Protest against Austerity Sheffield 8th July

[hackey lad]

They are all from Middle Class backgrounds.

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2015 at 23:37 ----------

 

 

Aww - that's bad.

 

You could come in bare foot? We wont say anything.

 

soz but I thought all demonstrations demanded people to wear boots

[RickyM]

soz but I thought all demonstrations demanded people to wear boots

 

No!

 

You just have to clap and cheer when they speak.

[harvey19]

Very few working class people 'make it' to the top because they aren't in 'the club' like their middle class counterparts. Middle class kids have parents that know other parents that work in professions like Law and Accounting and so they can arrange placements. They can also afford to provide their children with funds to live on - working class parents do not have these luxuries.

 

The grammar school system was developed to give those from any background an equal chance with those from a privileged background.

But it has been scrapped.

[Chris412]

They are all from Middle Class backgrounds.

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2015 at 23:37 ----------

 

 

Aww - that's bad.

 

You could come in bare foot? We wont say anything.

 

So there are bankers born in Sheffield ?

[ricoblade]

The grammar school system was developed to give those from any background an equal chance with those from a privileged background.

But it has been scrapped.

 

Ageeed but it also created a nasty 2 tier system where the fortunates could get on very well but those left behind were abandoned.

[alchresearch]

Don't be silly.

 

The war memorials were damaged by anarchist groups in previous demonstrations to either cause trouble or simply get attention for themselves.

 

Anti-austerity demonstrators come from all sections of British society, though not Tory voters.

 

Are you sure?

 

Scuffles At London Anti-Austerity Protest

 

The Women's War Memorial in Whitehall was defaced with graffiti during the unplanned rally, which started outside Conservative campaign headquarters.

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1480956/scuffles-at-london-anti-austerity-protest

[DnAuK]

If there have to be cuts, (and that's debatable,) there are other things they can cut before they pick on the most vulnerable in society

 

They can cut their 10% pay rise for a start. They can cut the number of MPs, they can cut the free perks in the house of commons, they can cut expenses (abuse still goes on,) they can cut the money spent on govt. consultations, (which they then ignore,) they can cut 'grace and favour' apartments and charge an equitable rental rate, they can cut top civil servant salaries, - and that's just a few things in the H of P.

 

They could also catch up with some of the major tax avoidance companies (Amazon paid £11 million last year on a massive mega millions turn over,) charge more corporation tax, 'persuade' Asda et al to pay a living wage (so tax credits are less necessary,) stop non-dom status, stop top paid workers like civil servants etc having their salary paid into their own 'business' to avoid tax and so on. They can charge 30% top tax rate if they like, just so long as they pay every penny like the rest of us.

 

You get the idea? Waste is still endemic in government - so let's start with that.

 

Sorry Anna - I appreciate what you bring to this forum and all but most of this post is complete tosh.

 

Tax avoidance - it's all very well to say 'make them pay' but companies like Amazon operate mostly out of the Channel Islands, which is beyond our remit. And every time Government threatens to impose more rules on companies, such as HSBC who willingly advised people how to avoid tax, you know what the answer is? Fair enough - we will simply move out of the country then. Costing jobs, leaving premises empty and so forth. That means less people paying income at corportate rates tax to fund the services you want.

 

Persuading companies to pay a living wage is again all well and good... but what if they just decide to employ less people instead? How will that benefit the economy? As has been said on other threads, people who work and don't get enough are eligible for tax credits to top up. But sadly this is open to abuse as well.

 

'Rich Civil Servants' - well, speaking as one I can tell you I am far from rich. I earn slightly less below the going rate for a similar job in the Private sector. The benefit use to be certain perks like getting the Queens Birthday off and job security - but much of that no longer applies. Even the Prime Minister doesn't get paid as much as the average banker's yearly bonus...

 

So whilst I agree in principal that the most vulnerable should be protected, you really have to try and come up with a better answer as to how to finance this.

[Anna B]

Sorry Anna - I appreciate what you bring to this forum and all but most of this post is complete tosh.

 

Tax avoidance - it's all very well to say 'make them pay' but companies like Amazon operate mostly out of the Channel Islands, which is beyond our remit. And every time Government threatens to impose more rules on companies, such as HSBC who willingly advised people how to avoid tax, you know what the answer is? Fair enough - we will simply move out of the country then. Costing jobs, leaving premises empty and so forth. That means less people paying income at corportate rates tax to fund the services you want.

 

Persuading companies to pay a living wage is again all well and good... but what if they just decide to employ less people instead? How will that benefit the economy? As has been said on other threads, people who work and don't get enough are eligible for tax credits to top up. But sadly this is open to abuse as well.

 

'Rich Civil Servants' - well, speaking as one I can tell you I am far from rich. I earn slightly less below the going rate for a similar job in the Private sector. The benefit use to be certain perks like getting the Queens Birthday off and job security - but much of that no longer applies. Even the Prime Minister doesn't get paid as much as the average banker's yearly bonus...

 

So whilst I agree in principal that the most vulnerable should be protected, you really have to try and come up with a better answer as to how to finance this.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I knew I was on shaky ground with this one, (though I do stand by government waste still being endemic,) which is why I ended with, 'get the idea.'

 

So if you agree in principal, and as a civil servant (I take it you're not on £250,000) in the know, do you have any ideas where cuts can be made that aren't so hurtful to the vulnerable?

Edited July 2, 2015 by Anna B

[Lotusflower]

What an idiot you are!

 

Why should we all lose services and benefits to pay the greed of bankers?

 

They ****ed up the economy with their assumption that house prices would continue to increase at ridiculous levels - when people stopped paying their 125% mortgages.......that's when the Banking Crisis began.

 

Learn you fool!

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2015 at 00:11 ----------

 

 

The country has got the money - it just chooses not to collect the tax revenue from those that can avoid paying it.

 

Why do people keep blaming other poor people for the mess of the country when it's not the case?

 

Re my bold.

 

Proof positive of the power of the media.

[woodmally]

Re my bold.

 

Proof positive of the power of the media.

 

Why do the left keep blaming the bankers. Because they are all part of the problem.

 

The reason the recession happened was people borrowed money they couldnt afford be it banks, general public even Gordon Brown.

 

Banks yes leant money to people who couldnt afford it but its a two way street. These people wernt forced to borrow money at gun point.