| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country 08:29 - Apr 24 with 5372 views | NthQldITFC |
...back towards a decent and fairish place to live.
Brazen shoplifting gangs item on R4 just now.
Clogged up justice system.
Experienced coppers disillusioned and gone.
Health services packing up.
Corporate disdain for environmental and human rights responsibilities.
Infrastructure absolutely f**ked.
...it goes on and on and on doesn't it.
Many of us are very well off with big investment portfolios, second homes, three cars, big pensions. We have taken too much and we have to start giving back if we don't want this to spiral down to an utterly dystopian sh!t-hole. Don't instinctively rebel against higher taxation without thinking why it is required.
Please think about society and environment before adding to your personal pile of 'wealth' if you value the thought of a decent future for you and yours and everybody else's.
|  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |  |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:13 - Apr 24 with 1188 views | Swansea_Blue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:00 - Apr 24 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You are confusing income with wealth though. Income and education do not equal wealth. I have the equivalent of two degrees and a well paid job, however like most my people my age virtually no assets. The older generation saw huge capital gains on cheap properties regardless of their incomes whilst now you need 10 times salary to buy a tiny box. Likewise, the wealthiest pay themselves in dividends and other lower tax means, which is why the obsession with income tax rates is just tinkering around the edges.
It’s only going to get worse for the following generations. |
The ONS data is about wealth and education plays a key part in the gap in wealth distribution too. I don’t disagree on your other points though. Although your generation will likely benefit from capital gains as you all get older. A lot of us middle-aged folk were skint in our 20s and 30s too. It was easier to get on the housing ladder 20 years ago though, for sure. It’s nothing short of a national crisis exacerbated by a grim, exploitative rental sector (which isn’t the case in some other European countries, for example). |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:16 - Apr 24 with 1179 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:54 - Apr 24 by Kropotkin123 |
There are less babies being born so that damages the whole economic model and means that we have a demographic time bomb. Now we have a whole generation of young adults who are highly educated and are taught to be activists despite never really living a day in the real world.
Absolute nonsense. Clearly not of this generation you are talking about.
1. We can't save money to buy a house because houses are X times our salaries, and we pay X about in rent, which is X times higher than previous generations.
2. When we finally can afford the deposit we still can't get a house because the house is more than 4.5 times our salaries and banks think we are too risky compared to previous generations leveraging their existing properties to have another rental.
3. When we can finally afford a home it is a small apartment, not a house, so we don't have the room to fill it with children.
4. We are also unlikely to have pensions for later on in life, so we are balancing children against sorting out our own long-term future.
5. Many of us struggled to get decent jobs, because we entered employment during an economic crash and prolonged down turn. Many of my generation were also laid off and hit hard when there was a global pandemic.
In the meantime, it is our fault, because we were brazen enough to get an education. Previous generations are not the least but interested in looking introspectively, so we are labelled "activists" as if caring for the planet is a negative.
For my generation, it is pretty simple, our futures are screwed on multiple fronts, due to the selfishness of some of the generations before us - climate change denial and inaction, proliferation of multiple home ownership, decimation of public services, erosion of corporate benefits, and on and on.
And what do you care about going into the next election? Not rectifying these issues, it is over the definition of what a woman is. And you say we never lived a day in the real world... Time to wake up, mate! [Post edited 24 Apr 12:59]
|
Excellent post....the generation that I grew up surrounded by that bought into ruthless individualism over any notion of society have much to answer for. |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:41 - Apr 24 with 1118 views | giant_stow |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:32 - Apr 24 by Swansea_Blue |
Interesting. Age yes, but just from eying it education level might be the characteristic that results in the largest disparity in wealth. Which isn't such a surprise really as it tends to lead to people ending up in the better paid jobs.
Which always strikes me as strange that Blair's push on education was criticised further up the thread. I can't see why broadening education a bad thing? It's never bad to learn. |
I think it might be *what* we're being taught rather than the education itself. Not enough vocational or hands on stuff - too much theoretical stuff on the other side? |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:09 - Apr 25 with 970 views | Europablue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:32 - Apr 24 by Swansea_Blue |
Interesting. Age yes, but just from eying it education level might be the characteristic that results in the largest disparity in wealth. Which isn't such a surprise really as it tends to lead to people ending up in the better paid jobs.
Which always strikes me as strange that Blair's push on education was criticised further up the thread. I can't see why broadening education a bad thing? It's never bad to learn. |
It's a very neutral way of phrasing it to say "Blair's push on education". The whole point is that education is only as good as the content being taught. Blind targets of trying to get 50% off people into university are not considering what is best for the individual and not really considering return on investment. It made sense to fund higher education for solid subjects, but why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni when there is little economic benefit?
It is a damning indictment on the quality of the British education system that students didn't understand the direct link between university fees and the vastly increased number of students. All of that money was a gravy train and of course signing up students was the goal regardless of what was best for them.
Many people would do much better going into a real job and learning on the job and they wouldn't be left with ridiculous debts paying to be indoctrinated.
I think that pushing so many people to university is part of the current problem of young people refusing to work because they are over educated and underskilled and have an inflated valuation of themselves on the market.
University infantilizes young adults who put off growing up. I suppose that is part of the Labour plan because people get more conservative as they grow up. The knock on effect is that people are getting married later and women are having babies later, which is counter to their biology and a lot of women who wanted children are struggling to conceive.
Unless you understand how the world works, it is inconceivable how we are wealthier than ever before in human history and yet most of us are materially worse off than previous generations where even middle class families have two parents working full time jobs really only to fund ridiculous house prices, childcare and the cost of living, working class people have to use food banks and worse. |  | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:57 - Apr 25 with 927 views | Leaky |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:32 - Apr 24 by Swansea_Blue |
Interesting. Age yes, but just from eying it education level might be the characteristic that results in the largest disparity in wealth. Which isn't such a surprise really as it tends to lead to people ending up in the better paid jobs.
Which always strikes me as strange that Blair's push on education was criticised further up the thread. I can't see why broadening education a bad thing? It's never bad to learn. |
I feel the problem is the time it takes to learn. Many of the younger generation are not earning a living until they are in their mid twenties. Then complain about not being able save for a deposit on a house. Yes the housing market is broken, as no government can afford to sanction a price correction. I feel that rather than going to University to study, bring back apprenticeships along with a much improved regional collage set up. |  | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:15 - Apr 25 with 892 views | jayessess |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:09 - Apr 25 by Europablue |
It's a very neutral way of phrasing it to say "Blair's push on education". The whole point is that education is only as good as the content being taught. Blind targets of trying to get 50% off people into university are not considering what is best for the individual and not really considering return on investment. It made sense to fund higher education for solid subjects, but why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni when there is little economic benefit?
It is a damning indictment on the quality of the British education system that students didn't understand the direct link between university fees and the vastly increased number of students. All of that money was a gravy train and of course signing up students was the goal regardless of what was best for them.
Many people would do much better going into a real job and learning on the job and they wouldn't be left with ridiculous debts paying to be indoctrinated.
I think that pushing so many people to university is part of the current problem of young people refusing to work because they are over educated and underskilled and have an inflated valuation of themselves on the market.
University infantilizes young adults who put off growing up. I suppose that is part of the Labour plan because people get more conservative as they grow up. The knock on effect is that people are getting married later and women are having babies later, which is counter to their biology and a lot of women who wanted children are struggling to conceive.
Unless you understand how the world works, it is inconceivable how we are wealthier than ever before in human history and yet most of us are materially worse off than previous generations where even middle class families have two parents working full time jobs really only to fund ridiculous house prices, childcare and the cost of living, working class people have to use food banks and worse. |
People have very strange ideas about what universities actually do. If you believed the press, you'd assume that every university consists of precisely two departments - one for "David Beckham studies" and the other for "Anti-British History".
The reality is the vast majority of undergraduate students are studying something that most people would recognise as economically important. There are 2.8m people in Higher Education - the most popular course is Business/Management (530k), followed by Medicine and Allied Subjects (448k). Huge numbers are studying in other areas that most would recognise as straightforwardly serious/vocational - Hard Sciences (265k), Engineering (186k), Computing (164k), Law (142k), Psychology (140k), Education (136k), Languages (88k), Architecture and planning (64k), Media and journalism (48k), Agriculture (20k), Veterinary Science (12k).
Together these subjects account for more than 80% of all students. These subjects have minimal scope for "indoctrination" or "wokery" or whatever else you are scared about. I promise you my colleagues in Computer Science aren't secretly teaching their students about Slavery or Empire.
That's before we even get to the other 20% doing social sciences, humanities and creative arts. I teach history and our students go out into the world with huge variety of useful critical thinking skills, they go into a wide variety of vitally necessary fields, they become lawyers, civil servants, accountants, teachers, work in the private sector, the public sector, one student of mine recently applied for post-graduate medicine off the back of their history degree. They come out of university highly capable, but they don't dictate the state of the labour market, which has far more to do with the society we are building as a nation than they do with British universities.
I think it's sad that people run down the work done in British universities because they are one of the few things about this country that are genuinely world class and admired around the world. [Post edited 25 Apr 9:17]
|  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:22 - Apr 25 with 870 views | backwaywhen |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:39 - Apr 24 by chicoazul |
I find this ridiculous. Your solution to our highest levels of taxation since WW2 is….more taxation. You want to give even more money to people who have proven beyond doubt their incompetence.
We need new politicians not new taxation.
And I have no clue where you get the idea that “many” people are well off. |
But where do we get these new competent politicians from ? As far as I’m aware they are all greedy , self postering liars that only look after themselves …..Angela Rayner anyone ! | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:29 - Apr 25 with 857 views | DJR |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:15 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
People have very strange ideas about what universities actually do. If you believed the press, you'd assume that every university consists of precisely two departments - one for "David Beckham studies" and the other for "Anti-British History".
The reality is the vast majority of undergraduate students are studying something that most people would recognise as economically important. There are 2.8m people in Higher Education - the most popular course is Business/Management (530k), followed by Medicine and Allied Subjects (448k). Huge numbers are studying in other areas that most would recognise as straightforwardly serious/vocational - Hard Sciences (265k), Engineering (186k), Computing (164k), Law (142k), Psychology (140k), Education (136k), Languages (88k), Architecture and planning (64k), Media and journalism (48k), Agriculture (20k), Veterinary Science (12k).
Together these subjects account for more than 80% of all students. These subjects have minimal scope for "indoctrination" or "wokery" or whatever else you are scared about. I promise you my colleagues in Computer Science aren't secretly teaching their students about Slavery or Empire.
That's before we even get to the other 20% doing social sciences, humanities and creative arts. I teach history and our students go out into the world with huge variety of useful critical thinking skills, they go into a wide variety of vitally necessary fields, they become lawyers, civil servants, accountants, teachers, work in the private sector, the public sector, one student of mine recently applied for post-graduate medicine off the back of their history degree. They come out of university highly capable, but they don't dictate the state of the labour market, which has far more to do with the society we are building as a nation than they do with British universities.
I think it's sad that people run down the work done in British universities because they are one of the few things about this country that are genuinely world class and admired around the world. [Post edited 25 Apr 9:17]
|
The figures for Law seem a bit high to me but the figures are certainly much higher than when I studied it in the late 70s/early 80s.
Interestingly, I have come across figures which show that in the year I entered the legal profession there were almost exactly the same number of those studying Law at university (roughly 2,500) as there were legal jobs to go to.
These days there are many more people studying Law at undergraduate level than there are legal jobs for them to go to. [Post edited 25 Apr 9:33]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:37 - Apr 25 with 831 views | Pinewoodblue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:15 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
People have very strange ideas about what universities actually do. If you believed the press, you'd assume that every university consists of precisely two departments - one for "David Beckham studies" and the other for "Anti-British History".
The reality is the vast majority of undergraduate students are studying something that most people would recognise as economically important. There are 2.8m people in Higher Education - the most popular course is Business/Management (530k), followed by Medicine and Allied Subjects (448k). Huge numbers are studying in other areas that most would recognise as straightforwardly serious/vocational - Hard Sciences (265k), Engineering (186k), Computing (164k), Law (142k), Psychology (140k), Education (136k), Languages (88k), Architecture and planning (64k), Media and journalism (48k), Agriculture (20k), Veterinary Science (12k).
Together these subjects account for more than 80% of all students. These subjects have minimal scope for "indoctrination" or "wokery" or whatever else you are scared about. I promise you my colleagues in Computer Science aren't secretly teaching their students about Slavery or Empire.
That's before we even get to the other 20% doing social sciences, humanities and creative arts. I teach history and our students go out into the world with huge variety of useful critical thinking skills, they go into a wide variety of vitally necessary fields, they become lawyers, civil servants, accountants, teachers, work in the private sector, the public sector, one student of mine recently applied for post-graduate medicine off the back of their history degree. They come out of university highly capable, but they don't dictate the state of the labour market, which has far more to do with the society we are building as a nation than they do with British universities.
I think it's sad that people run down the work done in British universities because they are one of the few things about this country that are genuinely world class and admired around the world. [Post edited 25 Apr 9:17]
|
Isn’t there a need to restructure some degree courses, reducing from 3 years to 2. |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:48 - Apr 25 with 818 views | jayessess |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:39 - Apr 24 by chicoazul |
I find this ridiculous. Your solution to our highest levels of taxation since WW2 is….more taxation. You want to give even more money to people who have proven beyond doubt their incompetence.
We need new politicians not new taxation.
And I have no clue where you get the idea that “many” people are well off. |
Always wonder how this meme about "the highest levels of taxation since the war" spread so rapidly? It's obviously an incredibly counter-intuitive thing to believe, given that high taxes in the 1960s and 1970s is a bit of a national legend (90% top rate of income tax!). None of the most relevant tax categories (income tax, sales tax, corporation tax) are at historically very high levels.
It seems to come from an OBR report suggesting Britain would have the highest tax to GDP ratio since the war by 2027-28 if average incomes rise and if tax thresholds for National Insurance and Income Tax don't change (meaning poorer people will be pulled into higher tax brackets).
(See here: https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/ )
Essentially it was a warning about poorer people being pulled into higher tax brackets rather than about people with "investment portfolios" contributing more to the exchequer.
The overall tax burden relative to GDP in Britain remains much lower than most Western European countries. [Post edited 25 Apr 10:14]
| |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:53 - Apr 25 with 791 views | jayessess |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:29 - Apr 25 by DJR |
The figures for Law seem a bit high to me but the figures are certainly much higher than when I studied it in the late 70s/early 80s.
Interestingly, I have come across figures which show that in the year I entered the legal profession there were almost exactly the same number of those studying Law at university (roughly 2,500) as there were legal jobs to go to.
These days there are many more people studying Law at undergraduate level than there are legal jobs for them to go to. [Post edited 25 Apr 9:33]
|
I would say this as a History lecturer, but I'd always advise any 17 year old prospective student to go study something different for their undergrad and do a law conversion after. Diversifies and deepens your skills/knowledge, plenty of time to bury yourself in precedents later on in life! [Post edited 25 Apr 9:57]
| |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 10:09 - Apr 25 with 753 views | Pinewoodblue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:48 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
Always wonder how this meme about "the highest levels of taxation since the war" spread so rapidly? It's obviously an incredibly counter-intuitive thing to believe, given that high taxes in the 1960s and 1970s is a bit of a national legend (90% top rate of income tax!). None of the most relevant tax categories (income tax, sales tax, corporation tax) are at historically very high levels.
It seems to come from an OBR report suggesting Britain would have the highest tax to GDP ratio since the war by 2027-28 if average incomes rise and if tax thresholds for National Insurance and Income Tax don't change (meaning poorer people will be pulled into higher tax brackets).
(See here: https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/ )
Essentially it was a warning about poorer people being pulled into higher tax brackets rather than about people with "investment portfolios" contributing more to the exchequer.
The overall tax burden relative to GDP in Britain remains much lower than most Western European countries. [Post edited 25 Apr 10:14]
|
But Starmer keeps telling us that tax levels are going up all the time so it must be true.
Personally I think it would be better to increase tax levels while, at the same time, raising tax allowances.
The amount that can be earned before tax is paid needs increasing by at least £1,000 and there need to be more tax bands, a gradual increase not the big jump up from standard rate. Bring back the 10% starting rate, and add an interim band between current standard & higher rates.
Merge income tax & employee NI and make state pension tax free. | |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 10:18 - Apr 25 with 743 views | leitrimblue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:09 - Apr 25 by Europablue |
It's a very neutral way of phrasing it to say "Blair's push on education". The whole point is that education is only as good as the content being taught. Blind targets of trying to get 50% off people into university are not considering what is best for the individual and not really considering return on investment. It made sense to fund higher education for solid subjects, but why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni when there is little economic benefit?
It is a damning indictment on the quality of the British education system that students didn't understand the direct link between university fees and the vastly increased number of students. All of that money was a gravy train and of course signing up students was the goal regardless of what was best for them.
Many people would do much better going into a real job and learning on the job and they wouldn't be left with ridiculous debts paying to be indoctrinated.
I think that pushing so many people to university is part of the current problem of young people refusing to work because they are over educated and underskilled and have an inflated valuation of themselves on the market.
University infantilizes young adults who put off growing up. I suppose that is part of the Labour plan because people get more conservative as they grow up. The knock on effect is that people are getting married later and women are having babies later, which is counter to their biology and a lot of women who wanted children are struggling to conceive.
Unless you understand how the world works, it is inconceivable how we are wealthier than ever before in human history and yet most of us are materially worse off than previous generations where even middle class families have two parents working full time jobs really only to fund ridiculous house prices, childcare and the cost of living, working class people have to use food banks and worse. |
I think yer attitude on this is sorta wrong ( even if yer heart is in the right place ).
The line ' why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni' misses the point surely?
I would suggest that education/University ( along side the option of high quality apprenticeships) is the best way for working class people to improve their situation.
The poorest in society should be financially helped and encouraged into University if they wish to follow that path.
Just as high quality apprenticeships should be available for people who wish to go that way. Both are good options in there own way. Both offer people away of improving their lot. |  | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 10:24 - Apr 25 with 739 views | Europablue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:54 - Apr 24 by Kropotkin123 |
There are less babies being born so that damages the whole economic model and means that we have a demographic time bomb. Now we have a whole generation of young adults who are highly educated and are taught to be activists despite never really living a day in the real world.
Absolute nonsense. Clearly not of this generation you are talking about.
1. We can't save money to buy a house because houses are X times our salaries, and we pay X about in rent, which is X times higher than previous generations.
2. When we finally can afford the deposit we still can't get a house because the house is more than 4.5 times our salaries and banks think we are too risky compared to previous generations leveraging their existing properties to have another rental.
3. When we can finally afford a home it is a small apartment, not a house, so we don't have the room to fill it with children.
4. We are also unlikely to have pensions for later on in life, so we are balancing children against sorting out our own long-term future.
5. Many of us struggled to get decent jobs, because we entered employment during an economic crash and prolonged down turn. Many of my generation were also laid off and hit hard when there was a global pandemic.
In the meantime, it is our fault, because we were brazen enough to get an education. Previous generations are not the least but interested in looking introspectively, so we are labelled "activists" as if caring for the planet is a negative.
For my generation, it is pretty simple, our futures are screwed on multiple fronts, due to the selfishness of some of the generations before us - climate change denial and inaction, proliferation of multiple home ownership, decimation of public services, erosion of corporate benefits, and on and on.
And what do you care about going into the next election? Not rectifying these issues, it is over the definition of what a woman is. And you say we never lived a day in the real world... Time to wake up, mate! [Post edited 24 Apr 12:59]
|
I don't know how old you are, to give you context, I'm pushing 40.
I've only just saved enough to buy a house it has been a struggle. Through a lot of hard work and sacrifice as well as enough luck I've managed to earn a good living, but I have about 10 to 15 years less than would be optimal to pay off the loan so with the job market even with a comfortable level of income, I don't feel financially secure.
I don't think you should take my comments about the system too personally. Also, anyone who has racked up student debts will have a sunken cost that they want to justify. My point was a general one that 50% higher education does not make sense financially. Even now it is about 35% with a peak level of 38%. The number or yearly applicants was 405 thousand in 1994 and was 757 thousand in 2023. Still that is a huge jump.
You should add a point 6. crippling student debt repayments with scandalous interest rules.
I don't know you so I wasn't calling you an activist. There is a trend towards young people feeling like work is beneath them especially at the level they would have to start at and having high expectations of the lifestyle they should be able to lead. I know that I personally experienced the shock of finding out that my market value was actually pretty low straight out of university. Universities are not at all focused on getting their students good employment opportunities. There should be a focus on getting students to realistically consider their options early on in their courses. I loved being at uni and in my group of friends and playing videogames whenever I wanted and watching Neighbours twice a day, but the last year of my degree was a total waste of time and not good value for me or the taxpayer. I was glad to be done with it and get out into the real world.
You should exercise a bit of magnanimity for people in the older generations, much as you baulk at you or your generation being labelled activists or work shy. I'm guessing that you don't have children from the what you have said. Having children makes you much less self-centered and gives you a better appreciation of older generations. People with children have a stake in the future so I care more about the future more than I did as a child or young adult.
I agree with the home ownership problem you identified. I think it's an absolute disaster to commoditize housing. However many hundreds of thousands my house is worth makes no material difference to me. I would be totally fine in slashing the value of homes across the board as long as a few years were taken off my mortgage repayments.
My impression of an activist is a person who is all talk and no action. They will attend a protest against climate change, but won't go litter picking in their own community. It is a really big problem that we have taught people to focus on huge problems that they have no hope of solving. It is unfair to put the responsibility on people to achieve the impossible. Older generations have cared about the environment for a long time. When you say "For my generation, it is pretty simple, our futures are screwed on multiple fronts, due to the selfishness of some of the generations before us" you also don't mention all of the amazing opportunities that you have been afforded by the hard work of previous generations, so that has to come into consideration too. I think most people are on board with being environmentally friendly and even a move towards net zero, the thing you have to consider is how those policies will actually affect people. You must know that the poorest and most vulnerable will take the brunt of the negative affects from the net zero policies. Anyway, in the end the fact is people won't go along with these draconian policies en masse if they are putting them in poverty or worse.
Public spending has gone up dramatically and that is because we have disintegrated society, moved away from family and required much more state intervention. We have to have a serious conversation about how we would fund public services to the level that we expect. The problem is that there seems to be a direct correlation between an increase in public spending and a decrease in the competence of the people running the country. We can't just abdicate responsibility for things that are important to us.
The reason why the definition of a woman is such a key issue is because it is very basic and underpins your entire concept of reality and how facts work. If we define things as they observably are, then we can have rules and a functioning society, but if we let people self define and demand that people must interact with them conforming to a self-identity that can change, it is a recipe for chaos. Polite people will try not to offend people, but at the same time a polite person would not expect too much from others to placate them. | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:12 - Apr 25 with 668 views | Europablue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:41 - Apr 24 by giant_stow |
I think it might be *what* we're being taught rather than the education itself. Not enough vocational or hands on stuff - too much theoretical stuff on the other side? |
Exactly, education is only as valuable as what you are learning. There was way too much focus on degrees over vocational training. I am wondering whether my kids would be better off skipping university and going straight into a paid position to learn on the job. The problem is, the system has been changed to gatekeep a lot of job with degree requirements for jobs that don't really require degrees. | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:19 - Apr 25 with 649 views | DJR |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:53 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
I would say this as a History lecturer, but I'd always advise any 17 year old prospective student to go study something different for their undergrad and do a law conversion after. Diversifies and deepens your skills/knowledge, plenty of time to bury yourself in precedents later on in life! [Post edited 25 Apr 9:57]
|
I wouldn't disagree with that at all, and in the office I worked in there were a few who had done Classics at university.
Interestingly, the new way to qualify as a solicitor places much less emphasis on a Law degree because those without do not have to sit a year-long additional "conversion" course.
These days to qualify as a solicitor you will need to:
have a degree in any subject (or equivalent qualification or work experience)
pass both SQE assessments - SQE1 focuses on functioning legal knowledge and SQE2 on practical legal skills and knowledge
have two years' Qualifying Work Experience
meet the SRA’s character and suitability requirements [Post edited 25 Apr 11:21]
| | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:25 - Apr 25 with 631 views | Europablue |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 10:18 - Apr 25 by leitrimblue |
I think yer attitude on this is sorta wrong ( even if yer heart is in the right place ).
The line ' why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni' misses the point surely?
I would suggest that education/University ( along side the option of high quality apprenticeships) is the best way for working class people to improve their situation.
The poorest in society should be financially helped and encouraged into University if they wish to follow that path.
Just as high quality apprenticeships should be available for people who wish to go that way. Both are good options in there own way. Both offer people away of improving their lot. |
I think you interpretation of what I was saying is a bit off.
"why should working class people pay taxes towards people on a jolly at uni?" still stands. That statement does not mean that I believe that all people are on a jolly at uni. My point is the fun part of uni is a byproduct of the experience and not the motivation behind the funding. We have to be very careful with public money. Public money is supposed to benefit society as a whole and not just individuals.
Going to university can be a very good opportunity for people to better their economic position, but it should also be understood that university can also be a debt trap and have a negative effect on your life if a better option was available. I just hate the one-size-fits-all approach that Blair's 50% target embodies. | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:33 - Apr 25 with 613 views | Vaughan8 |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:12 - Apr 25 by Europablue |
Exactly, education is only as valuable as what you are learning. There was way too much focus on degrees over vocational training. I am wondering whether my kids would be better off skipping university and going straight into a paid position to learn on the job. The problem is, the system has been changed to gatekeep a lot of job with degree requirements for jobs that don't really require degrees. |
Agreed. Even when I was at school (20 years ago) they pushed Uni Uni Uni.
I went, but ended up leaving as it wasn't for me. I ended up doing an apprenticeship (i.e 1 day at college, 4 at work) and it was so much better. No debt, earning money, earning how to do the job, instead of just learning "perfect" questions.
ALso, in my work, I find youngsters come in an expect to not do some of the "boring" work. Unfortunately most of us have started work and you have to do that, before you can "prove yourself" to move onto more interesting work. | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:46 - Apr 25 with 599 views | NthQldITFC |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:22 - Apr 25 by backwaywhen |
But where do we get these new competent politicians from ? As far as I’m aware they are all greedy , self postering liars that only look after themselves …..Angela Rayner anyone ! |
I can understand where you're coming from, but it's a bit of a defeatist attitude to think that all politicians must be greedy, self-postering(?) liars isn't it? Surely there are good people in, or coming in to politics who won't necessarily be or become corrupt or useless? I think it's more resistance to changing the foetid status quo rather than belief that things can't be any better than this, ffs?
As for Angela Rayner, there are plenty of Tories who are embarrassed by their party's desperate attack given the mountain of filth from which it is being launched! At worst it's a fairly trivial matter which Rayner has said she will resign over if found guilty. | |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:02 - Apr 25 with 578 views | jayessess |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:33 - Apr 25 by Vaughan8 |
Agreed. Even when I was at school (20 years ago) they pushed Uni Uni Uni.
I went, but ended up leaving as it wasn't for me. I ended up doing an apprenticeship (i.e 1 day at college, 4 at work) and it was so much better. No debt, earning money, earning how to do the job, instead of just learning "perfect" questions.
ALso, in my work, I find youngsters come in an expect to not do some of the "boring" work. Unfortunately most of us have started work and you have to do that, before you can "prove yourself" to move onto more interesting work. |
I would say though, people have been making this sort of complaint about "young people" since the dawn of time.
We tend to lose a bit of perspective when we talk about generations, but you can find plenty of newspaper articles and testimony from the 1960s with parents and older people complaining that "kids these days don't know they're born" and "don't know the meaning of hard work" etc. etc. It seems to be just the way people talk about different generations! | |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:09 - Apr 25 with 547 views | chicoazul |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:48 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
Always wonder how this meme about "the highest levels of taxation since the war" spread so rapidly? It's obviously an incredibly counter-intuitive thing to believe, given that high taxes in the 1960s and 1970s is a bit of a national legend (90% top rate of income tax!). None of the most relevant tax categories (income tax, sales tax, corporation tax) are at historically very high levels.
It seems to come from an OBR report suggesting Britain would have the highest tax to GDP ratio since the war by 2027-28 if average incomes rise and if tax thresholds for National Insurance and Income Tax don't change (meaning poorer people will be pulled into higher tax brackets).
(See here: https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/ )
Essentially it was a warning about poorer people being pulled into higher tax brackets rather than about people with "investment portfolios" contributing more to the exchequer.
The overall tax burden relative to GDP in Britain remains much lower than most Western European countries. [Post edited 25 Apr 10:14]
|
Note everyone how this poster doesn’t say I’m wrong. |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 12:51 - Apr 25 with 503 views | backwaywhen |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 11:46 - Apr 25 by NthQldITFC |
I can understand where you're coming from, but it's a bit of a defeatist attitude to think that all politicians must be greedy, self-postering(?) liars isn't it? Surely there are good people in, or coming in to politics who won't necessarily be or become corrupt or useless? I think it's more resistance to changing the foetid status quo rather than belief that things can't be any better than this, ffs?
As for Angela Rayner, there are plenty of Tories who are embarrassed by their party's desperate attack given the mountain of filth from which it is being launched! At worst it's a fairly trivial matter which Rayner has said she will resign over if found guilty. |
Will she though ……I wait with bated breath . | | | |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:18 - Apr 25 with 487 views | Kropotkin123 |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 10:24 - Apr 25 by Europablue |
I don't know how old you are, to give you context, I'm pushing 40.
I've only just saved enough to buy a house it has been a struggle. Through a lot of hard work and sacrifice as well as enough luck I've managed to earn a good living, but I have about 10 to 15 years less than would be optimal to pay off the loan so with the job market even with a comfortable level of income, I don't feel financially secure.
I don't think you should take my comments about the system too personally. Also, anyone who has racked up student debts will have a sunken cost that they want to justify. My point was a general one that 50% higher education does not make sense financially. Even now it is about 35% with a peak level of 38%. The number or yearly applicants was 405 thousand in 1994 and was 757 thousand in 2023. Still that is a huge jump.
You should add a point 6. crippling student debt repayments with scandalous interest rules.
I don't know you so I wasn't calling you an activist. There is a trend towards young people feeling like work is beneath them especially at the level they would have to start at and having high expectations of the lifestyle they should be able to lead. I know that I personally experienced the shock of finding out that my market value was actually pretty low straight out of university. Universities are not at all focused on getting their students good employment opportunities. There should be a focus on getting students to realistically consider their options early on in their courses. I loved being at uni and in my group of friends and playing videogames whenever I wanted and watching Neighbours twice a day, but the last year of my degree was a total waste of time and not good value for me or the taxpayer. I was glad to be done with it and get out into the real world.
You should exercise a bit of magnanimity for people in the older generations, much as you baulk at you or your generation being labelled activists or work shy. I'm guessing that you don't have children from the what you have said. Having children makes you much less self-centered and gives you a better appreciation of older generations. People with children have a stake in the future so I care more about the future more than I did as a child or young adult.
I agree with the home ownership problem you identified. I think it's an absolute disaster to commoditize housing. However many hundreds of thousands my house is worth makes no material difference to me. I would be totally fine in slashing the value of homes across the board as long as a few years were taken off my mortgage repayments.
My impression of an activist is a person who is all talk and no action. They will attend a protest against climate change, but won't go litter picking in their own community. It is a really big problem that we have taught people to focus on huge problems that they have no hope of solving. It is unfair to put the responsibility on people to achieve the impossible. Older generations have cared about the environment for a long time. When you say "For my generation, it is pretty simple, our futures are screwed on multiple fronts, due to the selfishness of some of the generations before us" you also don't mention all of the amazing opportunities that you have been afforded by the hard work of previous generations, so that has to come into consideration too. I think most people are on board with being environmentally friendly and even a move towards net zero, the thing you have to consider is how those policies will actually affect people. You must know that the poorest and most vulnerable will take the brunt of the negative affects from the net zero policies. Anyway, in the end the fact is people won't go along with these draconian policies en masse if they are putting them in poverty or worse.
Public spending has gone up dramatically and that is because we have disintegrated society, moved away from family and required much more state intervention. We have to have a serious conversation about how we would fund public services to the level that we expect. The problem is that there seems to be a direct correlation between an increase in public spending and a decrease in the competence of the people running the country. We can't just abdicate responsibility for things that are important to us.
The reason why the definition of a woman is such a key issue is because it is very basic and underpins your entire concept of reality and how facts work. If we define things as they observably are, then we can have rules and a functioning society, but if we let people self define and demand that people must interact with them conforming to a self-identity that can change, it is a recipe for chaos. Polite people will try not to offend people, but at the same time a polite person would not expect too much from others to placate them. |
I'm simply not going to engage with the parts I agree with for a few reasons:
1. I agree with them.
2. They don't support the extrapolation I took issue with.
3. They aren't contrary to the points I made.
I'm pushing 40... I've only just saved enough to buy a house
Baffles me that you link declining population birth rates to people being taught to be activists, when your reality is no home by 40. You may be comfortable taking on a family with no home, but many aren't.
For all that you go on to say, you really fail to tie it back to declining population.
At that age you are post-Blair's education reform, you clearly aren't an activist, and you describe your experience as a struggle. So I can only assume you are eliminating yourself and your generation (which would include me) from this, and concentrating on a subset of people from the post-Blair education reforms.
If you are referring to the current crop of students coming out of university, then they aren't the one's showing in the current stats as not having 2.1 children. They still have time to make that decision.
I think you need to clarify who you are actually referring to.
You should exercise a bit of magnanimity for people in the older generations, much as you baulk at you or your generation being labelled activists or work shy.
Nah, I'm good, I'll stick with facts presented plainly. I will not use euphemisms to present myself more favourably to the older generations. I put in enough appropriate clauses for people of those generations to exclude themselves if the cap doesn't fit. What I said was factual, needs addressing, and members of those generations are welcome and capable of making changes. Many already have or are trying, hence the appropriate clauses.
I'm guessing that you don't have children from the what you have said. Having children makes you much less self-centered and gives you a better appreciation of older generations. People with children have a stake in the future so I care more about the future more than I did as a child or young adult.
You guess incorrectly, I have a newborn. I'm writing this on the nightshift feed.
I would have liked to have 2 children by now. I was mentally ready 5 years ago, but didn't have a home.
I really don't see the correlation between how self-centred someone is and having children. If anything, having a child has made me more self-centred. I now own a car for the first time in my life, I take more self-serving economic decisions, and so on.
But, this is all a distraction from my original point. A paragraph (intentionally or not) that only serves to devalue the position I speak from, rather than what I say.
The problem is that there seems to be a direct correlation between an increase in public spending and a decrease in the competence of the people running the country.
An irrelevance to my post and factually incorrect. I don't understand why you've gone to such lengths to present so many subjective arguments like this that have no bearing on the point I made.
The reason why the definition of a woman is such a key issue is because it is very basic and underpins your entire concept of reality and how facts work
Yes, yes, I've heard the sound bites. I'm very impressed you can regurgitate them to me. One word being correctly or incorrectly defined does not change my concept of reality because I actually have a brain and use it.
I couldn't care less about this issue itself. It is largely pushed by right wing media to control political discourse. Grown men owning the most illiterate students they can find because debating a fully functional adult on real issues would show them for the frauds they are.
You going into the next election, genuinely convinced it is a real equivalent issue, demonstrates their propaganda works. |  |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:25 - Apr 25 with 446 views | Kropotkin123 |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 09:48 - Apr 25 by jayessess |
Always wonder how this meme about "the highest levels of taxation since the war" spread so rapidly? It's obviously an incredibly counter-intuitive thing to believe, given that high taxes in the 1960s and 1970s is a bit of a national legend (90% top rate of income tax!). None of the most relevant tax categories (income tax, sales tax, corporation tax) are at historically very high levels.
It seems to come from an OBR report suggesting Britain would have the highest tax to GDP ratio since the war by 2027-28 if average incomes rise and if tax thresholds for National Insurance and Income Tax don't change (meaning poorer people will be pulled into higher tax brackets).
(See here: https://obr.uk/box/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-international-context/ )
Essentially it was a warning about poorer people being pulled into higher tax brackets rather than about people with "investment portfolios" contributing more to the exchequer.
The overall tax burden relative to GDP in Britain remains much lower than most Western European countries. [Post edited 25 Apr 10:14]
|
"Always wonder how this meme about "the highest levels of taxation since the war" spread so rapidly? It's obviously an incredibly counter-intuitive thing to believe, given that high taxes in the 1960s and 1970s is a bit of a national legend (90% top rate of income tax!). None of the most relevant tax categories (income tax, sales tax, corporation tax) are at historically very high levels."
Interesting... I've never looked at it. My initial thoughts was to assume it was correct when you don't adjust for inflation or population increases. [Post edited 25 Apr 13:31]
| |
| |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 13:32 - Apr 25 with 424 views | HotShotHamish |
| We're all going to have to make some selfless sacrifices to get this country on 08:52 - Apr 24 by NthQldITFC |
'Many' might be a smallish percentage, but still many. But I take your point. The balance is so far out now and social values have crumbled under a succession of increasingly filthy, kleptomaniac T*ry regimes. The 'many' need to be prepared to give back a lot more - but the mere hint of that sure does trigger some, doesn't it. |
what, if anything is stopping you overpaying tax and making your own extra contributions? Is it the fact that you won't be able to blame everything on 'kleptomaniac tory regimes'?
If you are so sure that you are correct then why do you need someone else to force you to do it.
It is very easy being super virtuous but far more difficult to actually do something about it | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
