To not understand how people can justify it

[ijustdontunderstand]

Okay, not a bun fight I just want to understand how those who vote Tory can think the cuts to disability benefits are OK.

This is NOT saying if you vote Tory you're a bad person, at all, I just want to understand. Will you vote them in again knowing?

It doesn't matter whether the situation was created by landlords or not really, the outcome is still the same and surely there will be more families relying on state pension and welfare because they will never have any assets as they are trapped in a system of increasing rents.

Affordable housing is achievable, it's just put on the back burner because of greed. There was a proposal passed near to me to build affordable housing on a brownfield site, using non traditional building methods but it was shelved in favour of more expensive traditional builds, which just seems really sad

Owl lady - what makes me laugh though is how they come out with affordable , when the some plonkers calculation of affordable is indeed way out of the reach of the previous residents to that area.

"It's easy to demand ever higher tax when you are not in danger of actually having to pay it"

Yet again, judging everyone else by your own low standards. Plenty of those calling for higher taxes to pay for the NHS, education etc. are also higher rate taxpayers. The difference between you and them is really simple at the end of the day: you're a horrible person, and they are not.

Charming, Holly. I could tell you how many hours a week I spend volunteering with the elderly or how much money I give to charity, but honestly, what would be the point? If you need to resort to personal insults, then frankly you have already lost the argument.

They've got a clever way of convincing us joe public by replacing the previous council/ha stock with these so called affordable properties, who for many will be a unreachable goal. The same goes for all the so called regeneration projects, same objective sell of the land privately to generate yet more income to the haves.

These were properly affordable houses though because they were non traditional build (and eco friendly) but unfortunately they were just imaginary :o and yy I agree 're 'affordable', shared ownership etc - they are still £££ here

Great example PausingFlatly.
Cutting disability benefit, that people need, with cause health problems, end up with more pressure on the NHS and give more arguments to further privatisation. Just list to what Dame Tammy Grey-Thomson says on the issue. She is in a great position to know.

Those who argue we have to fight benefit fraud ... I'll try & attach a picture. Is benefit fraud REALLY the problem??? I'm more concerned that MPs who have financial interests in private health companies are allowed to vote to privatise OUR NHS! And these same MPs focus on benefit fraud and leave tax avoidance (for rich not poor) cos companies might get upset. I think any public representative who gains financially from their voting should be done for fraud.

Pic blurred so:
Benefit fraud = £1.2bn
Benefit overpayment = £1.4bn
Benefits unclaimed = £16 bn
Tax avoided, evaded, uncollected = £120bn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't think this really is austerity. It is tinkering around the edges by a weak government. To get the country's finances back in order we need real cuts, not small adjustments and hand-wringing.

Sharper axes, lower taxes.

I'm a high rate taxpayer and would gladly pay more, on the basis that starving the state makes all of us poorer.

Austerity (which is just an excuse to starve the state) doesn't save money, it costs money.

Stinky snow. So your saying there have been no real cuts ?? What do you propose then ? I know why dont we cut some more and have a situation that puts us level with that of the states - families living in cars and relying on soup kitchens to feed our children at night. More cuts to the police service maybe ? Making the streets less safe and the vulnerable more vulnerable? Or let's just privatise the whole nhs ? The answer isn't cuts ! It's about time we stop voting these idiots in who insist on brainwashing us into believing that it's one man against another. It's definitely not , it's the lining of the pockets of those at the top, who in turn do absolutely nothing for the people at the bottom.

Am I being too simplistic to think if Starbucks withdrew from the UK and all their empty shops were available and there was a need for a coffee shop/cafe, then that space would be filled with one that paid tax anyway?

Great point Owllady

Owl - a little bit. The costs of setting up a coffee shop - the rent, the equipment, the staff - shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'm a higher rate tax payer. I would pay more tax to expand the welfare state. I would like tax evasion (legal and otherwise) to be dealt with first though. It would give us a more accurate idea of the state of the nation's finances if we weren't writing off £120bn every year, to our mates.

& something has to pay for the 30 free hours childcare everyone's entitled to ( as of next year )

It's very difficult to distinguish between avoidance (lawful) and evasion (crime) and 'twas ever thus.

Would anyone deliberately open a non-ISA savings account so as not to be an "avoider"?

DG2016 abolishing housing benefit is the saddest suggestion I've seen. Have you no compassion? How would they live? Where would they live? God save us all from finding out.

YoungGirlGrowingOld
I thought your comment "
It's easy to demand ever higher tax when you are not in danger of actually having to pay it." was outrageous but may be you know the tax bracket and personal income of your target? Is there a system on here to see who's "posh' and who's not?

Teatimeforthesoul

There seems to be a popular myth that Labour was disastrous and Tory cuts are the answer. I'll try to find a supporting link but before Labour lost power ie. as the new lot took over, the economy was in recovery. Since the Tories/Osborne has been in charge they've increased the deficit. Therefore, if you insist on a binary argument then Labour was in fact better.

The cuts that are the main point here are not needed. Better management of the economy is needed and after all this time the current administration is clearly NOT the answer.

When the government have dealt with tax evaders and big companies, and stripped down the unnecessary bureaucracy in so many public services, and taken a good hard look at their own expense sheets, and if we STILL need cuts after that, maybe then I'd support them taking a look at the welfare budget.

Until then it's yet more proof that tories and all who vote for them are "I'm alright Jack" voters.

Thanks Worcswoman.
But to be honest I didn't mean to be party political. I think there is bad practice on both sides. I do agree with the politics of one more than the other ... but they are all still enjoying their heavily subsidised food and alcohol in the Houses of Parliment while voting for austerity which send others to food banks.

Can you imagine if everyone who took the time to view this thread wrote to or emailed their MP? Never mind if you agree or disagree with OP or me, just making their voices heard.

www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/

Teatime

This needs repeating and reposting

Pic blurred so:
Benefit fraud = £1.2bn
Benefit overpayment = £1.4bn
Benefits unclaimed = £16 bn
Tax avoided, evaded, uncollected = £120bn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

worcs I didn't have a "target" in mind when I made that comment. I was simply stating the rather obvious point that the vast majority of people who advocate higher taxes tend to refer generally to "the rich" and "high earners" which often means nothing more than "people who earn more than me".

"The costs of setting up a coffee shop - the rent, the equipment, the staff - shouldn't be taken lightly."

The costs of providing the infrastructure, legal system, education system etc that allow these coffee shops to run should be taken even less lightly yet Starbucks (or as once described in the Sopranos as Buttfucks) are able to do so.

Those stats though aren't correct.
Many many areas of tax are not clear. Tell me what proportion of my expenses buying newspapers are needed for my legal firm and what not? That decision is taken on an hourly basis by everyone in business all the time. Much of the lawful avoidance is done by mumsnetters too eg husbands putting savings in wife's names, pension contributions and claiming tax relief, giving money to your chidlren (and if you live 7 years no inheritance tax oni t). Tax avoidance which is lawful should never be included in these figures and as the Chancellor is speaking now and has said where the state chooses it can change the law to decide when tax is payable and when not.