Is austerity working- and will it ever end?

[Robin-H]

2 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

As a working class bloke I've never been asked to expand by a bloke called Robin. What do you mean?

I mean would you care to expand on your comment and explain why you think it’s a load of ‘bobbar’? 

[Cyclone]

On 15/03/2019 at 09:18, woodview said:

That's not what I said is it.

Welcome to Pitsmoor, where we have new litter bins, instead of critical services.

So are you starting to understand austerity.  A policy of underfunding critical services and providing zero funding to services that aren't critical.

On 15/03/2019 at 10:50, Robin-H said:

Which makes it even more impressive that at a time of austerity the government have ensured inequality has gone down by increasing the incomes of the poorest and raising the tax burden on the richest.. 

I don't think you can attribute to the government something that their policies have hampered.  It happened despite them, not because of them.

[Robin-H]

34 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So are you starting to understand austerity.  A policy of underfunding critical services and providing zero funding to services that aren't critical.

I don't think you can attribute to the government something that their policies have hampered.  It happened despite them, not because of them.

No it didn’t. 

 

It happened because of policies the government enacted, namely increasing the minimum wage above inflation and raising the tax threshold. 

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

No it didn’t. 

 

It happened because of policies the government enacted, namely increasing the minimum wage above inflation and raising the tax threshold. 

Is this why a lot of working people now have to resort to benefits to top up their income to a survivable level?

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

So are you starting to understand austerity.  A policy of underfunding critical services and providing zero funding to services that aren't critical.

1

If only we knew who is meant to fund those services, the council should be providing essential services, but they are struggling - but they are still providing the non-essential services. Like the big TV screens in the city center.

There should be a clear divide, between what service the Government fund and what services the council provide/fund.

 

[Anna B]

13 minutes ago, El Cid said:

If only we knew who is meant to fund those services, the council should be providing essential services, but they are struggling - but they are still providing the non-essential services. Like the big TV screens in the city center.

There should be a clear divide, between what service the Government fund and what services the council provide/fund.

 

Everybody pays Counciltax, so I suppose they have to try and provide something for every demographic.

I can still remember the fuss that was caused by them spending money on subsidising the busses, (which people who didn't use the bus strongly objected to - even though it prevented pollution.)

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Everybody pays Counciltax, so I suppose they have to try and provide something for every demographic.

I can still remember the fuss that was caused by them spending money on subsidising the busses, (which people who didn't use the bus strongly objected to - even though it prevented pollution.)

In my local area, people complain about the lack of care for elderly people, who pays for that, the council or the government?

Should the elderly pay their own way, with their pension?

[Robin-H]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Is this why a lot of working people now have to resort to benefits to top up their income to a survivable level?

The number of people of working age claiming benefits has decreased slightly. 

 

Disposable income has also increased. It has increased the most for the poorest households. 

 

"Households have more disposable income than at any time previously. However, compared with their pre-downturn levels the incomes of the poorest households have risen nearly two thousand pounds but the incomes of the richest are only now slightly higher. Overall, income inequality has slowly fallen over the last decade."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2017

[Anna B]

I think you'll find that the wealth of the richest in society (who let's face it, don't need any more,) has increased considerably more than a couple of grand. Their money goes up in millions.

https://reconsider.news/2018/06/27/assets-worlds-high-net-wealth-millionaires-surged-70-trillion-2017/

[bendix]

10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I think you'll find that the wealth of the richest in society (who let's face it, don't need any more,) has increased considerably more than a couple of grand. Their money goes up in millions.

https://reconsider.news/2018/06/27/assets-worlds-high-net-wealth-millionaires-surged-70-trillion-2017/

Fascinating, but that is not really the point is it.  The fact remains that after austerity (something made necessary by Labour overspending - rememnber the message card left for the new Tory chancellor by his predecessor?), both poverty and income inequality are lower than they were ten years ago.

 

You can continue to wriggle and writhe, but you can't change facts.

 

Are there areas where improvements can be made?  Yes.  Are there areas of relative deprivation?  For sure?   But it's relative - that's the whole point.