Gideon wields his axe [The UK's Comprehensive Review Thread]

[23_Tauri]

We need a nippy name. Make sure it has "partnership" somewhere in the title.

Well, remembering Thatcher's Home Secretary Michael Howard's famous speech encouraging citizens to deal with crime in their neighbourhoods, we could call richardm's treadmills to energy scheme "walking with a purpose"....

those carbuncles sprouting up across our green and pleasant land

You called?

eh?

 

[GlennB]

I thought this might put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Without beginning to sound further to the right than (insert name of your chosen fascist dictator) it's tricky. I can think of various methods but some of them border on eugenics, so I'll stop having my afternoon huff at the Budget and make a more moderate statement: I'd scrap all child benefit except for the most poor in society, and all remaining child benefit to be means tested.

And yet we need to boost the birth rate to reduce the pensions 'time bomb' effect down the line. It's all too difficult to comprehend.

 

[Architect]

eh?

Carbuncles = famous HRH Duke of Rothesay quote = architects

 

[23_Tauri]

Carbuncles = famous HRH Duke of Rothesay quote = architects

I thought he meant your designs, not your good selves.

yours,
Town Planner,
Poundbury, an island colony of the Duchy of Cornwall*

*I really am a town planner, but I'd never live in Poundbury

 

[23_Tauri]

And yet we need to boost the birth rate to reduce the pensions 'time bomb' effect down the line. It's all too difficult to comprehend.

Aye, who's going to pay my state pension? But isn't that why I pay National Insurance now? If my NI contributions didn't go on child benefit that is.

So we need to get more of the economically active into employment. But the Government announce 490,000 job losses in public sector because the public sector is bloated, which equates to x number of jobs going indirectly in the private sector, particularly small businesses, as a result.

Like you Glenn B, I'm very confused.

Not easy, is it, this Budget marlarky.

 

[geni]

I'd much prefer it if the yards became competitive and economically viable building ships that people actually want as opposed to building ships we don't want merely to keep the industry alive.

To me the latter makes as much sense as churning out oak square-rigged ships of the line to keep the skills in Portsmouth.

You can't get the oak these days and in any case they pretty much tried exactly that in hartlepool (the idea was start up a local industry in restoring ships after they finished with the HMS Warrior).

 

[geni]

Aye, who's going to pay my state pension? But isn't that why I pay National Insurance now? If my NI contributions didn't go on child benefit that is.

Current pensions. If you want to fund your own pension it would take a tax rise.

Aditionaly there is the fact that the Netherlands have a higher population density than us. This is unacceptable and steps must be taken.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I agree, means-tested child benefit (and not much of it at that) is morally justifiable. I still stand by my statement that having children is a lifestyle choice and therefore if you choose to have that lifestyle then you should expect to pay for it yourself.

I understand, and I am quite baffled as to why Labour keep defending such a vote-loser (An overwhelming majority support means testing for CB). However, it's worth bearing in mind that the argument 'they can't have children because they can't afford them' applies to the poor a certain degree of blame for their economic situation. As we all know, one isn't necessarily poor because they can't be arsed to find a job.

To say that lucky people can have kids while the unfortunate cannot does veer slightly into eugenics.

 

[Puppycow]

Half a million jobs to be cut?

Story

I don't think this will go down very well for the Tories.

I do like the British 'stiff upper lip' though. In France they are rioting over much milder austerity measures.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

On NPR this morning they said that the cuts went to social spending that benefited the middle and upper classes, and only "some" of the poor.

Apparently, people disagree.

The coverage over here has been laudatory, if not downright celebratory. Not really sure why.

 

[SezMe]

The coverage over here has been laudatory, if not downright celebratory. Not really sure why.

You're not? The UK action is exactly what the TEAs and Fox want to happen on our side of the pond.

 

[Darat]

Is the requirement (for the government's plans to work out) of creating between 4.5 and 5 million new private sector jobs over the next 4 years feasible?

I've calculated the 4.5 to 5 million from:

1.5 million currently on JSA
2.5 on long term incapacity benefits
1 million "out of the job market" - e.g. unemployed but not claiming benefits (does not include groups such as students and pensioners)
1 million jobs required to replace the million being lost as a result of the spending review

Less the currently half a million jobs the government is showing are available at the moment.

So that's my 4.5 to 5 million new jobs.

(ETA: the total above is not the same as the new jobs required number I've used because unlike the government I think there are many people who are genuinely on incapacity benefits because of health problems, and they simply will not be capable - no matter how much the government tries to punish them for being incapable of work - of working.)

 

[Darat]

I like how those in the top 10% of earners, i.e. those earning above £44,000 a year, have managed to have themselves classed as representing the "middle class" rather than being described as what they are which is the wealthiest of people in the UK.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Clearly the current system does provide enough for people to support children because many people do it, without the need to work.

And what sort of life do (and will) those children have?

 

[Darat]

On NPR this morning they said that the cuts went to social spending that benefited the middle and upper classes, and only "some" of the poor.

Apparently, people disagree.

The coverage over here has been laudatory, if not downright celebratory. Not really sure why.

If you ignore the relative worth of money to the poorest and the wealthiest then I bet you can present the figures as if the wealthiest are proportionally going to "bear the burden" more than the poorest.

The problem is that for the wealthiest losing a £100 a week has much less impact than the poorest losing a £1 a week. I know many people seem to struggle with the reality of life for the poorest but that pound a week can be the difference between having heating on a Friday or food. (Never mind that the poorest already pay more for such basics as electricity and gas.)

 

[23_Tauri]

I understand, and I am quite baffled as to why Labour keep defending such a vote-loser (An overwhelming majority support means testing for CB). However, it's worth bearing in mind that the argument 'they can't have children because they can't afford them' applies to the poor a certain degree of blame for their economic situation. As we all know, one isn't necessarily poor because they can't be arsed to find a job.

Circumstance or fecklessness? Well it does depend on the individual. Now that London has Boris Johnson at least they'll be plenty of bikes for the jobless to get on to.

To say that lucky people can have kids while the unfortunate cannot does veer slightly into eugenics.

I have to disagree. Forced/coerced abortion or sterilsation for the poor would be eugenics, but simply stating that having a family should be a calculated, financial decision is not unreasonable. We have to weigh up whether we can afford to do everything else in life before we embark, so why not so with having a family? Procreation is not a right.

It's not about luck, either. It's about working hard and putting off having a family until one is financially secure. Planning ahead.

 

[The Don]

I like how those in the top 10% of earners, i.e. those earning above £44,000 a year, have managed to have themselves classed as representing the "middle class" rather than being described as what they are which is the wealthiest of people in the UK.

Well, they are middle class, they're certainly not upper class. I believe that under certain circumstances they could even attract family tax credits (though I'm not sure about that one)

There's also a biiiiiiiiiig difference between a single income of £44,000 supporting a large(ish) family and a couple each of whom earns £250,000.

I realise I'm in an unusual industry (IT, until recently in the financial sector) but £44,000 salaries are not that unusual, particularly when the person has a set of comparatively scarce skills.

Many of these people lead what I'd classify as a typical UK middle class life:

- Owners of a modest home, with a large mortgage
- Children state educated
- Not accumulating significant assets
- Comfortable but comparatively frugal lifestyle

These people self-identifying as middle class is not that unreasonable.

[Edited to add.....]

And there's a difference between income and wealth. Daddy Don has comparatively low income but, due to years of parsimony, reasonable levels of wealth.

My sister in law and her husband on the other hand, due to having three children and a Micawberesque view on life have a good income but no apparent wealth at all.

And finally.....

The Middle Class has historically been a a small proportion of the population as a whole. The working (and unworking) class - I've read more than 80% in Victorian times - has always been by far the largest group.

 

[lionking]

FWIW, 44,000 pounds is around $A70,000. This is right smack bang in the middle of middle class here. And, yes, families on this get family tax benefit, and do up to over $A100,000.

Okay, the comparison not exact, but it is not a walk in the park supporting a family and mortgage on $A70,000.

 

[Lothian]

I like how those in the top 10% of earners, i.e. those earning above £44,000 a year, have managed to have themselves classed as representing the "middle class" rather than being described as what they are which is the wealthiest of people in the UK.

I recall reading the average wage is around £24k. Therefore a couple on the average wage will earn more than a couple with one earner owning £44k. You also mix up wealth with earnings.

 

[Darat]

Job creation follow-up.

Been trying to find some figures on job creation rate, found this arfticle for the FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/887d0b42-a526-11df-b734-00144feabdc0.html

That is saying that a record rate of job creation in a quarter was 184,000 (I'll deal with the fact that the majority of these were part time jobs later on).

So lets assume that record number as the number per quarter going forward for the next 4 years, I get the total of new jobs as 4 x 4 x 184,000 which is 2,944,000, that's a lot less than the needed number of new jobs over that period. What will happen to the government budgets if the rate of job creation doesn't pretty much double the current record rate?

As to the fact that in that record number two thirds were part-time: I'm assuming the government means that even those working part-time will be better off in work than not in work? (Albeit I've not (so far) seen anything that indicates that is the case.)

I just can't see how the government's assumptions for the next 4 years for employment can be taken seriously by anyone.