2015- July Budget

[GoGo_dancer]

Here's another guide to see how different family scenarios are affected.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/08/budget-2015-what-it-means-to-you

 

 

Looks like we'll be about £260 a year better off.

[phoenixboy]

The public does contribute. You want them to pay the whole thing.

I'll agree to this if we only send people to university to do STEM subjects, and only when they get very good a-levels. That way we can be confident that they'll repay the costs in higher tax revenues. Is that what you want?

 

You've not heard anything I've said about the intrinsic value of voting have you? You've not even bothered trying to counter it.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 13:39 ----------

 

 

Can't really answer that without knowing your situation. The only thing I know so far is that you don't vote.

You'd lose a lot more if the state was fully funding university students.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're one of these "magic money tree" people.

 

The public never paid the whole thing. So wrong about that to begin with. It was a maibtenace grant for kids with a poor background i.e parents with no money

You started thread with saying budget is fair. When clearly it isnt.

Youd be saying its not fair if youd got a 5% cut. I believe thats called nimbyism.

[harvey19]

 

Look it at this another way. Nobody goes to university except the elite. What happens?

Whether you loke it or not we need people to go to uni to get better paid work to pay more into the system.

 

You and me both benefit from this so why shoildnt the public contribute?

 

Sue's Budgie would not have given themselves away so easily.

[unbeliever]

The public never paid the whole thing. So wrong about that to begin with. It was a maibtenace grant for kids with a poor background i.e parents with no money

You started thread with saying budget is fair. When clearly it isnt.

Youd be saying its not fair if youd got a 5% cut. I believe thats called nimbyism.

 

Hello. Public sector worker. Told you that already.

 

The public used to pay the whole thing. Perhaps you're not advocating a return to that.

The debt for higher education is shared between the student and the state. The parents are not involved in the arrangement. Whether or not the parents have money does not seem relevant.

 

Maybe you have a different opinion. But that doesn't matter because you didn't vote, and you still insist that this is okay. So nobody will care what you think.

Edited July 9, 2015 by unbeliever

[Anna B]

Here's another guide to see how different family scenarios are affected.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/08/budget-2015-what-it-means-to-you

 

 

Looks like we'll be about £260 a year better off.

 

Who is 'we'?

 

Independent body (IMS) has done the calculations and say 13 million people are going to be worse off.

They reckon the lowest paid workers will be worse off to the tune of £1000 a year.

[harvey19]

Who is 'we'?

 

Independent body (IMS) has done the calculations and say 13 million people are going to be worse off.

They reckon the lowest paid workers will be worse off to the tune of £1000 a year.

 

Overtime and part time jobs will probably be the way to raise income in the future.

[GoGo_dancer]

Who is 'we'?

 

Independent body (IMS) has done the calculations and say 13 million people are going to be worse off.

They reckon the lowest paid workers will be worse off to the tune of £1000 a year.

 

Me and my Husband (no kids)

[Obelix]

The public never paid the whole thing. So wrong about that to begin with. It was a maibtenace grant for kids with a poor background i.e parents with no money

You started thread with saying budget is fair. When clearly it isnt.

Youd be saying its not fair if youd got a 5% cut. I believe thats called nimbyism.

 

But I'm sure you'd be happy with high earners paying more in tax wouldn't you. Of course they don't count in your figuring I'm sure...

 

There was some talking head on Radio 4 whining on and on and on and on for ever about how the Living Wage was so mean and nasty... never stopped bleating on that it was just bad and wrong. Any excuse, any reason whatsover to complain. Just because it's a Tory policy. That's all. When they had someone point out she'd supported the living wage before it was "different" somehow. She complained that the living wage would mean less people would be hired - presumably a Labour one would magic up free money to stop that happening.

 

But no stopping her, bleating on about this how it's not fair they took tax credits off, and how it's never going to work because it's a Tory one, and whining that its going to fail because they said only 1% payrise for the public sector, so they cannot get the living wage so it'll fail for everyone, whine moan, pukle, it's never going to work so they will just abandon it whine moan....we are not taxing business enough because there is a tax cut there (never said anything about the extra bank taxes) whine complain, not fair to cut business taxes must only cut personal taxes... geez she just kept going...on and bloody on and on and on and on.... I'd never hire anyone who voted Labour after that performance they would do my ears in....

 

Reminds me of most of the people on here to be honest.

 

They did have Frank Field on afterwards who as expected gave a measured performance and was quite insightful. A rare commodity though on the Left is Frank. The rest of them are just going to complain themselves into electoral obilvion though as people will jsut stop listening and that's no bad thing.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:03 ----------

 

Who is 'we'?

 

Independent body (IMS) has done the calculations and say 13 million people are going to be worse off.

They reckon the lowest paid workers will be worse off to the tune of £1000 a year.

 

Have you a link please Anna?

[Cyclone]

the vote doesnt count. if every 18-21 year old voted in south yorkshire, it wouldnt have made any difference to the outcome of the election. We would have still ended up with a conservative government.

 

It's this kind of faulty logic that means people don't vote and we do end up with a conservative government.

Not that I'd like to see a labour government either, they were just as bad.

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 14:12 ----------

 

and that goes for everyone. how can we have a government ruling us that nobody actually voted for in south yorkshire? its madness.

 

And if it had gone the other way and someone in Hampshire was saying the same thing, what would your reply be?

[Eater Sundae]

How many seats did you get?

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 13:33 ----------

 

 

Look it at this another way. Nobody goes to university except the elite. What happens?

Whether you loke it or not we need people to go to uni to get better paid work to pay more into the system.

 

You and me both benefit from this so why shoildnt the public contribute?

 

Re bib. Where did you get this from?

 

Yes, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with everybody paying for the university education of some. Similarly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with giving a loan to people to be paid back later. At the end of the day it is a political decision as to how university education is funded.

 

There is no right and wrong way.

 

The people of this country voted in successive governments who are going down the latter route. I don't see a problem with that.