anyone on here voting tory. why?

Yes, their tuition fees policy was so badly thought-out, that it has had the opposite effect of what was intended.

Absolutely unintended consequences

As a result, we estimate that around one quarter of graduates on the lowest incomes will actually pay back less than under the current system. We also expect that around one million students will be eligible for more help with their living costs than at present.

Guardian article

It’s weird that you say “actual, useful” jobs because usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like. But the examples of jobs you gave were being a hereditary farmer and military person – in other words, a government job and a job heavily subsidised by the government. That’s not very capitalist!

“…usually what people who are saying that are trying to do is sneer at social workers and legal aid lawyers and the like.”
Usually what people who make sweeping, unfounded generalisations such as yours are trying to do is validate their own small-world view by suggesting that opinions that differ from their own could only be held by unfeeling monsters that view the most helpless in society with scorn, derision and contempt. I could list all the social services and public servant type professions that my wife, my family and I either are or have been directly involved with, but seeing how the minds of some on here appear to work I guess that would probably end up looking like a “I’m not racist, some of my best friend’s are black” post than the “you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried” post it would be intended as. So let’s just say that you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried.

When I say “actual, useful jobs” I mean things like humanitarian efforts such as clearing landmines (outside of his military career) and VSO charity work, serving as a school governor, local business enterprise work, etc. As opposed to being a party apparatchik whose law degree and subsequent appointment to the back offices of national government apparently means he is eminently qualified to advise on policies as wide ranging as Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Environment and Rural Affairs, Europe and External Relations, and Energy and Climate Change.

Anyway, so what if my preferred candidate is from a farming/forestry/armed forces background? If your local area’s economy, culture and population has deeply ingrained ties to a mix of farming/forestry/armed forces then why wouldn’t you want someone representing you who has direct, hands-on experience of all those things and more, regardless of what colour tie they wear? I’d rather that than a career pen pusher and “yes” man from my preferred choice of party.

Aye, it’s not just you! It’s everyone.. more’s the pity.

Quite. So why join in? 😉

Absolutely unintended consequences

Quite. Tuition fees were tripled in order to reduce costs. The effect of this policy has been to increase the proportion of unpaid loans to the point where it costs more than the old system.

The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury is approaching the point at which it will get zero financial reward from the government’s policy of tripling tuition fees to £9,000 a year.

Guardian article

VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way – and people are doing exactly that. 😀

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507

The proportion of graduates failing to pay back student loans is increasing at such a rate that the Treasury

After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem. It is a long tail liability so short term movements are not necessarily the best indicator. However, the fundamental point is that the poorest have benefited the most as a result of the change. Hence the New Statesman attacking Miliband’s proposal to reduce them.

NS article

9bn added to public debt just through student loans last year, I cant see how thats gonna end well

outofbreath – Member
VAT regressive or Progressive? You can argue it either way – and people are doing exactly that.

Indeed, but it is neither strictly speaking (we have done this one before). You either have to not understand the terms, or deliberately be misusing them to make that argument

The reasons for the increasing worldwide adoption of VAT are very different and straddle party politics

After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising, with a recovering economy wage growth will continue thus reducing the problem.

Assuming there are enough jobs with a graduate pay premium to employ all the millions of graduates we are creating. If they majority just end up working in bars and restaurants then we’ll not see a return on the investment….

the charts of the deficit would show the Labour legacy was a massive deficit and the period in surplus was very short. The national debt started to spiral out of control under Labour due to the growing deficit and reliance on borrowing

Hmmm … this chart shows something different …

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html

You’ve seen some benefit scroungers. You’ve no idea of the actual statistics have you?

they’re on telly every night, scroungers every single one of them, same as all those immigrants, blocking our motorways and taking our jobs by doing three jobs at once and claiming benefits and sending all the money back home as well as buying up all the tunnock’s plain caramel wafers so there’s none left for us hard working brits.
statistics, who needs ’em, I know what blessed st nigel says, a breath of fresh air he is, because what this country needs is another public school educated ex city banker millionaire with his snout firmly lodged in the euro expenses trough.

😆

After a period of low income growth that is hardly surprising,

You’re right – it was entirely foreseeable. The tories failed to foresee it.

Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% – 8%) those people must be so repressed ?

Never mind published research lets just do some back of the envelope calculations at some income points like £20k, £50k and £100k – then look at impact of welfare payments which are made by the government and effectively pay the VAT on the extra spending above rent/food which are non-VATable

@molgrips – just look at the numbers, its not hard for me to say the overall budget should be better divided. A cap on benefits makes total sense in particular when you think its a net of tax figure. Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.

Total Government spending £750bn – some of the larger items below
Welfare £112bn
NHS £130bn
Pensions £150bn
Education £92bn
Interest on debt £60bn
Defense £43bn

Local Authority spending is £170bn (might double count education but includes Police)

public school educated ex city banker millionaire

You’re right, as countries without people like that are doing brilliantly without increasing levels of income equality and fabulous public services and no budget deficits etc etc. The grass is so much greener over there.

Couple of years out of date

Benefit spending breakdown 2011-2012 by brf[/url], on Flickr

Hi,

Question for all the responses who said you’d vote Tory. Are any of you on sub £20k, less abled, non UK resident, not heterosexual etc?.

Disability benefit used to be a payment made to disabled people, its become a catch all payment and a way to pay people who are unable work, or so they say.

1) What’s the difference between being disabled and being unable to work?

2) So some people lie. Why should that affect actual disabled people?

Pretty current given the HSBC scandal…

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/62461/which-is-bigger-the-bill-for-benefit-fraud-or-tax-evasion

Just don’t mention Lord Green

Hmmm … this chart shows something different …

It doesn’t it shows that Labour were spending too much in the good years, hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.

@molgrips, it’s just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts. I come back to my point that this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it’s become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments

@jhj, I am all for cracking down on tax evasion. A very big part of the HMRC estimate is jobs done cash in hand which should be both VAT-able and declared for income tax purposes. I love the Aussie approach where they get the mortgage application form of self employed people and ask them why their income declared for tax purposes is different to that on the form. We are very lax here compared to the US and to the French in this regard (those being the two tax regimes I am most familiar with).

hence ill prepared for the recession that would eventually happen.

Ah yes the good old ‘not fixing the roof while the sun was shining’ chestnut. Ignoring of course that pre-2008 the tories were signed up to match labour’s spending plans and were campaigning for tax cuts which would have resulted in an even worse position. These myths and fictions regarding labour’s profligacy and the tories supposed frugality have been trawled over in numerous threads so unless there’s anything new maybe leave it at that?

Hey Junkyard, all those other EU countries with VAT on food (5.50% – 8%) those people must be so repressed ?

Wow a straw man – I said research showed it was regressive not repressive 🙄 and a non sequitur – What exactly are you hoping to prove using unrelated countries on whether a tax is or is not regressive here

Embarrassing.

Never mind published research lets just do some back of the envelope calculations at some income points like £20k, £50k and £100k – then look at impact of welfare payments which are made by the government and effectively pay the VAT on the extra spending above rent/food which are non-VATable

Yes lets ignore the actual research and discuss something else using figures we just made up 😕

By any chance does that prove you were correct and negate the published research. What a very odd thing to say.
I really dont understand what you hope that post would prove.

this is real cost of the Labour excesses in the good years, it’s become unaffordable to maintain the spending commitments

Its the lack of money coming in from the economic crash/downturn that has meant we cannot afford it. Govt spending did not cause the crash and govt spending was not in any way shape or form casual in the recession.
No govt ever saves for a rainy day tory or labour and labour has run more surpluses than the Tories and GO matched the spending pledges.

I am all for cracking down on tax evasion.

Unless you are a non dom

@molgrips, it’s just as anecdotal to imply that budget cuts are meaning that the disabled are bearing the brunt of the cuts.

That wasn’t my point. I was thinking more of the ATOS thing.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour_government_record_unemployment-31114

I agree. If we had been less helpful to the banking sector, we wouldn’t be in this sorry mess.

If we would have been less helpful to the banking sector, we would be in much much more of a mess I’m afraid.

Don’t really feel reading the front page of The Sun makes you an expert.

nearly everyone i talk to is voting labour or wasting a vote on ukip,and unless cameroooooooooooon can arrange a war before thursday theyre going to be whooped.

There are at least 26 seats where voting UKIP won’t be wasted, or at least according to the Torygraph. But then they may be a tad biased?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11582796/The-26-seats-where-a-vote-for-Ukip-could-make-Ed-Miliband-prime-minister.html

JHJ _ I have been a good boy and done my own research, unfortunately the only report I can find that might reference your figures is the NAO report which can be found here[/url]. But this can’t be the one you are referring to because it doesn’t contain the figures that are quoted in the diagram.

Cool, you might want to research if this is legit too:

Edit:

This report compiled for parliament seems to support the £70bn annual figure for tax avoidance

Only skim read, so not sure if it includes the many tax havens under the jurisdiction of the Queen and Privy Council

As it is posted by you I have a 90% confidence level that it is not and as the first statement is wrong I won’t bother to look at the rest.

Can you substantiate your claims that the 1st statement is wrong?

Your account seems to contradict what is said here…

http://news.sky.com/story/1446174/coalition-promises-v-what-they-delivered

A least the last comment is accurate

Your account seems to contradict what is said here…

The graph

EDIT: BTW your earlier link doesn’t work.

Do your own research.

Gladly 😉 … if you check the last post on this thread, you’ll see my sources are generally pretty reliable:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/19

anyhoo, back on topic

Direct link to pdf:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06265.pdf

admittedly, it’s debated rather than conclusive, but HMRC admit they haven’t taken all tax avoidance into account

For example…

Q231 Chair: Am I right in saying that the sort of issues that we were discussing in relation to Starbucks, Amazon and Google … and the tax that could have been payable from those companies is not included, because it is not seen to be within the rules?

Edward Troup: The tax gap that we measure is a compliance tax gap.

Q232 Chair: It does not include that. I am asking whether it includes the Starbucks scenario, the Amazon scenario or the Google scenario.

Edward Troup: It does not include the amounts of tax that some of the commentators have said these companies should pay. That is correct …

Q258 Chair: At the moment … your tax gap is purely the tip of an iceberg.

Jim Harra: Our tax gap is a complete measure of non-compliance with current tax law. It does not include a measure of how much additional tax might be collected if you changed the policy.

At one stage the annual figure for tax avoidance was touted as £120bn…

Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims

Ah, a Richard Murphy report, the independent commentator funded by the TUC and Unison.

Have to Tory voters seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/david-cameron-rebuked-over-debt-claims

Sadly he did get it wrong, unfortunately too many politicians and commentators from all sides do this.