to be dismayed people still think cuts are the route to recovery

[wigglylines]

The cuts are harming our economy, not helping it.

The idea that austerity can get us on the road to recovery is a lie!

Even the IMF have criticised austerity.

Let's get this clear, austerity is idological. The tories want to cut public services, and are using the economic crises (caused by global forces NOT Gordon Brown!) as an excuse.

Cuts harm our economy and the people in it.

We need to invest in the people in our economy to get it going, not bring the country to its knees.

If you believe that Labour caused the crisis by being irresponsible and the Tory cuts are the way forward, can I ask where you get your information from?

Is it by any chance the Murdoch press?

Have you never considered that maybe you are being manipulated - you do know Murdoch has a massive vested interest in the Tories getting in again, right?

Don't you realise that if there are people with these attitudes, these permeate into their children and in twenty years time all the right wingers will be calling them scoungers too.

The children I work with generally all have high aspirations and want to do better than their parents. I think we need better opportunities for young people post-education so they don't end up long term unemployed without ever having had a job.

There isn't a deficit and no need for austerity.
Some people believe what they are told and are manipulated like muppets.
We are given phone numbers basically and lied to.
There is no answer at present, except a bit of hope that one party can see this.
One day they may gain enough seats to make changes.

worksallhours, that's right.

Whoever gets into Number 10 cannot control:

Immigration. The EU makes the rules.
The bond markets.
Pay in China.
The flow of capital.
etc

Globalisation has changed the rules in a way which politicians cannot articulate for fear of seeming weak.

worksallhours, rich is a relative word. The question could have been who own or rent houses over a certain value (mansion tax) The answer is because Osborne doesn't like it and doubtless all his school friends would have to pay it.

addstudentdinners2, the answers are simply too intrusive/authoritarian for even the Tories.

worksallhours, thanks for your posts. Really interesting.

sub-prime anyone?

Fannyannie - Boardroom pay rockets for reasons of 'reward' and 'incentive' - most workers' pay stagnates for reasons of 'profitability'. Aren't wages simply too low rather than benefits too high? Working Tax credit is also a benefit payment. Not really sure the likes of Tesco or Greggs should be getting their wage bill subsidised.

The Dole and Housing Benefit was always calculated as about 15% less that you'd actually need to cover costs. If you're better off on benefits, then pay levels have clearly gone wrong. What happened to the Henry Ford idea of paying workers enough to buy the products they make?

The problem is that Labour allowed business to pay low wages by topping up workers with TC. Those combined with HB and outside forces then helped fuel the housing price rise and so it becomes a viscious circle.

Dora rich is a relative word. The question could have been who own or rent houses over a certain value (mansion tax) The answer is because Osborne doesn't like it and doubtless all his school friends would have to pay it.

It is indeed. However ... you knew that was coming ... I think it is really important to recognise what incomes Brits actually earn.

For example, 90 percent of British households have incomes of under £50,000 a year. 80 percent: under £40,000 a year. 50 percent: under about £24,000 a year.

When you are looking at households with an income of over £100,000 a year, it is less than 1 percent of all households in Britain. These are IFS figures, which are pretty solid.

The vast majority of people in Britain do not actually earn very much, particularly when you consider the cost of living and housing. So while "rich" may be relative, there is quite a substantial gap between the 90 percent and everyone with incomes above that.

And yes, you are right. In this climate, the only thing you can really tax are things that you can't move ... so land and property, which is where Miliband's Mansion Tax came in.

But then, as I said before, all the left-leaning luvvies got upset because they don't want to pay an MT on their houses in London, and ole Dave lost his nerve. Dan Hodges, son of former Labour MP Glenda Jackson, famously complained about how unfair this was in the Telegraph.

Interestingly, Osbourne did identify that one of the problems with London "mansions" and tax was that a lot of the very expensive properties were actually owned by companies and corporations, and there was some loophole that mean they didn't pay council tax. Last thing I heard was that he was changing the rules so they had to pay, but I don't know what happened with that.

Dora, I got canvassed by my Tory MP. I didn't agree with much of what he said but he persuaded me as to the unfairness of targetting a single asset (which may anyway be mortgaged). In extremis he would rather have a wealth tax than a mansion tax.

There isn't a deficit and no need for austerity.

Backs off slowly with hands in the air and a rictus grin...

grovel, I don't think I'd spend much time listening to a Tory talking about unfairness!

I'm not nearly as well versed on politics as many of the posters here. However, I agree with the OP:

I simply cannot agree that taking from the disadvantaged will fix the country. I used to be fairly right wing while I was working in a good job and had never been unemployed. Seeing it from the other side really makes you realise that it is bloody difficult to live on benefits and even harder to do it while you're scared you'll soon have to live on even less.

Why on earth would people from the left not understand economics, whereas people from the right somehow magically do?

If you understand economics, you wouldn't be left-wing, therefore if you are left-wing, it must be that you don't understand economics.

YANBU.

All of the tax avoiding companies should be made to pay up and if that's still not enough, people earning over £100,000 a year should be taxed more.

I don't think so, Theoretician

people earning over £100,000 a year should be taxed more.

Not gonna happen

Pay tax, buy civilisation.