Jump to content

2015- July Budget


Recommended Posts

Referring to STEM education, one of my grandsons has recently been selected to attend 'Master Classes' in maths, science and technology. He's only 9 years old and still at primary school but has been recognized as being gifted in these subjects therefore he's been going to a secondary school to attend these 'Master Classes'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it intelligence that actually needs to change? We are talking about education, and you're claiming that >50% of people simply aren't smart enough to be educated to degree level.

As far as I can see neither of us is offering anything other than an opinion though.

 

What is also necessary is motivation.

 

---------- Post added 10-07-2015 at 10:57 ----------

 

I read that the single parent with a child/children are worse off.

Why is no one questioning where the other parent's contribution is.

Obviously not in cases of where the other parent has died or unable to work,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is no one questioning where the other parent's contribution is.

 

That's a good point. The Mirror was championing this lady yesterday:

 

Budget 2015: Single mum-of-8 fears she could become homeless if her £26,000 benefits are capped

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-single-mum-of-8-fears-6030489?ICID=FB_mirror_main

 

Only to come in for flack from people asking where the dads were.

 

Note how the Mirror kindly masked the faces of the children, yet when they used the same stock picture previously, they didn't:

 

Benefits cap mum-of-eight has 10 bus lane tickets scrapped after saying she's skint

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/marie-buchan-benefits-cap-mum-of-eight-3108440

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that the single parent with a child/children are worse off.

Why is no one questioning where the other parent's contribution is.

Obviously not in cases of where the other parent has died or unable to work,

 

In my case I work 36 hours and I will be £1500 down; take that off anyone and it will cause hardship.

Very few voted Tory, people did not know this was coming. We have had 5 years of austerity, why now?

If things are so bad, why did they get back in?

Are there measures to increase tax revenue from other sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case I work 36 hours and I will be £1500 down; take that off anyone and it will cause hardship.

Very few voted Tory, people did not know this was coming. We have had 5 years of austerity, why now?

If things are so bad, why did they get back in?

Are there measures to increase tax revenue from other sources?

 

Misleading. The tories kept the details of the cuts quiet. They did say it would be 12bn. I dont think many really understood the cuts would be as hard and deep as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few voted Tory
Considering this is the first fully-Tory government with a Parliamentary majority in over 2 decades, I can safely claim that you are factually wrong.

people did not know this was coming.
I'll not bother linking to hundreds of pre-election links, see phoenixboy's post. Everyone knew £12bn's worth of cuts were coming, and plenty (really plenty) warned that the welfare budget would take a hard hit.

We have had 5 years of austerity, why now?
We haven't had 5 years of austerity. The Greeks, the Irish, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, most of the Baltic States...they've had austerity.

 

We've had 5 years of constant juggling of cuts and tax measures to husband and then bootstrap an economy still vacillating on its feet in 2010. It's stopped vacillating, so there's a bit of room for amplifying the cuts and the tax measures, and reduce 'the State'.

If things are so bad, why did they get back in?
Subjective question by excellence, I'd say the Tories got back in because they were perceived as the best of a bad bunch.

Are there measures to increase tax revenue from other sources?
Plenty, if you bother looking without the bias goggles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case I work 36 hours and I will be £1500 down; take that off anyone and it will cause hardship.

Very few voted Tory, people did not know this was coming. We have had 5 years of austerity, why now?

If things are so bad, why did they get back in?

Are there measures to increase tax revenue from other sources?

 

But you have not addressed my point at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. The Mirror was championing this lady yesterday:

 

Budget 2015: Single mum-of-8 fears she could become homeless if her £26,000 benefits are capped

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-single-mum-of-8-fears-6030489?ICID=FB_mirror_main

 

Only to come in for flack from people asking where the dads were.

 

Note how the Mirror kindly masked the faces of the children, yet when they used the same stock picture previously, they didn't:

 

Benefits cap mum-of-eight has 10 bus lane tickets scrapped after saying she's skint

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/marie-buchan-benefits-cap-mum-of-eight-3108440

 

That slaggy old woman has been on tv and in the papers loads, you never once hear of the kids fathers though.

 

Stupid bint though having that many kids would be endless fun, all she does is whinge about how hard she's got it.

...

 

---------- Post added 10-07-2015 at 15:20 ----------

 

In my case I work 36 hours and I will be £1500 down; take that off anyone and it will cause hardship.

Very few voted Tory, people did not know this was coming. We have had 5 years of austerity, why now?

If things are so bad, why did they get back in?

Are there measures to increase tax revenue from other sources?

 

Thats really bad, how are you down so badly?

Edited by Jeffrey Shaw
Offensive wording deleted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering this is the first fully-Tory government with a Parliamentary majority in over 2 decades, I can safely claim that you are factually wrong.

I'll not bother linking to hundreds of pre-election links, see phoenixboy's post. Everyone knew £12bn's worth of cuts were coming, and plenty (really plenty) warned that the welfare budget would take a hard hit.

We haven't had 5 years of austerity. The Greeks, the Irish, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, most of the Baltic States...they've had austerity.

 

We've had 5 years of constant juggling of cuts and tax measures to husband and then bootstrap an economy still vacillating on its feet in 2010. It's stopped vacillating, so there's a bit of room for amplifying the cuts and the tax measures, and reduce 'the State'.

Subjective question by excellence, I'd say the Tories got back in because they were perceived as the best of a bad bunch.

Plenty, if you bother looking without the bias goggles.

 

Plenty of people assumed that the cuts wouldn't affect them.

 

They're now sorry that they voted for the nasty party, but it's too late to change their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of people assumed that the cuts wouldn't affect them.

 

They're now sorry that they voted for the nasty party, but it's too late to change their minds.

 

They're hitting me too, but you have to look at the bigger picture.

Go for high public spending and you make people happy this year, but poorer every year thereafter.

Got for growth and in the long term everybody wins.

Every bit of extra private sector growth means more money to go around as the state is able to collect more tax without increasing tax rates.

 

This is why every socialist nation collapses.

You're getting as much state as can be afforded. I wish there was always more money to hand out but there isn't.

 

You've got used to being bribed with your own money. Your government has been borrowing money in your name, that you'll eventually have to pay back (with interest), and then pretending they're doing you a favour when they hand it to you as if it's a present.

This was a massive Labour con trick that far too many people fell for.

 

Once the deficit, and thereafter the debt, is back to sensible levels there will be noticeably more money to go round.

Ideally this will show up in the form of tax cuts rather than benefits as it makes no sense at all for the state to be over-taxing and handing out benefits to the same person at the same time.

Edited by unbeliever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.