Sir Ralph

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening

Succinct.

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation. However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system. Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle. I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

Put my view to one side. This is Tory policy to reinstate the two child cap for the reasons I said. This isn’t some outlier view. It’s the oppositions policy. I’ve lived in countries with true poverty and seen the consequence. I’ve also seen the opportunity a good capitalist system can provide and encourage people out of poverty. There is a balance to these things and my opinion is this balance has gone too far. Whilst I appreciate the respect you post with I don’t need lecturing from other rude posters about the consequences of poverty.

This is Tory policy. I didn’t say I hoped they suffered in poverty. You keep jumping to conclusions. You don’t understand the wider societal impact of such a policy on encouraging parents of those people to move towards employment in some cases and create a non state reliant future. I aspire for kids but we have different ways. You want them to be state reliant, I want a longer term plan which means they aren’t. Also don’t call me a cunt because I disagree with you. To my mind you talk utter BS sometimes but I don’t stoop that low

Poverty to dying. You’ve missed the point. Stop trying to shame me because I disagree with you. Angry little lefty

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons. However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

Most sensible people have kids they can afford. Lots of responsible people want more kids but can’t afford them. Let’s tax those poor gits more to pay for the ones that have been irresponsible

I will respond to you. Later on. I can’t prove that. Ok most sensible people I know who graft and make net tax contributions to this country

This is what most of the population think. Most responsible people don’t have kids they can’t afford. Now they are paying taxes for those who are more likely to have been irresponsible. What a great societal incentive this government has just laid down.

You cannot be comparing 2008 to now surely?! Please tell me you aren’t? Regardless (1) I thought they filled the alleged black hole with the last £40m budget - was that not the case? (2) before VAT tax he actually made savings. His order of priority was the opposite of Reeves.

Yes to deal with the fallout of the 2008 crisis. It was a 2010 response to the biggest global financial crisis, government bank bailouts and ensuring that we were as financially sound as possible. Remember Greece, Ireland and Italy? He was trying to avoid that. The point is the current situation and then are completely different.

Fair game 😂

The words “in an emergency budget after the 2008 crisis” are relevant here

Bloody hell a response. I’ll have a look at it. Happy to find common ground.

I know and they still haven’t answered. I even bothered to set it out. The tumbleweed is palpable. You would have thought the number of lefties on here one of them would have at least given it a go. They get personal, deflect or give broad responses and send me pictures of their book shelves😂

That was fine. He did that in an emergency budget after the 2008 financial crisis. The context was very different. what he didn’t do was raise it in the context of facilitating an increase in public spending and welfare rises. This is essentially what the government is doing now with taxes. We are not in a 2008 crisis. Very different situations.

I literally don’t give two hoots about what you think I do or don’t do and who I know or don’t. What I don’t need to do is send pictures of my book shelf or at corporate events to validate myself on a forum of people I don’t know . Cheerio.

People say I talk BS when I make a point. They ask me to justify my position. I do, comprehensively. They cant respond and say I'm ranting. What are answers to my questions then. I anticipate they will be ignored.....again.

Economics. Some of the people in the civil service have them too. Doesnt mean that gives you an understanding of the real world impacts. What do you think to the questions I posed bearing in mind I set out my position?

I get annoyed because half of you are clueless about the economy and the real impact. Some of this is basic if you speak to business owners. The Government promised not to increase taxes for people. Their budget has done just that because of decisions they have made elsewhere around public spending and welfare. They would not have been elected if they had told people what they were going to do. If you 1. As a principle increasing taxes during a cost of living crisis should be last resort. The Government promised not to increase taxes and were elected on this basis. Do you dispute this? 2. They should have cut welfare and not increased it. The Cabinet wanted to do this and so there is clear evidence that this was possible. Do you dispute this? They have increased welfare spending because of their backbenchers not because it was the sensible economic approach. 3. They havent reduced public spending before increasing taxes. I revert to the article by Starmer where he said this was possible.https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/starmer-too-many-civil-servants-comfortable-in-tepid-bath-of-managed-decline Is Starmer wrong? I quote: Starmer also criticised public sector productivity. The PM said productivity in the public sector has dropped by 2.6% compared to a year ago, and is 8.5% lower than just before the Covid-19 pandemic. He says this “wouldn’t be accepted in any other sector or walk of life” and that he will not subsidise lower productivity "with ever-rising taxes on the British people”. 4.They bang on about economic growth being important (albeit they have no clue what it means). Which parts of the budget yesterday will increase growth and jobs? I can tell you that the pension tax, increased dividend tax, mansion tax, tourist tax, freezing income tax thresholds will do the opposite. 5. I understand that you need to keep things fiscally tight but there are so many other ways of doing this. There is no justification for the all out tax approach for the second budget in a row.

A more detailed summary than I have seen from any of the pro-Labour lot on here though. All that has been posted by the lefties is 'we just need to spend more money on public services' and no real justification for it or whether the impact on 'real' working people is acceptable. There has been no comments from the lefties on why there have been no reduction in public spending or welfare (but an increase instead) and therefore the government is taxing the whole nation more (when it said it would not). Why? This is the question nobody can answer. Also someone on here said people voted for this Government and this budget. They absolutely did not. The Governments manifesto talked about no tax rises. So, people did not vote for this.