Dear George

[Roberto]

Apart from what he's doing is essentially cutting everything out, so he lives on bread and butter. A compromise is needed so at least you can give yourself a good meal. That's the best way I can explain it.

 

Completely agree. The country was living above its means so savings and cuts were needed but I think its gone too far and too hard. There's a difference between cutting your electricity bill by turning off appliances when you're not using them and cutting your electricity bill by switching it off at the mains and making do with candles everywhere.

[Michael]

Completely agree. The country was living above its means so savings and cuts were needed but I think its gone too far and too hard. There's a difference between cutting your electricity bill by turning off appliances when you're not using them and cutting your electricity bill by switching it off at the mains and making do with candles everywhere.

 

Exactly!

[CHR1S]

We all as individuals have to take a slice of responsibilty for the mire we are in. Too many of us living their lives on the old flexible friends, we complain that we are poor, but we have luxuries like large screen TV's, all the best gadgets and are part of the throwaway society. We don't really know the meaning of poor, like our parents and grandparents. I see Osbourne only reacting to society's actions.

 

Let me give you a slightly different perspective on this.

 

I have earned my money, saved to buy my big screen TV and all the best gadgets, pay my mortgage, save what I cant, pay into my pension.

 

Now, the family in the flat below my GF, neither work, they have 3 children, they smoke copious amounts of the marijuana and almost permanently have one of their many large screen TVs so loud that I could play the game that's on their Xbox/PS3. All hours of the day too, I've been awoken at 4am on a weekday a couple of times.

How many other families live like this? How much money is the country pissing away giving lazy families an easy life?

I would love to quit my job and play xbox all day.

 

You then have the stupid situation with single mothers/fathers who's support payments are more than they can earn in a legitimate job? What incentive does this give to actually return to work? In some situations you would have to work 36+ hours a week to even match the payments, then deduct childcare etc. Again, would would people bother?

 

The whole lot needs looking at and starting again, so that it supports those willing to put the effort in and help them keep their heads above water and not fund a families drug/gaming luxury!

[sonofsanta]

You then have the stupid situation with single mothers/fathers who's support payments are more than they can earn in a legitimate job? What incentive does this give to actually return to work? In some situations you would have to work 36+ hours a week to even match the payments, then deduct childcare etc. Again, would would people bother?

 

When I met my (now) wife she was earning £13k a year pro-rata'd down as a 37hr, 40 weeks TA level 1. She owned her own house with a minimal mortgage on it, having been lucky in her timing moving up North from the Southern housing bubble. She had a daughter, 7. She got income support & various other benefits.

When I moved in with her I was a technician earning £18k full time. The income coming into the house approximately tripled in gross terms, once the pro-rata was taken into account.

At that point she had less money in pocket - much, much less - per month than before. From £10k a year to £28k a year as a household and we were worse off. In what possible world can that make sense.

 

I am all for benefits - believe me I am, America's lack of safety net on every count (health, job etc.) terrifies me, and I generally agree with left-wing policies and despise those of the right-wing - but something has gone very very wrong with the way benefits are distributed.

[witch]

Can someone explain why our borrowing has gone UP when there have been all these cuts?

What is it being spent on?

[Robz]

Can someone explain why our borrowing has gone UP when there have been all these cuts?

What is it being spent on?

 

to pay the morons who recommend the cuts of course....

[Flatpackhamster]

Can someone explain why our borrowing has gone UP when there have been all these cuts?

What is it being spent on?

 

There haven't been cuts. Or at least, none that matter.

 

You can see a breakdown of the UK's spending on ukpublicspending.co.uk . Nearly £60Bn a year - half the cost of the NHS - goes in to merely paying the interest on our debts. Not paying them off. Just keeping them going.

[aerospacemango]

Am I the only one who sees the potential for this thread to go on for another 10 pages, yet continue to go round and round in circles?

 

*Not convinced that IT and politics mix*

[tmcd35]

Can someone explain why our borrowing has gone UP when there have been all these cuts?

What is it being spent on?

 

I hope I get this right...

 

The problem is not borrowing per se. The problem is the deficit which, if I remember correctly, is the difference between how much the Government collects in taxes and other revenues and how much we spend keeping the country working. Since 2001 we've been spending more than the Government generates and so borrowing goes up to cover the difference. Until we eliminate the deficit borrowing will continue to increase. Since 2010 the deficit has been dropping quiet sharply, thanks to the austerity measures, but we continue to borrow because we are as a nation still spending more than we can afford.

 

The bad news is that the national debt is so large that the interest payments are about the same as we spend on our defense budget - around £30bn! The big three money pits are benefits, health and education. So to make any kind of dent in the deficit this is where he has to cut from - or raise taxes.

 

The UK's Budget Deficit Explained

 

United Kingdom national debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CHR1S]

The big three money pits are benefits, health and education. So to make any kind of dent in the deficit this is where he has to cut from - or raise taxes.

 

And as I said earlier, benefits are a good place to start!

[sonofsanta]

Am I the only one who sees the potential for this thread to go on for another 10 pages, yet continue to go round and round in circles?

 

*Not convinced that IT and politics mix*

 

I don't think politics mixes with anything. Ever. Sadly it's a discussion that's needed, else if we don't get involved and pay attention the political classes - and they are a separate class these days, representative of nothing but themselves - will get away with screaming bloody murder.

[aerospacemango]

I don't think politics mixes with anything. Ever. Sadly it's a discussion that's needed, else if we don't get involved and pay attention the political classes - and they are a separate class these days, representative of nothing but themselves - will get away with screaming bloody murder.

 

Indeed....and I agree with that point.

 

However, I'm not convinced that an online forum is the place to do it. The arguments become the same, throughout, and threads DO go round and round in circles. You only need to look back at all the other political threads!

 

The people at the top actually seem to care less and less for those below as the years pass. Are benefits REALLY the source of problems? Not the massive influx of immigrant workers, so there are less jobs for those on benefits to aim for? Or possibly the multi-national companies that pay next to no tax, despite having operations worth billions?

 

All of these ARE factors. But no-one really wants to admit to what must be done!

[andyturpie]

Let me give you a slightly different perspective on this.

 

I have earned my money, saved to buy my big screen TV and all the best gadgets, pay my mortgage, save what I cant, pay into my pension.

 

Now, the family in the flat below my GF, neither work, they have 3 children, they smoke copious amounts of the marijuana and almost permanently have one of their many large screen TVs so loud that I could play the game that's on their Xbox/PS3. All hours of the day too, I've been awoken at 4am on a weekday a couple of times.

How many other families live like this? How much money is the country pissing away giving lazy families an easy life?

I would love to quit my job and play xbox all day.

 

You then have the stupid situation with single mothers/fathers who's support payments are more than they can earn in a legitimate job? What incentive does this give to actually return to work? In some situations you would have to work 36+ hours a week to even match the payments, then deduct childcare etc. Again, would would people bother?

 

The whole lot needs looking at and starting again, so that it supports those willing to put the effort in and help them keep their heads above water and not fund a families drug/gaming luxury!

 

Nail on the head there my friend. We're in the position that our joint income is always on the threshold before any benefits are triggered. I know of people who earn less, but are actually better off due to benefits giving them more disposable income that we have. Most decide not to buy into any pension scheme which allows the cash to be invested in regular family holidays, new technologies etc. The reason I am more worse off is that I have been a member of a pension scheme since my 18th birthday. When these people reach 65 (or what ever the pensionable age will be) will still have had a blast of a time whilst working and still manage to pick up a state pension!

 

I would like to see child benefits only paid to those with BOTH parents appearing on a birth certificate (making an father absent or not legally responsible with no exceptions) - even deducting an absent fathers benefits to go back into the pot to cover.

 

Anyone applying for state pension PROVE that they were not able to contribute to a private pension scheme, by submitting bank record history.

 

my list is not exhaustive lol.

[Sdrawkcab]

Why is it that whenever you critisize this current government, everyone assumes you're a labour supporter? Every argument from the "tory" people on this forum boils down to "WELL LABOUR WERE MUCH WORSE MAN!!!!!!" and I'm sick of it. I think all politicians are universally terrible and only out for their own ends, I'm just criticising the party in power.

 

Tory/right-wing/this-government-aint-so-bad people: How about you actually respond to the points raised in the arguments instead of finger pointing at the previous establishment? Whatever you might think Labour did, they aren't in power now. Playing the blame game isn't going to solve anything, and nor are ol' Georgies current policies. The sooner we can agree on that the sooner we'll see a proper alternative presented (like maybe getting companies like Vodafone to pay their tax? naaaaaaaah)

[aerospacemango]

Nail on the head there my friend. We're in the position that our joint income is always on the threshold before any benefits are triggered. I know of people who earn less, but are actually better off due to benefits giving them more disposable income that we have. Most decide not to buy into any pension scheme which allows the cash to be invested in regular family holidays, new technologies etc. The reason I am more worse off is that I have been a member of a pension scheme since my 18th birthday. When these people reach 65 (or what ever the pensionable age will be) will still have had a blast of a time whilst working and still manage to pick up a state pension!

 

I would like to see child benefits only paid to those with BOTH parents appearing on a birth certificate (making an father absent or not legally responsible with no exceptions) - even deducting an absent fathers benefits to go back into the pot to cover.

 

Anyone applying for state pension PROVE that they were not able to contribute to a private pension scheme, by submitting bank record history.

 

my list is not exhaustive lol.

 

WTF? Thank whichever deity YOU believe in that @andyturpie is NOT in government!

 

So, let's get this straight.... You would take money AWAY from children, whose Father is not on the birth certificate? Does the phrase "Child Poverty" mean nothing to you???

 

Secondly, the "prove that they were not able to contribute..." ....Unbelievable! What people CHOOSE to do with THEIR money is their lookout. I have, so far, paid 27 years worth of NI contributions and tax. In another 25 years, I shall be able to retire. I will do this with (probably) a minimum pension. This is not because I chose family holidays, etc, but because of what the current government have done to my (former) savings.

[Sdrawkcab]

I would like to see child benefits only paid to those with BOTH parents appearing on a birth certificate (making an father absent or not legally responsible with no exceptions) - even deducting an absent fathers benefits to go back into the pot to cover.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you really genuinely saying that single parent families should get less child benefits? Do you really believe that raising a child costs less if there's only one parent? And if that is what you believe, my final question is 'are you totally mad?'

[tmcd35]

Now, the family in the flat below my GF, neither work, they have 3 children, they smoke copious amounts of the marijuana and almost permanently have one of their many large screen TVs so loud that I could play the game that's on their Xbox/PS3.

 

People you personally know and have spoken with about financial matters, or just a family you've said hello to once or twice in passing?

 

How many other families live like this? How much money is the country pissing away giving lazy families an easy life?

Tabloid sensationalism, probably a lot less than you're imagining.

 

I would love to quit my job and play xbox all day.

A-men!

 

The whole lot needs looking at and starting again

 

Agree totally.

 

We're in the position that our joint income is always on the threshold before any benefits are triggered. I know of people who earn less, but are actually better off due to benefits giving them more disposable income that we have.

 

Actually a position my brother is in. Since moving in with his better half and having a sprog he now works 3 12hour days instead of 4 and has more money coming in. Good luck to him.

 

Most decide not to buy into any pension scheme which allows the cash to be invested in regular family holidays, new technologies etc.

Funny you should say that. I don't think I get paid enough to have a private pension, so I don't. I much prefer the PS3 and odd Holiday, thanks!

 

The reason I am more worse off is that I have been a member of a pension scheme since my 18th birthday. When these people reach 65 (or what ever the pensionable age will be) will still have had a blast of a time whilst working and still manage to pick up a state pension!

Because £144 a week is enough to live off of, I'm not in any way worried about the prospects of retiring. No doubt I'll die working - flipping burgers at McDonald or something!

 

Besides, Everybody gets the same state pensions and it's not means tested. Maybe I should start complaining that your going to get your nice shinny private pensions and an extra £144 a week off the tax payer on top of that? Some nice safety net you have there!

[andyturpie]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you really genuinely saying that single parent families should get less child benefits? Do you really believe that raising a child costs less if there's only one parent? And if that is what you believe, my final question is 'are you totally mad?'

 

Absoultely barking!

[andyturpie]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you really genuinely saying that single parent families should get less child benefits? Do you really believe that raising a child costs less if there's only one parent? And if that is what you believe, my final question is 'are you totally mad?'

 

Are you advocating lack of personal responsibilty?

[localzuk]

Absoultely barking!

 

I'll agree with that. We can't go around punishing children for their parents' behaviour.

[SYNACK]

I'll agree with that. We can't go around punishing children for their parents' behaviour.

 

And yet the system would have them funded to sit and learn that bad behaviour from their parents. At what point is sense introduced into the situation... At school when the damage has already been done.

[CHR1S]

People you personally know and have spoken with about financial matters, or just a family you've said hello to once or twice in passing?

 

Living in a council block in one of the roughest areas, block is assigned to income support families, constant arguing going on daily. Neither leave the flat other than the wife/gf to take kids to school. Making assumptions... yes, but in this case I would say they are right!

 

Tabloid sensationalism, probably a lot less than you're imagining.

 

As a rule, they represent a specific % of the population. I don't read papers, I don't buy into sensationalism and the last thing I would want to be branded as is a daily mail reader but once again, I have seen it, in my social circles, friends of friends - perhaps we should/need to know the %.

[Sdrawkcab]

Are you advocating lack of personal responsibilty?

 

No, I'm advocating (as Localzuk already said) not punishing children for the behaviour of their parents. I'm advocating trying to make things better by giving people opportunities they wouldn't already have. I'm advocating actually trying to make a difference instead of taking the close-minded, depressing, Ayn-Rand-alike view that everyone should just look out for themselves. "If someone falls on the path, who gives a crap hey? Let 'em die with the rest of the scum."

 

Besides which, how can you possibly know the circumstances which lead to someone being a single parent? Or are you saying that if the family unit doesn't stay together, they deserve hardship?

 

The fact that nobody wants to admit is that there is more than enough to go around, especially now. We just seem to be obsessed with this idea of entitlement based on your position. That's a whole other argument though.

[aerospacemango]

And yet the system would have them funded to sit and learn that bad behaviour from their parents. At what point is sense introduced into the situation... At school when the damage has already been done.

 

That's a rather simplistic, and may I say, sweeping view! You only see the bad stories in the paper....especially the more right-wing papers (I'm looking at you, The Sun and Daily Mail!). No one wants to read about the single parents that struggle to give their kids a life. Who do their very best to look after them and not make that the defining instance of their young lives.

 

It's much better to have a headline "Woman has 4th kid...and she's on BENEFITS!" That way you can get the middle classes all hot around the collar!

[mattx]

No you didn't. You posted a thread on Edugeek, a forum he probably doesn't read.

 

Idiot.

 

I did write to him actually. Idiot.