George Osbourne Planning Tax credit cuts: Fair?

[taxman]

Yes. I strayed off topic a little. I just don't like it when the government goes out of its way to make the basic essentials more expensive.

 

You're one of those bonkers types that believes in growth, growth and more growth irrespective of the damage to the environment.

 

Simple question.....seeing as the planet gets it's oxygen from trees, do you think it is a good idea, or a bad idea to cut down the Amazonian rainforest?

 

Or do you think concrete, skyscrapers and factories make oxygen?

[WiseOwl182]

The big change from before 2003 is higher rents, higher house prices and higher energy prices.

 

You need wonder no more

 

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

Higher rents and higher house prices can only be achieved if there is sufficient demand. Could it be that the New Labour handout of tax credits contributed (not exclusively, but in part) towards the increasing cost of housing? After all, they are taken into account for mortgage application purposes.

[El Cid]

After that, you're better off - in 2020 you will be on £3,407 a year more than you are now, and the tax payer will be £1,500 a year better off too.

 

Marvellous, is that a flying pig :-)

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2015 at 22:14 ----------

 

Could it be that the New Labour handout of tax credits contributed (not exclusively, but in part) towards the increasing cost of housing?.

 

And the Tory help to buy, and giving tenants in social housing big discounts, and getting more people into the buying market.

[WiseOwl182]

Marvellous, is that a flying pig :-)

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2015 at 22:14 ----------

 

 

And the Tory help to buy, and giving tenants in social housing big discounts, and getting more people into the buying market.

 

The biggest house price boom happened in the early to mid noughties. This was well before the Coalition's help to buy scheme, and decades after the original Right to Buy scheme. Schemes like that are merely tinkering around the edges - throwing billions of pounds of free money at people is likely to have more of an effect. Gordon Brown wanted the house price boom for short term economic and political gain.

[unbeliever]

The Greens only have one MP, and the Tories have been in power for the last five tears.

Dont farmers get eu subsidies, to make food cheaper and farmers wealthier. Perhaps those are that benefits that should be cut?

 

The Green Party has only 1 MP, but the greens in general are everywhere.

 

EU food subsidies are insufficient to counter the effect. They're also biased toward French farmers. They're a mess and we'd be better of without them.

[I1L2T3]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

Higher rents and higher house prices can only be achieved if there is sufficient demand. Could it be that the New Labour handout of tax credits contributed (not exclusively, but in part) towards the increasing cost of housing? After all, they are taken into account for mortgage application purposes.

 

Whatever caused it does not change the fact that prices have increased and that mostly explains why more people struggle now.

 

I just answered a basic question about what has changed since 2003.

[unbeliever]

You're one of those bonkers types that believes in growth, growth and more growth irrespective of the damage to the environment.

 

Simple question.....seeing as the planet gets it's oxygen from trees, do you think it is a good idea, or a bad idea to cut down the Amazonian rainforest?

 

Or do you think concrete, skyscrapers and factories make oxygen?

 

The earth gets most of its oxygen from phytoplankton in the sea. We need to keep actual toxins out of the sea. You know, real pollution.

Rainforests are important, but deforestation is barely on the green radar these days. They're obsessed with anthropogenic CO2 at the expense of actual damage and pollution.

 

I really can't stand it when people try to conflate these things. Like if I'm against drastic CO2 cuts I have to be against everything "green".

 

Do you think it's a good idea to burn and hack down the rainforests to make supposedly green biofuels at enormous cost, to then pretend to reduce our "carbon footprint"?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2007/aug/17/biofuelsmenacerainforests

 

The greens are also now apparently in love with batteries. Have you ever seen a Lithium mine? The hypocrisy and nonsense of the modern green would be hilarious if it wasn't destroying the planet and making everybody poor at the same time.

 

Growth and technological advancement are our best chance of bringing our environmental damaging ways under control. The beginning of the end of whaling was when we learned how to refine rock oil. We need to advance, not go backwards and the free market has a far better record of bringing that advancement than governments.

Edited July 17, 2015 by unbeliever

[drummonds]

The earth gets most of its oxygen from phytoplankton in the sea. We need to keep actual toxins out of the sea. You know, real pollution.

Rainforests are important, but deforestation is barely on the green radar these days. They're obsessed with anthropogenic CO2 at the expense of actual damage and pollution.

 

I really can't stand it when people try to conflate these things. Like if I'm against drastic CO2 cuts I have to be against everything "green".

 

 

that is correct. only about 15% of oxygen comes from trees and as only 20% of our trees are in the rainforest it isn't that big a contributor. if cutting down a 100 acres of forest involves planting an orchard the impact is even less. carbon is only released from a tree if it is burned. if it becomes furniture the carbon is captured.

[El Cid]

The biggest house price boom happened in the early to mid noughties.

 

So long as all the political parties support people getting houses and mortgages, there will be no correction, does not really matter who caused the rise.

Interest rates need to go up, it was meant to happen earlier this year.

[WiseOwl182]

So long as all the political parties support people getting houses and mortgages, there will be no correction, does not really matter who caused the rise.

Interest rates need to go up, it was meant to happen earlier this year.

 

A correction would plunge many into negative equity and trigger a downward spiral in the economy. Much better a slow and steady calming of prices over a prolonged period.