To think we don't need austerity

[BreakingDad77]

Seeing as we give away £93 billion to businesses
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake

and that all those people going on about tightening belts, cutting tax credits etc etc have become sucked into the Tory PR machine.

Bathtime:

No it isn't.

Bathtime:
Unless you think that the 1930's German model is viable.

gosh this thread got rude very quickly

ghosty:
The givers and takers will always disagree.

Don't they always ghosty

OK, you are right.

Countries with their own currencies, who have the power to set interest rates, and collect taxes, are just the same as households.

Why just the other day my husband's little bank that he keeps in the spare room caused a massive banking crash and all the little banks in the house were about to go under!

So, says I, let's bail them out, the cheeky feckers. Sure they owe more than we'll earn in 300 years!

So in I go and smash up all the kid's piggy banks and give it to the little household banks.

Waaaaaah, they said, we didn't want Daddy to have all those hobby banks. Why do we have to pay for it?

Ah shut it, says I, and give them a clip around the ear.

I'm sure the governor of the central bank in the dining room will do some quantitative easing and that'll mean that even though you won't get to go to university, the household will not be have bailiffs at the door.

as a GIVER I and happy to help the TAKERS (those pesky disabled children and their carers for example) long live the takers - better them than people who don't care x

Bathtime did you raid the Monopoly money?

Hear hear ghosty.

Betty - I tried.

But apparently it's only accepted as legal tender in the game!

Sure what use is that?

A feckin' stupid game. Tiny little houses and a iron going around the board.

Betty:
She believes it's real money. She'll be down Tesco's tomorrow trying to so spend it.
Tesco's will tell her to FO and come back with some Drachma

YANBU.

ghosty explained it well. I've been up since 5.30 and it's pissing down so I don't have the energy or brain power...

ghosty:
You appear to be bit selective in who you choose to give taxpayers money to. How about those who choose not to work?

Bollocks, does that mean Early Learning Centre money isn't legal tender either?
Oh well I'll just have to console myself with working 60 hours a week then.

We do need austerity, it's absolutely necessary to 'balance the books' so that the next time the financial sector cause a massive financial crisis and the government has to bail them out, there is money available to do that. Privatised profits, socialised losses, that's the nature of the game.

If I had any choice in the matter, I'd not have chosen to bail out the banks who are still paying out 6 figure bonuses to the undeserving.

Why are they more worthy of tax payers money than the disabled, the old and the working poor? And while we're at it why should our taxes be used to subsidise employers who don't pay a living wage?

I don't recall privatised profits proping up the banks.
If banks need bailing out then that is a socialist concept.
In a true free market economy, they would face the wall.

I would give benefit to those who need - if people choose not to work that's just part of a wider system that actually support the whole

you don't punish everyone for the behaviour of a few

and you don't punish their children - who don't have a choice in how their parents behave

but this agenda is NOT about stopping people not working - they may bang on about that but that doesn't explain why then they are cutting IN WORK support

the 'big benefit families get 878787698479 pounds a week for they 676 children living in a free house' bolox is just slight of hand - most of us are bright enough to see though it

finally 'not working' is massively complex - I work with families with long term unemployment - many have massive needs in areas such as reading, writing and mental health - it's just not that simple

I completely don't understand he concept of fucking over huge swathes of people who are struggling to survive on poor wages in insecure jobs and paying a fortune for childcare and transport, or disabled people, or young people who can't afford astronomical housing costs etc out of fear that the very tiny number of people who 'choose not to work' might get something for nothing if they even exist

The perpetuation of the debunked 'three generations who've never worked' is still going on. God knows why. Even if someone managed to track down these elusive choose not to work people, is it worth screwing over everyone else and simultaneously giving tax cuts to the richest people in the country?

If you want to reduce the benefits bill so we can 'live within our means' then stop subsidising poverty wages and private rents.

It would just be nice to live in a country which didn't elect such a nasty Government and have such a biased right wing press.

Never underestimate privileged Tories' self belief in their divine right to rule, shameless protection of their own interests and their ability to con enough people that it is in the 'national interest'...

The cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Captain:
Does increasing tax rates always increase the revenue for the exchequer?

What I don't get is even if you do think that cutting the national debt is necessary why think that the way to do it is to make poor people poorer.

"It would just be nice to live in a country which didn't elect such a nasty Government"

That's democracy, not everybody agrees with you.

Obviously not but most people didn't vote Tory