If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But you chose to do the art course.
Plus, some people do need the money for travel.
I suppose so
You chose to go to university, so why should you get assistance?
Im not moaning that i have to spend loads on materials, i dont mind it at all as its a passion, i just think if ema was kept in place, i think a better system could have been put in place.
And I know people have to spend it on travel - another factor that could have been thought about when decided who gets what ema. But alot of colleges and 6th form offer free buses to get to classes.
Many don't. My old 6th form didn't and the only help given at college was between town and the college sites.
But how long ago was that? I dont know a 6th form in my area that doesnt offer this service
September 2005.
That was 2001-2003 for me.
Whatever is cut is going to annoy some people, and disadvantage people. In every single case. If politicians are not ruthless, then nothing is going to get done, and nobody will have any benefits as the country will be bust.
I personally think that cuts should not be made to allowances that look after the elderly and pensioners. We also need to fine tune the budget and the process to make sure as the population gets older, we can still look after them.
Benefits should be about helping people to get by, not leaving them richer than those who work hard for their money. Though benefits should be protected as I mention above, for the elderly, and people with disability/imparements.
We need to be tougher and crack down on benefit fraud massively, not just to save the money from the fraudulent claims, but also to deter people from doing it. I know some people claim it with no malice and not to the extent that some people do, however we only have so much money and if we dont make it last, nobody will have anything.
In the meantime I watched my friends spend literally all of their EMA money on a TCG, while they did courses with more free periods than I could wish for.
however many genuine cases there are, there will always be kids who abuse the system and parents who encourage them to do it. a key problem with EMA is that it is too easy to cheat the system: i knew a girl whose parents were so rich that her dad didn't need to work, so the family income was below the threshold and she got £30 a week, even though they were loaded. whereas my boyfriend at the time was sleeping on our sofa and he didn't get a penny. i don't know how it could be resolved, but the means testing needs to be better organised.
also, good attendance/behaviour etc earns students on EMA a termly 'bonus' (£100?) which seems utterly unjustified to me.
Ok, now I understand - it's that half-baked, ill thought out, poorly grounded libertarianism that often afflicts teenagers who've just discovered Ayn Rand and think her drivel contains philosophical insights. It's a very naive, simplistic and unreasoned position to hold that the one and only thing which is immoral is compelling somebody to do something. You end up arguing that if I leave a child to drown in a pond because I can't be arsed to help, that is perfectly moral and fine; but if you were to pinch me on the arm to persuade me to wade in help, you have morally wronged me.
Fortunately, such simplistic and irrational ways of looking at the world are held to be such by most people with any intelligence and the faculty of reason, so thankfully in this country, we don't leave people to starve if they can't afford to feed themselves in the name of morality.
Anyway, pointess digression aside, here are a couple of things I would do to reduce the deficit. But I should include the caveat that these are things I'm committed to in principle, so have no idea practically speaking how much revenue they would raise:
1. Increase inheritance tax to 100%.
2. Raise the retirement age to 70.
On an optional basis, yes. In other words, get rid of that silly rule that allows employers to effectively sack people when they reach retirement age. But still allow people the option if they wish. I think there's a bit of a difference between someone working in an office and someone working on a building site, for example, where the health issues associated with old age might be more apparent. You also have to bear in mind that if you increase the age of retirement, that's even more competition on the struggling jobs market, which won't be good for young people in particular.
I thought the question was what I would do, not what I thought the Tories are likely to do. I didn't say it was likely ever to happen.
I have things to respond to that, but no time to do it now, will come back later.
To be fair unless the Communist Party of Great Britain gets in no party will raise the inheritance tax to 100% (ie when you die your entire estate goes to the state).
Yeah I know, I was just saying.
Introduce a high rate of tax - 50% on anything earned over £200k as salary. 75% on bonuses, including shares which should be taxed based on current value.
MP salary should be minimum wage levels, use Olymipic Village to house them all. Employment of staff should be on fixed salary range. Only expense claimable would be travel to/from constituency.
Legalise cannabis but tax it. No large taz rate though, that doesn't work for cigarettes.
Special tax rate for alocohol sold outside of pubs, to reduce sales/increase tax income.
Remove charitable status from Private schools, making their income taxable
Pay GPs on the basis of patients seen, and outcomes achieved, plus add out-of-hours back into contract. Remove Health Authority, reduce targets.
Remove Road Tax, add fuel tax instead.
Merge armed forces. Do we really separate structures anymore? Accept existing strategy for Aircraft carrier and Trident purchases.
Annex Austria.
okay guys....i think we have all gathered that maybe different coucils/areas are different with travel.
And i was the same, in my last job i had to work from half 4 till 10 in the evening 4 days a week and at the weekends.....and i do think its disgusting that some people cheat the system.
Something that really annoys me is when people say "your lucky to get ema" i mean come on, whats lucky about your family suffering stupid amounts of financle so in a way you have to go on benifits, if i had the choice i would have given my ema up in a heartbeat so my family could be better off. (this isnt aimed at your franki, just in general)
:yes: I just hope the cuts dont last for long
Pointless Jamelia philosophical digression aside, perhaps I understand you a little better.
Suppose you have a wealthy elderly relative. Meanwhile the majority of the Jamelia clan are struggling in the extreme to get by. You all get together and, using the intelligence and faculty of reason that you have all been blessed with in abundance, conclude that said wealthy relative should give it all up for the benefit of the clan in keeping with your principles.
I am curious as to what quantity of force you would be prepared to use on that relative to enact your principles, if she was of the half-baked, ill thought out, poorly grounded libertarianism persuasion and could not be reasoned with.
You have already implied that you find arm pinching acceptable. What would you be prepared to subject your relative to ? Please clarify.
Not a reduction, but in terms of their use.
They are not there just to fight. But for national defence.
Almost certainly result in less income coming in - see the Laffer Curve http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/income/inctaxth5.htm
That's fine if you want MPs who are unemployable elsewhere, however not so good if you want any quality (the other alternative is that it will become like the nineteenth century and politics becomes the preserve of the wealthy, who already have money)
Fine, but it would need to be at the same level as cigarrettes or you risk people moving from tobacco to cannabis.
Why outside pubs? It's good for pubs (and I assume you also include nightclubs), but it may also mean more people go out drinking and that's where the main source of violence is. It may also become very complex and lead to tax dodging
Again is likely to reduce income to Govt (or rather increase expenditure). The charitable status is only available to non-profit making (ie any profits made go back to the school). Remove this and many cease to exist, meaning children go back into the state sector and their education is no so heavily subisdised
You've got the expertise, so I won't argue
Could work, less fair on those who have to drive long distances and does incentivise people owning cars who only make short journeys though.
Tried by Canada. Absolute disaster for morale and cost savings non-existent. The three forces are fundamentally different; Take officer training for example. The army trains its officers to command infantry platoons, the Navy to man ships and the RAF to sit around five star hotels...
Can't argue with that - though France is nearer
We'll probably make a profit on the banks within 4-5 years I suspect. But it will depend on the overall state of the economy
Get rid of district councils - they're too small and cost too much compared to the services they provide. Lots of places manage with unitaries and the savings are immense
No money for films and theatre - here's an idea if you want to a thriving arts scene make things that people want to see; it worked rather well for publishing.
Remove Health ringfencing - everyone else is being forced to think imaginatively on how to provide services for less money, if health doesn't it'll become flabby and wasteful.
Build up the banks - the sooner share prices rise the sooner the Govt can offload them and make some more money
Get rid of many of the smaller QUANGOs and either move their function into central civil service or to some of the larger QUANGOs
If the books begin to balance, and the value of the banks increases, would it not be worth holding onto some minority shares, and reap the dividends from them? Or would that be akin to people kicking off about big brother government.
The merging of the armed forces on paper is a bloody good idea, albeit on paper. In practice, and as referenced above (examples), it probly wont work as good.
What the armed forces need to do, is to look at where some expense overlaps, and combine efforts to some degree. This allready occurs with the Navy and the RAF with Task Force Harrier and all three services with Joint Helicopter Command.
If the armed forces can say "look we can save £x's by utilising "x" overlap, can we keep this?" Then why not do that then just cut everything by a certain amount accross the board.
The armed forces are currently saving a little amount of money on recruiting, as recruiting due to the economy is booming, and the lack of people leaving, means we are nearly full.
More to do with EU rules in that we're only allowed to hold for a certain number of years (though to be honest I'm not sure if we're allowed to keep a minority holding)
There's always been joint procurement - eg the RAF and Navy didn't procure seperate rifles, but went for the SA-80, both Army and RAF with Rapier.
But the laffer curve is flawed when it's based on 100% taxation of anything earned. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that over a certain level then taxation should be higher on the earnings *over* that level. I'm also trying to reduce the amount of bonus paid. Either it's salary and you earn it that way, or I'm gonna tax you higher.
Actually the latter is a good point. So maybe I'd use expenses on a menas tested basis. Problem we have at the moment is that our MPs aren't representative now. Look at the % who come from private schools, on either bench. Too many see politics as a career in itself. I'd seriously consider fixed terms too...
Yep.
In part it's about supermarkets selling cheap without any responsibility, it would help prevent the "pre-gaming" culture which is part of the problem once people get to pubs.
I don't think that opening your school ground for one day per year, without advertising, plus offering a few scholarships, is enough "community spirit" to justify charitable status with all the benefits (and lost taxable income) that it offers.
It does. Which do you think causes the most polution and wear/tear on our roads? It would hit the haulage industry to a larger extent too, not to mention anyone driving a car with poor mpg.
Bugger. Still keeping trident though.
How do you think we get to Austria?
The Laffer Curve shows that when 100% is taxed no-one earns - that's obvious, however even before then the higher the tax the lower the income.
http://www.itpa.org/open/archive/grecuflattax.pdf
People take promotions and go for highing pay jobs if the economic incentives are a fair trade off for the extra stress, responsibility. The other alternative is that companies and the public sector have to pay much higher salaries to compensate for the tax take
Okay fair enough, though I do continue to have worries that this would be an administrative nightmare
I think we're arguing on two different premises. Your premise seems to be to bash the rich, mine is manage the economy in the most effective way (remember bashing the rich doesn't make the poor wealthier it just means the rich are poorer). People who send their kids to public school are effectively subsidising the state school sector (ie their taxes don't go down by having a child at public school). If you make public schools go bust (which is what will happen) you add to the costs of the public sector (and you won't gain any more money as the private schools won't be existing to pay tax)
I'm not sure I explained myself well. But if a major cost to owning one is road tax it will stop people buying them just to shuttle the children to school. If road tax goes people who wouldn't have owned one will now be more incentivised to buy one for short journeys as the extra cost on petrol will be subsidised by those who need cars for longer journeys.
Better and better:D