All-round Budget thread

So much hatred for the poor and vulnerable, here. So much reactionary nonsense.

Myth: "We have no money".

Reality: We are wealthier than we've ever been. Our debt to GDP is historically low, and lower than most G8 countries. We have enough money to reduce corporation tax. We are paying £3 million per day to fund the war in Libya, and the total cost may go up to £500 million.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/03/22/the-true-cost-of-david-cameron-s-war-in-libya-115875-23006828/

We have enough money to give let off companies like Vodafone several billion pounds in tax which they owed after 'negotiating' with the treasury. An estimated £120 billion pounds annually is lost from tax - personal and corporate - avoidance and evasion. If we enacted the 'Robin Hood' tax on financial speculation at a rate of 0.05%, the UK could raise an estimated £20 billion pounds per year. (The US could raise about $200 billion dollars.)

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sYYsAJCkHLgJ:robinhoodtax.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/FAQ-Robin-Hood-Tax1.pdf

So spitting venom at poor people and claiming that welfare needs to be drastically reformed is complete and utter garbage. Your tax pounds are going to poor people. They're going to the very rich (corporate and individual), the political class, and the arms industry.

Bollox.

Thousands upon thousands of Eastern Europeans and other immigrants have managed to find jobs in recent years. I can't remember the last time I was served food or drinks by a non immigrant .

Perhaps some people are unemployed because they are simply unemployable and have, in some cases, made themselves so.

Nigella seems to be one big screaming Daily Mail headline - full of hot air, hatred and hysteria, but no substance whatsoever.

Because no one seems to be listening. There is no money. We are horrifyingly broke to the extent that we will not be bailed out by the IMF if we go cap in hand to them. We cannot afford to continue as we are without either massive tax hikes across the board , cuts or both.

There is plenty of money. Our debt to GDP ratio is much lower than other G8 countries, including Japan, Italy, and the United States. In fact, it has been lower for most of the 20th Century:

www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

After WWII, the UK was actually bankrupt. Yet at this time, we created the NHS and built the welfare state. Spending and investing in public services actually steadily brought down the debt ratio, and jobs were created, people became healthier and more productive, and it generally facilitated the functioning of the economy.

I would have also thought that the very worst thing for depression is to be at home benefit dependant. Isn't poverty and unemployment a major factor in depression?

So then give them a job. How patronizing of you to suggest that people would rather be unemployed, on benefits and depressed than working for a living.

Thanks to the recession, caused by the banking crisis, and furthermore thanks to the ideological cuts of this government, there are upwards of 2.5 Million unemployed, and quite literally not enough jobs to employ people.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/03/16/britain-unemployment.html

That is it in a nutshell Niceguy. We've only got so much money to spend, same as it ever was.

We need to decide where best to spend our money. Mr Lansley isn't funding these reforms from his own pocket, I'm fairly sure.

Very careful editing there Xenia!

Yes, the BMA have decided not to oppose the bill outright, though it was a close call.

"Dr Jacky Davis said: "This Bill is the final step on the way to the privatisation of the NHS. The Bill has few friends outside the private companies waiting to make billions out of it."

But her motion for outright opposition was opposed by 54 to 44 per cent.

The BMA Council will consider its next moves at a meeting today.

Its options include a ballot on industrial action ? which has not taken place since 1975 ? but this looks less likely after the meeting also voted to keep negotiating with ministers."

In a nutshell Niceguy, in a nutshell.

The bottom line is we only have so much money to spend. So a line must be drawn somewhere.

Now we can debate all you like about who should be entitled and who has the worst sob story about how they should get benefits but don't.

But as we've been spending a lot more money than we get over the last three decades, the time has come where we can't borrow anymore and have to start paying back....with interest. So now we have a smaller pot of money to spend so it's only natural that some people whom previously enjoyed state support are no longer entitled.

Is that right? Frankly it's rather irrelevant. It's the reality in which we live in.

So the BMA decided not to oppose the bill and " The Government pointed out last night that some doctors were in favour of a significant part of the Bill, which would allow them, rather than middle managers, to purchase treatment for their patients. They would also have to consider private health care providers rather than just the nearest NHS hospital. "

(Yes it was tax credits I mentioned that I've never been eligible - nor many maternity rights actually as when I hd the first 3 babies in each case I hadn't been employed for 2 years in those days a requirement and then with the twins I was self employed - in a way the fact i didn't have most maternity rights means I earn a lot uin my 40s because there was no incentive to stop work and become a housewive or take a longish maternity leave.

Yes I have claimed child benefit. I think people can claim what they're entitled to and if the laws are wrong then the laws should be changed. I've yet to feel I'm in a position not to need it - children are expensive.

What utter nonsense HB. The BMA are happy to talk and agree to some of the proposals. However, they do have very deep concerns over certain aspects, it's the Government who are refusing to listen.

No one is in favour of the Bill as it stands, other than private medical providers. I wonder why.

Article in the Telegraph, reporting on the BMA response.

BMA always oppose change, this has been discussed already.

Privatising wouldn't mean it disappearing but it would mean efficiency and revolutionising an out of date and wildly expensive system, which must be good for patients.

Letter to Lansley from the BMA

Yes, it would be much better if we just left poor people to get ill and die. How civilised.

More's the pity

The NHS is not about to be privatised.

Nigella, have recently returned from an alien abduction or something? There's been a fair bit about it in the news that's all.

Anyway, I'm off for a nap. That cancer doesn't half wear you out. I'm sure you'll find exactly what you're looking for on google.

cakeretention - I think your post hits every nail on the head.

Wubbly can you please show me your evidence that the NHS is about to be privatised, please?

Think I was talking about Child Benefit, actually.

I think everyone gets it. Even if you own an island.

Yes child tax credit - I have never got it as I think if you earn over £60k you never got it at all but most people got it.

Okay, third time lucky - no DL, not incapacity B but ESA... that's the one.

Anyway as said above whether fraudulent or otherwise we cannot afford to pay what we have been paying even if we can afford the army and state schools and various other things. We still spend a huge amount on just about everything and the cuts may need to be deeper in more areas.