Cut all the benefits/welfare, fix the economy

Post Reply New Topic

I don't want to just up and move out of the country away from my family - but I wish I could win a lot of money and buy a place in a better country where things are ran PROPERLY.
I really don't like rude people. You sound like a stubborn person, that's fine by me, and I can't change your personality, no more than you can change mine (I am a highly anxious person).
I am NOT getting free money because I am NOT sitting on my arse all day - I'm looking for a job every day, I go to a charity shop to do volunteer work, and I am currently doing a course because I know it's going to help me look into getting into an Admin job. Is that sitting on my arse getting handouts for doing nothing? And I've got to be getting something while I'm looking for work, otherwise my parents would have to keep me. You want to have a go at these youngsters who are having kid after kid just so they can get given a 3 bedroom house, then throw their partner out so they could get even more money by being a single parent. That is another reason why this country is in so much debt.

Also it can't hurt to point out that in a lot of nations there are incredibly high mortality rates amongst the poor precisely BECAUSE they have no safety net for the unemployed. Consider how fun it was in the UK before the welfare state. The poor and the disabled suffered and died. There was never a golden age where everyone had a job.

Exactly - people need a bit of support whilst they are unemployed. The government throws them on the dole, so the government should make sure they are still getting something into their bank whilst they're looking for a job, otherwise how would their bills get paid? There are about 25 people going for each job, and so nobody's going to be able to find a job in the next hour, are they? I know a man who has sent out over 1 thousand CVs to 1 thousand different places in a year, and he's still gotten nowhere. Is that hardly his fault?

Wasn't the principle cause the potatoe famine? If you want to get down to the mindset of the time, you've neglected to point out the British opinion towards the Irish in general. The lack of help could have been due to prejudice and not capitalism.

eh, that's an overused term. Socialism has to do with workers owning the means of production, , which doesn't necessarily encompass public sector jobs and can, very well, encompass private sector jobs. I think "progressive" is just a term used by centrists, being that, traditionally, the term was used by, both, republicans and democrats and people on the left and right. Its not some Manchurian candidate code word for all the secret reds and commies lurking in the greater society.

I'm an actual socialist and happy to be out in the open about it. I believe business would better benefit the greater society if we had workplace democracy and collective ownership by workers of private businesses. If workers were more than mere rented labor and could direct company policy, nobody in their right mind would outsource their own job to China. That's something conventional industry does. A CEO doesn't give a damn about the welfare of domestic labor. If they can outsource jobs to China, the sweatshop of the world. where people are more desperate. and maximize profits by further minimizing labor costs, they'll do it in a heart beat. They don't care if they put a bunch of Americans out of a job to make extra money for their own personal gain.

I agree. Plus, the rich are constantly trying to dismantle the public sector with lobbyists, mainly because they want access to those markets. I would absolutely hate it if USPS was replaced completely by Fedex and UPS. I've never had a package lost by USPS, but I've had three lost by UPS, and I've used it a lot less. As for Fedex, they've never lost anything of mine, but they're way too expensive. For four day shipping, it cost me 15 dollars just to mail a cd, where I could mail 5 cds in jewel cases for 7 bucks in 3 days. Private Contractors for the government tend to take a long time to get things done too. It took 4 years for them to rebuild an 1/8th mile stretch of road where I live. They drag their feet, because they like to keep their hands in the public money pot as long as they can. ...but yah, lets go back to the golden age of the late 19th and early 20th century when everyone had a job and was so happy with it. ...when children didn't have pesky rules keeping them from holding a job to supplement their families income and when women and underage girls had to prostitute their selves and do Taylor work on the side to supplement their incomes working 10 hours a day, 6 days out of the week at the shirt waste factory

When the Conservative Robert Peel was PM there was no starvation but after a year in which he managed the blight decently he was ousted by an alliance of laissez-faire extremists and replaced by the Whig John Russell who insisted on implementing his extremist ideas. Millions died as a result of this experiment.

I think this is a good discussion. From what I have read here and from what I know and have experienced in the US, I have some thoughts on this. In the US there are two basic trains of thought:

Keep taxes low and provide incentives to create more jobs. Since this will create new jobs, entitlement programs can be cut to reduce the deficit.

The other train of thought is to raise taxes some on the wealthy to cut the deficit, and provide incentives to create more jobs.

I don't think either method will work. Technology continues to increase at an exponential rate, making most types of work more efficient and allowing competition across the world.

Captalism, in my opinion, reflects human nature, and the folks that are the best at it, that take the most advantage of continued efficiencies, will continue to gain the most reward. Additional help from the government will probably enable the potential for even greater efficiencies and possibly even fewer jobs.

I think no matter how robust, intelligent, or successful the population is, there just simply will not be enough jobs to go around.

The Bottom line is, sooner or later the deficit will have to be decreased, someway, somehow. The only way significantly to cut spending to come anywhere close to this, that I can see, would be to dramatically cut entitlement programs. While some may be adjusted here or there, I can't see politicians actually doing the drastic cuts; it would be political suicide. And, personally, I don't want to see the people who need help have to suffer. I don't see how charities could possibly get the funding and handle the complexity required to make it happen on their own.

I have watched my taxes go lower and lower over the course of my lifetime. The more money I made the less taxes I paid. I said to myself, more money in my pocket, great! I made a modest living, and was able to become pretty much financially independent, just by saving money and living within my means.

My wife and I, have lived with disabilities all of lives, and have been fortunate to work and live in a wonderful country with great schools, libraries, law enforcement, fire departments, and so many other aspects of the infrastructure of our lives that we take advantage of everyday. We paid a very small percentage of our incomes to reap these benefits.

The reality is, for most people, the taxes here are low. About 50% of us don't pay any. I know it's the politically correct thing to keep lowering our taxes, but we really do have some great advantages, that I personally don't mind helping to pay for. I also realize that at this point if taxes were significantly raised for the middle class, it would hurt the economy. I might of been one of the few that just would save a little less, but most would probably not spend as much.

Since raising taxes on any one group is also pretty much political suicide; I don't see that happening either. I do though, personally believe, it could be accomplished by raising the taxes signficantly for folks that make over a million dollars without a signficant reduction in jobs, but don't see it happening with the political environment we have.

I think the only politically possible solution would be to somehow change the taxing structure, that won't hurt anyones feelings too much. This might raise the revenue required to get us back to were we need to be.

Sorry, don't know if any of this could apply to the UK.

If they raise taxes on the top 5% to a reasonable level, they can bare the burden more. I mean, if someone makes 10 billion dollars and you tax them 40%, they still have 6 billion left over. If you regressively tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars at the same percentage, they only have 6000 dollars. That can make or break someone in a lower income level. I think cutting medicare and social security is a stupid idea and only screws over the less affluent. The real burden is our massive military spending. The US spends more on its military than all the militaries in the world combined. We have a military industrial complex, in which over 80% of domestic manufacturing is comprised of government contracts with arms and aerospace manufacturers to build planes, tanks, and bombs.

Its a vicious cycle, in which private businesses lobby congress for subsidies that make war profitable. While this does have the ability to stimulate the economy, it doesn't really matter, being that most our industry is service based and completely dependent on the relative undervaluing of currencies in the third world on the currency exchange. That's why foreign goods are so cheap. Its a very fragile system to be in, and all the money poured in for market stimulation from war contracts and public works programs doesn't remain domestically in the American markets.

I will say that public works programs is a better tactic for stimulus than war industries. Dropping bombs on a country, even if you spend money to rebuild the infrastructure, only leaves bitter resentment for future generations and a lot of bad memories. Using the money to rebuild roads and infrastructure, on the other hand, has a lasting, positive effect, and it directly benefits the nation. I think business interests like the prospects of foreign war more, though, because it opens them up to new markets that they didn't previously have access to.

I don't really know about the UK system. I hope some of this is applicable, but I couldn't really help but think about the American situation due to the similar boat were in.

If they raise taxes on the top 5% to a reasonable level, they can bare the burden more. I mean, if someone makes 10 billion dollars and you tax them 40%, they still have 6 billion left over. If you regressively tax someone who makes 10,000 dollars at the same percentage, they only have 6000 dollars. That can make or break someone in a lower income level. I think cutting medicare and social security is a stupid idea and only screws over the less affluent. The real burden is our massive military spending. The US spends more on its military than all the militaries in the world combined. We have a military industrial complex, in which over 80% of domestic manufacturing is comprised of government contracts with arms and aerospace manufacturers to build planes, tanks, and bombs.

Its a vicious cycle, in which private businesses lobby congress for subsidies that make war profitable. While this does have the ability to stimulate the economy, it doesn't really matter, being that most our industry is service based and completely dependent on the relative undervaluing of currencies in the third world on the currency exchange. That's why foreign goods are so cheap. Its a very fragile system to be in, and all the money poured in for market stimulation from war contracts and public works programs doesn't remain domestically in the American markets.

I will say that public works programs is a better tactic for stimulus than war industries. Dropping bombs on a country, even if you spend money to rebuild the infrastructure, only leaves bitter resentment for future generations and a lot of bad memories. Using the money to rebuild roads and infrastructure, on the other hand, has a lasting, positive effect, and it directly benefits the nation. I think business interests like the prospects of foreign war more, though, because it opens them up to new markets that they didn't previously have access to.

I don't really know about the UK system. I hope some of this is applicable, but I couldn't really help but think about the American situation due to the similar boat were in.

One more thing I want to note about the argument of lowering taxes on the rich to create jobs is industry will often sit on their assets till the recession or depression is over. This was the case when Hoover was in office, and its kind of the case now. I read how big industries that had received stimulus money weren't doing anything with it. Apparently it had no strings attached. They're just banking it until the recession is over when they're in a better situation to expand their businesses with it. So in other words, since there were no strings attached with the money, they're not doing with it what politicians told the public they would do with it.

Exactly. Supply-siders never give any kind of mathematical proof that the tax burdan is always the rate limiting factor for economic growth. As long as they can still turn a marginal profit with a leaner work force, they aren't going to bother taking any additional risks. Why the hell would they? Even if you cut their taxes there's still no reason to risk overextending themselves once again with all the dire talk and gloom and doom circulating the airwaves.

Dont worry, its going to get worst, though the media in this country are keeping quiet about it, because they know people will wake up if they go on about global warming whilst the world seems to be retreating into the next ice age, but at the moment in Mexico, they are having another one of their global warming summits, where ideas being put forward include rationing food and fuel like after the second world war.

The third world countries have the resources to be quite well off, but the international bankers / Babylon the Geat / IMF, leant them loads of money to get themin such debt that they can never pay off, just like they are now doing to countries like Ireland and soon Portugal Greece, etc etc untill the whole worlds a third world country with them at the top living like gods.

Stupid thing is, we still (well you, I certainly dont), vote for political parties that are paid by the bankers to ruin our countries.

I read once of a politition and a country who kicked the bankers out, issued thier own money, and became the best economy in the world within 4 years, not only that, but the money was spent on the people not given to the bankers. He was soon stopped and demonised for ever.
Another politition who tried to be free of the bamkers was JFK, he was soon got rid of too.

Edited!
Better not write anything else in this thread 'cos someone keeps on replying rude replies to me.

Last edited by Joe90 on 05 Dec 2010, 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

What crap. You know what else is caused by greed? Mortgages, credit cards, loans, and hell, even bank accounts themselves. If banks couldn't be greedy and profit from consumer banking, it wouldn't exist. Think of the implications: you would have nowhere safe to store the money the government's giving you for free, you should not be able to borrow money at all, and it'd be impossible to buy a car or a house without paying for the whole thing upfront.

As for Tesco, they're a private business and they're free to make their prices whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

Not really. Greed played a role in the acute financial crisis but globalization of labor markets is the root cause I think. The US hardly manufactures material goods anymore so all the money that used to be in manufacturing got shifted to more speculation based markets. Unfortunately those markets have only a short lifetime. The internet bubble of the 90s and then the housing bubble of the 00s kept the bigger structural crisis at bay for 20 years. Now the chickens of the multi-national conglomerates have finally come home to roost.