The budget has screwed under 25s. They should've traded the SU bar for a polling station.
Old Georgie boy (who studied history and trained as a journalist) delivered a pretty underwhelming budget yesterday and it still left a lot of people outraged. The under 25s and disabled are screwed. Are we surprised, they're the demographic that doesn't vote. So have they waived their right to be angry?
Every year we get treated to pictures of the latest Chancellor posing outside Number 11 with a red box that I'm sure symbolises something antiquated. And every year we watch the news in anticipation. Will they cut taxes? Will they make beer free? Will they give us three-day weekends? Actually, all they do is screw us over. As I talked about in George Osborne's Productivity Challenge, they work against us, not for or with us.
This year is no exception. Having stolen most of Ed Miliband's election promises, George Osborne has abolished non-doms and lowered the bank levy, but he also continued his fight against the disabled and the poor.
Taxing the rich in order to make money has never been the solution. You don't penalise the successful, cash generating minority to subsides a government's incompetence. As I also said in Burn the rich (I'll be after Robert Peston's job soon), they actually indirectly put quite a lot back into the system, even if they have offshore banking.
There's no housing benefit for 18 to 21 year olds, that should help lower the teenage pregnancy rates too. They don't vote, so sucks to be them. Although I do vote and had been paying into the system for 14 years when I tried claiming housing benefit. I was unemployed and due to the financial crash the government helped create, there were no jobs. So when I needed help with the mortgage, I was told to sell my house - so a middle-class girl, who broke out of the working class was told her place. Thank you Tories.
Social housing rent is to be lowered, but they're selling off all the social housing so not sure what this going to achieve. Benefits are being capped to £20K, not sure how I feel about this, you could live off £20K (I couldn't because I have too much debt) but not sure what your standard of living will be like, especially in the south.
The BBC is helping old people. They get all the help because they vote. And they're ditching inheritance tax for up to £1 million. Again, pleasing their old voters.
They're helping business by lowering corporation tax and lower NI, but raising the minimum wage to £7.20. The Left really didn't like this one. Saying that no one can live off £7.20 an hour. True, but if you're a SME competing with corporates and all their buying power, raising it any higher could be job cuts and then those big, evil companies will have more power, money and influence.
For me, personally, the budget doesn't mean very much. I'm the middle majority, so part of the forgotten voting demographic. I don't get any help, breaks or anything. I'm just expected to work so I can spend money. Hence a reforms in Sunday trading and 24 hour Tube services.
It being a Tory government, it hit the people most in-need hardest. It seems to be vilifying people who dare to be poor, disadvantaged, uneducated or have fallen on hard times. Instead of improving social mobility, it's widening the gap. Making a woeful assumption that people are poor because they're lazy. However, these people (especially the under 25s) will be paying dearly for a social experiment in the future, causing them to be further disenfranchised and angry.
The budget is no place for institutional snobbery or prejudice. It should treat people like they're aspirational and want to improve their way of life, no matter how small. The problem with the poor, disadvantaged and young, is they don't financially or socially contribute as much and they don't vote so they're not valuable. So it's even more important that this demographic are heard and represented by becoming a political football for all the parties to fight over. Look at Scotland!
The main issue that faces any government is the population. It's too big and too diverse. You can please some people some of the time, but not all people all of the time. A British philosopher, called Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus specialised in population balance. He argues that in order for everyone to have a good quality of life, the population must be small. By introducing moral checks and stopping the nanny state the poor would be pushed further into poverty; creating disease, starvation and death - therefore controlling the population and ensuring the more well-off have a nicer life. This misanthropy seems to be have been adopted by the Tories, but they're using economic eugenics. Sustaining the middle, boosting the rich and killing off the poor. After all, what have the poor ever done for us... Except the jobs the top tiers don't want to do.
First published 09/07/2015
Every year we get treated to pictures of the latest Chancellor posing outside Number 11 with a red box that I'm sure symbolises something antiquated. And every year we watch the news in anticipation. Will they cut taxes? Will they make beer free? Will they give us three-day weekends? Actually, all they do is screw us over. As I talked about in George Osborne's Productivity Challenge, they work against us, not for or with us.
This year is no exception. Having stolen most of Ed Miliband's election promises, George Osborne has abolished non-doms and lowered the bank levy, but he also continued his fight against the disabled and the poor.
Taxing the rich in order to make money has never been the solution. You don't penalise the successful, cash generating minority to subsides a government's incompetence. As I also said in Burn the rich (I'll be after Robert Peston's job soon), they actually indirectly put quite a lot back into the system, even if they have offshore banking.
There's no housing benefit for 18 to 21 year olds, that should help lower the teenage pregnancy rates too. They don't vote, so sucks to be them. Although I do vote and had been paying into the system for 14 years when I tried claiming housing benefit. I was unemployed and due to the financial crash the government helped create, there were no jobs. So when I needed help with the mortgage, I was told to sell my house - so a middle-class girl, who broke out of the working class was told her place. Thank you Tories.
Social housing rent is to be lowered, but they're selling off all the social housing so not sure what this going to achieve. Benefits are being capped to £20K, not sure how I feel about this, you could live off £20K (I couldn't because I have too much debt) but not sure what your standard of living will be like, especially in the south.
The BBC is helping old people. They get all the help because they vote. And they're ditching inheritance tax for up to £1 million. Again, pleasing their old voters.
They're helping business by lowering corporation tax and lower NI, but raising the minimum wage to £7.20. The Left really didn't like this one. Saying that no one can live off £7.20 an hour. True, but if you're a SME competing with corporates and all their buying power, raising it any higher could be job cuts and then those big, evil companies will have more power, money and influence.
For me, personally, the budget doesn't mean very much. I'm the middle majority, so part of the forgotten voting demographic. I don't get any help, breaks or anything. I'm just expected to work so I can spend money. Hence a reforms in Sunday trading and 24 hour Tube services.
It being a Tory government, it hit the people most in-need hardest. It seems to be vilifying people who dare to be poor, disadvantaged, uneducated or have fallen on hard times. Instead of improving social mobility, it's widening the gap. Making a woeful assumption that people are poor because they're lazy. However, these people (especially the under 25s) will be paying dearly for a social experiment in the future, causing them to be further disenfranchised and angry.
The budget is no place for institutional snobbery or prejudice. It should treat people like they're aspirational and want to improve their way of life, no matter how small. The problem with the poor, disadvantaged and young, is they don't financially or socially contribute as much and they don't vote so they're not valuable. So it's even more important that this demographic are heard and represented by becoming a political football for all the parties to fight over. Look at Scotland!
The main issue that faces any government is the population. It's too big and too diverse. You can please some people some of the time, but not all people all of the time. A British philosopher, called Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus specialised in population balance. He argues that in order for everyone to have a good quality of life, the population must be small. By introducing moral checks and stopping the nanny state the poor would be pushed further into poverty; creating disease, starvation and death - therefore controlling the population and ensuring the more well-off have a nicer life. This misanthropy seems to be have been adopted by the Tories, but they're using economic eugenics. Sustaining the middle, boosting the rich and killing off the poor. After all, what have the poor ever done for us... Except the jobs the top tiers don't want to do.
First published 09/07/2015
Comments
Post a Comment