over a week ago so I'm out of a job myself) taxes to subsidise TV licenses and heating bills for people better off then myself and paying state pensions to people at an age younger than I will be before I'm eligible for anything. I voted Conservative because I trusted them to bring down the deficit best but I think they could have done it more even-handedly.
I have just returned from the march in London and I wnet because these cuts are ideologically led but the government is trying to sell us that concept under the guise if financial necessity.
The National Fraud Audit Service estimates we lose over £50 BILLIONS a year through tax evasion, and tax loopholes. This government so far is hoping to implement £ 7 billions in cuts to public services. I might not be a genius in Maths but it basically means that we are actually have a surplus as a Nation of £ 43 Billions. If of course the government is willing to tackle the multimillionaires and multinational corporations and ensure that their dues are paid to this country.
We need the political will but with the help of other European Nations we should be able to ensure that all tax havens are closed, tax loopholes closed and that for once the people at the top of the pile pay what they owe. Fat cats have grown fat on the backs of the people at the bottom.
Until EVERY SINGLE PENNY IN TAX owed to use by those people is paid into the treasure NOT ONE job should be cut. It is that simple. We have the money if only we had the guts to demand what is rightfully ours. I pay my taxes , why should the likes of Boots, Vodafone or Mr Philip Green get away with not doing so ???
Thatcher part 2 is upon us, we are all heading over the cliffs and most people actually seem to condone these cuts as legitimate. The real issue here is one of fairness. A quaint old fashioned concept I admit but one which is nonetheless valid.
Bankers and the financial industry sold this country down the river and we are supposed to pick up the tab ? Not good enough. Sorry but this does not sit well with me. I have always balanced my own books, I cannot see why the financial criminal irresponsibilty and greed of bankers is supposed to mean our public services are cut .
They get bonuses worth millions and nurses, firemen, teachers, civil servants lose their jobs, disabled people lose their benefits, our health system is being privatised as will other services such as Royal Mail. Libraries and youth clubs closed down whilst the people who caused the problem flourish and winter in Monaco or ski in Gstaad ?? Am I really the only one who finds this repellent and wrong ?
What mrs T failed to accomplish is now being made reality by dear Mr Cameron ( my own MP for the record) and his Eton cronies.
quote hengist- ''Why should my child pay so I can have goodies today?''
why should people live on less than £100 a fortnight because they can't get a job and bankers, who are partly (some say wholly) responsible for the current economic situation, get crazy bonuses? the cost of living is soaring, electricity, food, clothing, travel expenses once you have bought the necessities you will have not one penny left, it may be enough to be kept alive but its not enough to live, and with these cuts the unemployed will struggle even more to get a job, and plus their job seekers allowance will more than likely be cut further
When I said 'cuts to education funding' what I meant was the EMA, but I phrased it the way I did because half the people reading this probably won't be from this country and won't know what EMA is/was. Also, funding for university education has decreased compared to what it was. I agree that EMA should go, I managed perfectly well without it as it didn't exist when I was that age and it's ridiculous to pay schoolchildren still living at home to go to school.
Agreed - Which is why I explained what the cuts in teenage (post-16) education really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86
Somebody who's newly retired would probably have benefited from high employment over most of the last 15 years compared to a school-leaver today who's got the choice between racking up massive debts or competing for jobs in a market where every position demands a crapload of experience and has 50+ applicants.
Only 50 applicants? A friend of mine who worked in HR for a company which did the hiring for those firms which outsourced the task during the early 1990s (more than 15 years ago) told me that it was not uncommon to receive more than 1500 applications for good jobs.
50% would be binned without even looking at the envelope. Of the remaining 50%, those with spelling mistakes or poorly-written addresses would be binned and he would open the remainder. Scrawled applications and those from candidates who did not meet the laid-down application requirements wee the next to go in the bin.
Once the pile was down to about 100 well-written applications which met the job requirements and which contained all the information/items requested, those applications would be studied in greater depth to provide a short-list of about 9 candidates.
One person got the job.
Perhaps newspaper advertisements for jobs are not the best way to get one? Most of the jobs I've had were obtained by me finding out the name of whoever was doing the hiring, finding out a great deal about the company and then writing a letter addressed to the person I wanted to contact by name, telling him/her why I thought I would be an asset to the company and requesting that I be considered for a job. I got my share of rejections, but the applications were usually considered.
Jobs weren't that easy to come by 20 years ago. Jobs don't usually find people; it's up to people to find the jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86
Most of the people I know who are retired are well off so perhaps my opinion is skewed - and if they've done well for themselves then well done them - but it seems crazy that I'm paying (or that should be 'was paying' - my company went bankrupt just over a week ago so I'm out of a job myself) taxes to subsidise TV licenses and heating bills for people better off then myself and paying state pensions to people at an age younger than I will be before I'm eligible for anything. I voted Conservative because I trusted them to bring down the deficit best but I think they could have done it more even-handedly.
I too know a number of well-off retired people, but I'm aware that there are also a number who barely get by. I agree that payments such as 'heating allowance' should be means-tested and indeed, that the practice of paying them to non-UK residents (who may legally claim the winter heating allowance) should be reviewed.
I don't know how many people over the age of 75 there are in the UK, but I doubt that the cost of providing them with free TV licences is very high. Rather lower than the cost of providing second-home allowances for MPs, I suspect.
Perhaps the TV licence should be scrapped?
As for paying state pensions at a given age, it would be difficult to increase the pension age and make it retrospective. The UK state pension is pitifully low (compared to that in many EU countries) but then again, the amount paid in NIC is also rather low.
quote hengist- ''Why should my child pay so I can have goodies today?''
why should people live on less than £100 a fortnight because they can't get a job and bankers, who are partly (some say wholly) responsible for the current economic situation, get crazy bonuses? the cost of living is soaring, electricity, food, clothing, travel expenses once you have bought the necessities you will have not one penny left, it may be enough to be kept alive but its not enough to live, and with these cuts the unemployed will struggle even more to get a job, and plus their job seekers allowance will more than likely be cut further
couldn't agree more mooseketeer
As I said in my post above, I lost my job recently, and so had to sign on yesterday. The amount I'll be getting is roughly £131 a fortnight, but would be something like £103 if I was under 25 (i.e. if I was a month younger). I don't think they are going to cut the dole, but like you said it's enough to keep you alive but not enough to live on, and I can't even pay the interest on the student loans I've got, but while the last government and the banks were stupidly reckless and nobody seemed to ring the alarm about it until it was too late, for me it's just pure bad luck that I'm in this situation, I don't actually feel angry at anybody. We can't keep spending money we don't have.
It hasn't properly sunk in yet for me yet how hard it is to get a new job, but I've heard some proper horror stories. Somebody I know applying for his first job after graduating went for a job as a parking attendant in a car park, and apparently there were 320 applications and they were interviewing 12 people for two positions, for a job paying slightly above minimum wage I'm sure it was hard in the 80s too, but I get the impression then that a surefire way out of it was to get a degree and move to London, but what's the way out of it this time?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
