Tories support for the "Hard working families"

[joe_bloggs*]

Government sees off rebellion to win vote on working tax credit cuts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/15/government-wins-vote-to-cut-working-tax-credits

The cuts to tax credits, which will see the earnings level above which they are withdrawn cut from £6,420 to £3,850 from next April, were approved by 325 votes to 290. David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, and Stephen McPartland, were the only Tory MPs to vote against the government alongside Labour, the SNP and the Democratic Unionists.

And the one UKIP MP voted with the government ! !!% pay rise for MP's anyone?

[joamur_gosof]

Footnote.

all folk who are working and alright and want to end the system so the taxes go down is cool..but remember that you undoubtedly will be the next stop..when the shareholders need a pay rise 🙂

[******lynda******]

Shareholders own the businesses that provide the jobs. Without shareholders most businesses would not exist. It is their investment that enabled businesses to grow. I have shares in various businesses and most do not pay me a dividend. And everyone is a shareholder if only by proxy. Pension funds are the biggest shareholders.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What is worrying is the gap between rich and poor

---

Please can someone explain to me why this should be a concern?

[al**bear]

---

upthecreekyetagain wrote

---

---

I'm no great fan of the Conservative party's method of government but I'm not so blind as to accept all the propaganda that comes from the left wing either.

To address just a few of the above points

National debt - historically speaking this is not particularly high - it has certainly been higher over quite long periods

The only part of that graph that matters is modern day economics time - say since WWII, after that the first 20 years is paying off massive War debt and rebuilding

Nice graph, it shows perfectly, that even as a % of a growing GDP, debt as I said has doubled under Cameron & Osborne since 2010

So much for paying down the Debt

[upthecreekyetagain]

So if the fall and rise of the national debt is an indicator of the success or failure of government policy you are calling for the return of Thatcherite policies. ???

After all between 1979 and 1990 it fell by over 40%

[joamur_gosof]

---

@******lynda****** wrote:
Shareholders own the businesses that provide the jobs. Without shareholders most businesses would not exist. It is their investment that enabled businesses to grow. I have shares in various businesses and most do not pay me a dividend. And everyone is a shareholder if only by proxy. Pension funds are the biggest shareholders.

---

Yes of course I agree that  in the system we dwell then having wealthy shareholders to own the mills for the millers is essential ...what the govs do is p about everyone over everything and pocket a nice earner from it all themselves...my complaint is only and always how we are governed and by whom.

I have zero against the wealthy (self created or born) zero against the poor (born on by own error) and everything against the use of money .

[******lynda******]

Not all shareholders are wealthy. I certainly am not. Never earned more than 10k a year, on zero hour contracts. But then I didn't have holidays or satellite TV

[bankhaunter]

A lot of those 'wealthy' shareholders are ordinary people's pension funds.

[bookhunter2007]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What is worrying is the gap between rich and poor

---

Please can someone explain to me why this should be a concern?

---

Because when 'the masses' have a limited disposable income, it doesn't really help consumer spending or a healthy mixed economy. Especially when a large part of consumer spending is put on plastic.

Even tycoons in the US are calling for the wealth gap to be closed - and these aren't just a bunch of lefties advocating this!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5...

[lambsy_uk]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What is worrying is the gap between rich and poor

---

Please can someone explain to me why this should be a concern?

---

Because when 'the masses' have a limited disposable income, it doesn't really help consumer spending or a healthy mixed economy. Especially when a large part of consumer spending is put on plastic.

Even tycoons in the US are calling for the wealth gap to be closed - and these aren't just a bunch of lefties advocating this!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5...

---

So does that not mean that the concern is the amount of disposable income of the masses? What is the significance of the gap between wealthy and not so wealthy?

[******lynda******]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

A lot of those 'wealthy' shareholders are ordinary people's pension funds.

---

A point I tried to make further up the thread 🙂

[bookhunter2007]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What is worrying is the gap between rich and poor

---

Please can someone explain to me why this should be a concern?

---

Because when 'the masses' have a limited disposable income, it doesn't really help consumer spending or a healthy mixed economy. Especially when a large part of consumer spending is put on plastic.

Even tycoons in the US are calling for the wealth gap to be closed - and these aren't just a bunch of lefties advocating this!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5...

---

So does that not mean that the concern is the amount of disposable income of the masses? What is the significance of the gap between wealthy and not so wealthy?

---

The significance is that it's polarising. In the UK, Having millions on minimum wage (note not living wage) and topped-up by tax credits & hb doesn't really help the welfare budget or consumer spending.

Charles Dickens wrote quite a bit about the sort of society Cameron & Osborne are trying to re-create.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

What is worrying is the gap between rich and poor

---

Please can someone explain to me why this should be a concern?

---

Because when 'the masses' have a limited disposable income, it doesn't really help consumer spending or a healthy mixed economy. Especially when a large part of consumer spending is put on plastic.

Even tycoons in the US are calling for the wealth gap to be closed - and these aren't just a bunch of lefties advocating this!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5...

---

So does that not mean that the concern is the amount of disposable income of the masses? What is the significance of the gap between wealthy and not so wealthy?

---

The significance is that it's polarising. In the UK, Having millions on minimum wage (note not living wage) and topped-up by tax credits & hb doesn't really help the welfare budget or consumer spending.

Charles Dickens wrote quite a bit about the sort of society Cameron & Osborne are trying to re-create.

---

But you can reduce poverty without reducing the gap! Let's say we make the minimum wage £20 per hour and reduce poverty significantly; but the gap between the lowest paid and wealthiest increases; who cares as long as those who used to be poor are no longer?! Gap has widened but everybody's happy!

[joamur_gosof]

A good point lambsy

[bookhunter2007]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

---

But you can reduce poverty without reducing the gap! Let's say we make the minimum wage £20 per hour and reduce poverty significantly; but the gap between the lowest paid and wealthiest increases; who cares as long as those who used to be poor are no longer?! Gap has widened but everybody's happy!

---

It doesn't work like that though does it?

In reality, the rich are getting richer, and the incomes of the less well-off are fairly stagnant. It wouldn't be a problem if the gap between the rich and the poor meant overall living standards and disposable incomes were still high, but that's not the case. Particularly in the light that millions of people in work still require welfare payments and/or food banks to make ends meet.

[******lynda******]

Plus no one ever has enough. The more folk get, the more they want. Expectations grow. What used to be luxuries are now considered essentials and what are now luxuries will become essentials. Making ends meet is a relative term. Many who say they can't make ends meet still have cars and mobile phones and holidays. People who truly are poor should get support but the welfare state is not there to help buy cars and pay for holidays. 

We Should have higher pay, higher productivity, but sometimes I think we want paid more to do less...higher pay, fewer hours and that won't work. Raises the price of products and makes them uncompetitive on a world market. 

[joamur_gosof]

paid more to do less ...like mp's 🙂 .... 

[******lynda******]

MPs get paid less than council officials and many other bodies. I don't begrudge MPs their salaries..I begrudge the council officials...they cost us a lot more. There are many more of them for a start. I do begrudge the life pensions they get.

I begrudge corporate heads getting millions. I actually think the argument that we have to pay bankers etc huge amounts to get quality is nonsense. Many have no financial qualifications and they showed their ineptitude already. I was at Lloyds meeting when they voted on taking on HBoS and every small shareholder in the room, those the press kindly referred to later as the blue rinse brigade, who were too thick to understand, spoke out against and voted against the deal. Pension fund managers of course and the other big investors had over 90% of the votes. So who was smarter?

[bookhunter2007]

---

@******lynda****** wrote:

Plus no one ever has enough. The more folk get, the more they want. Expectations grow. What used to be luxuries are now considered essentials and what are now luxuries will become essentials. Making ends meet is a relative term. Many who say they can't make ends meet still have cars and mobile phones and holidays. People who truly are poor should get support but the welfare state is not there to help buy cars and pay for holidays. 

---

A car is a necessity for many; namely as a means to travel to work.  And I really can't begrudge someone who works a 40 hour week on minimum wage a holiday or a mobile phone.  I agree the welfare state should not be there to top-up the pay packets of employees of uber-rich tax-dodging multi-national corporations who have got away with far, far, far too long of paying a pittance - both in tax and wages to their employees

---

@******lynda****** wrote:

We Should have higher pay, higher productivity, but sometimes I think we want paid more to do less...higher pay, fewer hours and that won't work. Raises the price of products and makes them uncompetitive on a world market. 

---

On the flip side, bosses and corporate bods will always want people to do more work, for less pay. That's always going to be a site of struggle. 

I remember when the Minimum Wage was introduced in 1997. Critics warned it would cause mass unemployed and it would tank the economy.   Yet, it was this point until late 2001 that the economy was at its most stable and 'fairest' in decades.

[fionajohnston]

just to mention my circumstances

i am disabled on full disability living+mobility allowance i work part-time 40 miles away on a checkout at the moment i get £7.39 an hour and i work 22.5 hours a week

the minimum wage rise won't benefit me as i get a bit more but i will lose about 1/2 my working tax around £38 a week 

petrol alone is £45/£50 a week

i only work 3 days a week i leave the house at 12.00 and get home at 11.00 no work locally so how do i make up that money doing an extra shift puts me in bed the next day

if i went on the dole i probably wouldn't be better off but i would lose my self respect