changes to tax, benefits and VAT (+ interest rates and gov't expenditure) are the only things a government can do to impact the bigger picture and individual behaviour. Today's IT suggests it shouldn't be too dificult to build a system based around household income but IT and government do not mix so the gov't plays it simple by putting in crude changes like this + possibly reducing the age limit to 16
It's not papering over the cracks for London as it is the history and the future which have made London such a great city. The cracks are getting way too big in the regions and this is where this gov't's policies might really hurt and where the Lib Dems may be tempted to cut and run
As for bankers losing us all money - last I heard the bank shares owned by the gov't have turned a profit so I expect they will be sold before the next election to help clear the national debts
bankers, my cousin last year bought a NEW Maseratti and a 40+ foot brooms boat with last years bonus. I find it sick that me & my partner on 100K+ with a 10% deposit on over 300k value cant find a decent mortgage rate, with the base rate at .5% but these greedy bleeders are still milking the system. We dont call him very often,,,,
I think the problem is, you can either have a fair benefits system, or you can have one that's cheap to administer. The government's going for the latter, but trying to pretend it's actually the former.
Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]Bankers, bankers, bankers!
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
my dad worked as a bank manager in marketing for hsbc formerly midland bank (the listening bank) until taking early retirement in 1994 at age of 54 due to having a breakdown due to the constant trimming of staff to the bare bones. his final wage was around the 20k mark. not a low wage then but nothing special. his pension is around £800 a month, again not to be sniffed at but i ask any of you out there if you could pay all your bills and run a car on that. still has to pay full council tax. oh and he lives in a 1 bed flat. he's certainly no sob story but like has been said not all bankers are in the same boat. his usual annual bonus was around £500 so nothing to get excited about. still, he has his health back now and like me he's still got charlton to brighten up his week.
[cite]Posted By: The Prince-e-Paul[/cite]my dad worked as a bank manager in marketing for hsbc formerly midland bank (the listening bank) until taking early retirement in 1994 at age of 54 due to having a breakdown due to the constant trimming of staff to the bare bones. his final wage was around the 20k mark. not a low wage then but nothing special. his pension is around £800 a month, again not to be sniffed at but i ask any of you out there if you could pay all your bills and run a car on that. still has to pay full council tax. oh and he lives in a 1 bed flat. he's certainly no sob story but like has been said not all bankers are in the same boat. his usual annual bonus was around £500 so nothing to get excited about. still, he has his health back now and like me he's still got charlton to brighten up his week.
The bankers in question are merchant/investment bankers not retail bankers, I doubt that some appreciate the difference between the two though. Those, like your father who work in the retail side are generally well aware of the reality on the street, the investment bankers are the ones who nearly drove this country to ruin, demanding less regulation (or they'll take their ball away and go and live in tax exile) but as soon as their risky punts failed demanded that the government underwrite their losses (aka socilaism for the rich, capitalism for the poor). Now things are returning to stability they are back demanding high bonuses and tax exemption or they'll naff off to Geneva. I think easyjet fly there - how about a whip round and we can concentrate on manufacturing things again and having an economy that isn't schizophrenic? As a bonus house prices in the SE might return to sanity.
My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Thatcher wanted to turn us into a new Switzerland and decimated our manufacturing base in favour of service industries. TBH, although I was very much opposed to this policy, a little bit of me had thought that our often ailing and ageing manufacturing plants weren't going to be able to compete with the likes of cheap labour in China or the quality of Japanese cars. More recently however, we drove into Italy via the Aosta Valley. I hadn't driven through there for some 12 years and was astounded at the sheer scale and pace of Italy's industrialisation. Ghastly area now, but it's successful. How can Italy succeed when we can't? So I'm very much with BFR. Child tax wise, - curious that the party of marriage and family have to date made parents their number one target for benefit reductions. Wait for the U-turn on this one, middle England ain't happy.
retail banks are the ones 'ripping off' ordinary folk (or am I wrong here) Northern Rock despite being government owned, have a variable rate (which those of us who had a fixed rate with them now find ourselves on) of around 5%, despite the base rate being a tenth of that, how can that be right?
I dread to think what will happen if base rates go up, although you would think it had little effect judging by the disparity.
We won't be able to compete in manufacturing with the far East and India for a very very long time, due to labour prices, so don't hold your breath there.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Thatcher wanted to turn us into a new Switzerland and decimated our manufacturing base in favour of service industries. TBH, although I was very much opposed to this policy, a little bit of me had thought that our often ailing and ageing manufacturing plants weren't going to be able to compete with the likes of cheap labour in China or the quality of Japanese cars. More recently however, we drove into Italy via the Aosta Valley. I hadn't driven through there for some 12 years and was astounded at the sheer scale and pace of Italy's industrialisation. Ghastly area now, but it's successful. How can Italy succeed when we can't? So I'm very much with BFR. Child tax wise, - curious that the party of marriage and family have to date made parents their number one target for benefit reductions. Wait for the U-turn on this one, middle England ain't happy.
The idea was that we would let countries like Japan and China do the manufacturing and we'd do more of the "high end" stuff with our highly educated workforce. Then successive governments make it progressively more expensive to go to university and obtain the education needed to do those high end jobs.
The other problem being that, in my profession, IT, which you would think would be the kind of work we should be retaining, there are armies of highly educated Indians willing to do the work for about 56p an hour. Of course, in their country that's better wages than their GP can get. Major international companies like Ford (who I worked for for a while) and BT avail themselves freely of this source of cheap labour. In fact my boss at Ford had targets for moving business to the Indian office, so progressively less was being done in the UK.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
Sorry if I am failing to see your gripe here?
Why am I not surprised by that.
Let me try to be clearer. Why is it that i will be "taxed" on money that is not mine and that I have never seen nor am entitled to?
Child benefit is not the deciding factor in my missus not working, but because we have decided that it is better for our children's upbringing if she is at home - and we make plenty of other sacrifices because of that because she is not out earning - I am getting kicked in the bollocks, whereas my neighbours on £40k each are not.
The retail banks are playing both ends of the market - try getting a mortgage and they want a very high percentage in deposit terms (often 20% plus) while offering ridiculously low interest rates on savings. I'm looking around for a cash ISA and getting quotes of around 2.8%, below the official inflation rate of 3.1%. Naturally the banks are using this period to re-build their reserves, but I wonder what the consequence of this will be - house prices are stagnating, businesses can't get loans and the banks are making profits again, but at what cost?
Interest rates will rise, eventually they'll have to just to balance inflation, but while unemployment stays relatively high the BoE can afford to keep interest rates low. Regarding CB - those who have a high mortgage and are just above the threshold are going to get a double whammy - around £1500 a year will get cut from their income and they will find themselves paying out more on their mortgage payments.
Wasn't it nice of David Cameron to parade his new sprog in front of the cameras yesterday? Along with his announcement that he won't qualify for CB under the new rules. Must be terrible being down to your last £30 million.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
Sorry if I am failing to see your gripe here?
Why am I not surprised by that.
So enlighten me....
Or is having a moan and then shutting down the extent of your ability to debate an issue?
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
Sorry if I am failing to see your gripe here?
Why am I not surprised by that.
So enlighten me....
Or is having a moan and then shutting down the extent of your ability to debate an issue?
HT - I went off half cocked and clicked post before I'd finished. Have now edited my post. No need for the narky comment.
Let me try to be clearer. Why is it that i will be "taxed" on money that is not mine and that I have never seen nor am entitled to?
...........
I'm sure there's a technical answer out there somewhere, but personally I think it was a badly thought through idea and no one stopped to think about the practicalities of how it will work in reality. At any rate at this stage it's just an idea and needs to go through the legislative stages before it kicks in and I suspect that some kind of tax-break will thought up.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]My missus gets our child benefit paid to her and that is the only "income" she gets - apart from a few handouts from me.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
Sorry if I am failing to see your gripe here?
Why am I not surprised by that.
So enlighten me....
Or is having a moan and then shutting down the extent of your ability to debate an issue?
HT - I went off half cocked and clicked post before I'd finished. Have now edited my post. No need for the narky comment.
OK chill, obviously the reason for my comment was based purely on your post being one bitchy line long.
I think it is a stretch to say you are being 'taxed' on it. You (as a family) are not receiving money you were previously entitled to. But probably semantics.
When I received child benefit (so excuse me if its changed in the last ten years) you chose which partner would receive it. So yes in reality your wife gets this money not you, but again only because that is the way you have chosen to receive it.
No-one is suggesting that having children requires no sacrifice and in this situation it comes down to sacrificing income or sacrificing a child's time with a parent. But once again you chose to have children and chose that these was problems you wanted to face.
You have changed your issue though, in your original statement your issue appeared to be that it was nothing to do with you as your wife got the money, a gripe I didn't and still don't agree with.
You then go on to say that your issue is actually that your 40k earning neighbours still get it which is why you take issue with it, this is entirely different and something that has been debated.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Let me try to be clearer. Why is it that i will be "taxed" on money that is not mine and that I have never seen nor am entitled to?
...........
I'm sure there's a technical answer out there somewhere, but personally I think it was a badly thought through idea and no one stopped to think about the practicalities of how it will work in reality. At any rate at this stage it's just an idea and needs to go through the legislative stages before it kicks in and I suspect that some kind of tax-break will thought up.
Thanks BFR - glad it's not just me.
I get the fact that I pay tax on my income, but my missus has none (other than CB) and is therefore nowhere near the personal tax allowance, but that clearly doesn't seem to matter.
For people with two kids this is effectively like a £3k pa pay cut - and on top of the fact that I've had fcuk all of a pay rise in three years and the cost of everything else is going up (especially with the VAT rise), you could say I'm a bit miffed.
I mean, have you seen the price of strong continental lager these days? Shocking.
Three opinion polls suggest that 85% are in favour...this is not suprising as 83% earn less than 44k. If anyone suggests that the government should bow down to 15% of the population, maybe they should also champion the BNP running the country...it is just as daft. It's a sad indicement of how selfish and isolated we've become that when it is evident that changes have to be made for the greater good of all, some on here pull up the drawbridge.
[cite]Posted By: windscreen[/cite]Three opinion polls suggest that 85% are in favour...this is not suprising as 83% earn less than 44k. If anyone suggests that the government should bow down to 15% of the population, maybe they should also champion the BNP running the country...it is just as daft. It's a sad indicement of how selfish and isolated we've become that when it is evident that changes have to be made for the greater good of all, some on here pull up the drawbridge.
Eh, you what - the BNP?
On second thoughts, don't bother. I doubt it would be worth it.
so what happens in the case of my stepdaughter, I haven't adopted her, do they take my salary into account - previously they haven't as in that sense I am nothing to do with her apparently.
I think most people think benefits should only be given to those in need, however as this was already in place many of us have factored it into the affordability, and coupled with no doubt other tax rises which in effect this is, just how much of a hit are we going to take.
For example if you also include a plan to get rid of the tax relief on child care, that could leave households like mine nearly 4k less well off per year, not even taking into account other tax rises like VAT. So hardworking families are really going to get a big kick in the nuts from all this.
Personally I think this should apply to future parents, and the cut off at two kids also, seem like far better ideas to me. Certainly if they do a tax break for married couples it should only be while their kids are at the age of needing full time childcare
[cite]Posted By: windscreen[/cite]Three opinion polls suggest that 85% are in favour...this is not suprising as 83% earn less than 44k. If anyone suggests that the government should bow down to 15% of the population, maybe they should also champion the BNP running the country...it is just as daft. It's a sad indicement of how selfish and isolated we've become that when it is evident that changes have to be made for the greater good of all, some on here pull up the drawbridge.
One of those polls was in the Sun, call me sceptical but anything and everything in a Murdoch owned rag always needs careful checking.
The point is though that in cases where one parent earns over the threshold CB won't get paid, this includes examples like Off_it's where his wife doesn't work. Yet another family could have two earners taking home say £40k each and they qualify for CB.
I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that those who this is a bad idea want the BNP to run the nation. Quite simply this is a badly thought through idea and is unfair. It penalises some like Off_it who want to give their children a good start and as a higher-rate taxpayer he's entitled to get something back for all the tax he pays. To suffer from this clawback is therefore doubly unfair.
The root of all this is that for ideological reasons the Tory party want to abolish the concept of universal benefit entitlements. In this case you might say fine, it probably doesn't hit you - but the next few cuts in the welafre state might.
There are alternatives though - Replacing Trident with a much cheaper option is one. There needs to be a proper informed debate about this. Both Labour and the Conservatives ganged up on the Libs during the election about their proposal to find one but their policy was the only one that genuinely stood up to scrutiny. It's crazy these hard decisions are being taken when easier ones are out there.
Exactly! Why waste money (and all that talent) on Trident. And why not start selling off the bank shares to raise some cash. And why ring fence NHS spending when it has alredy gone through the roof. The government should be encouraging the banks to lend more and reduce margins to get the economy going.
But they are very hung up on the benefits bill and want to announce results. It's great that their rhetoric is keeping the IMF and markets stable but pretty silly given the need to improve this "big society" and encourage parents and all to help bring up new generation with better values.
Seriously_Red junior (aged 12) just starting to ask Marx type questions like why can't wealth be distributed according to need?!
You could use Cruise missiles on conventional submarines instead of the Trident system. The disadvantages are that Trident is 95% likely to succesfully destroy a city/country where as the Cruise missile is about 85%. As Trident is a deterrent - (it has failed if it is ever used), do you think those relative odds would make a difference to an aggressor? Would save billions and make the cutting process far less painful.
Comments
It's not papering over the cracks for London as it is the history and the future which have made London such a great city. The cracks are getting way too big in the regions and this is where this gov't's policies might really hurt and where the Lib Dems may be tempted to cut and run
As for bankers losing us all money - last I heard the bank shares owned by the gov't have turned a profit so I expect they will be sold before the next election to help clear the national debts
I find it sick that me & my partner on 100K+ with a 10% deposit on over 300k value cant find a decent mortgage rate, with the base rate at .5% but these greedy bleeders are still milking the system.
We dont call him very often,,,,
Oh shut up!
99.9% of you lot know nothing about banking or bankers. Obscene bonuses, funded by the public blah blah.....
To make money in banking takes a lot of hard work and commitment.
We're just the Estate Agents of the 21C.
Hence the rhyming slang ;-)
Estate Agent/Pagent? Doesn't really work does it?
The bankers in question are merchant/investment bankers not retail bankers, I doubt that some appreciate the difference between the two though. Those, like your father who work in the retail side are generally well aware of the reality on the street, the investment bankers are the ones who nearly drove this country to ruin, demanding less regulation (or they'll take their ball away and go and live in tax exile) but as soon as their risky punts failed demanded that the government underwrite their losses (aka socilaism for the rich, capitalism for the poor). Now things are returning to stability they are back demanding high bonuses and tax exemption or they'll naff off to Geneva. I think easyjet fly there - how about a whip round and we can concentrate on manufacturing things again and having an economy that isn't schizophrenic? As a bonus house prices in the SE might return to sanity.
It's nowt to do with me - I don't see a penny. Am fucked if I'm gonna be paying anything back on my tax return for money I have never received nor am entitled to receive just because we share the same bit of carpet!
I dread to think what will happen if base rates go up, although you would think it had little effect judging by the disparity.
We won't be able to compete in manufacturing with the far East and India for a very very long time, due to labour prices, so don't hold your breath there.
Surely they are your kids, you both decided that your wife should stay home and you would be the sole earner and therefore it is entirely to do with you.
Sorry if I am failing to see your gripe here?
The idea was that we would let countries like Japan and China do the manufacturing and we'd do more of the "high end" stuff with our highly educated workforce. Then successive governments make it progressively more expensive to go to university and obtain the education needed to do those high end jobs.
The other problem being that, in my profession, IT, which you would think would be the kind of work we should be retaining, there are armies of highly educated Indians willing to do the work for about 56p an hour. Of course, in their country that's better wages than their GP can get. Major international companies like Ford (who I worked for for a while) and BT avail themselves freely of this source of cheap labour. In fact my boss at Ford had targets for moving business to the Indian office, so progressively less was being done in the UK.
Why am I not surprised by that.
Let me try to be clearer. Why is it that i will be "taxed" on money that is not mine and that I have never seen nor am entitled to?
Child benefit is not the deciding factor in my missus not working, but because we have decided that it is better for our children's upbringing if she is at home - and we make plenty of other sacrifices because of that because she is not out earning - I am getting kicked in the bollocks, whereas my neighbours on £40k each are not.
Interest rates will rise, eventually they'll have to just to balance inflation, but while unemployment stays relatively high the BoE can afford to keep interest rates low. Regarding CB - those who have a high mortgage and are just above the threshold are going to get a double whammy - around £1500 a year will get cut from their income and they will find themselves paying out more on their mortgage payments.
Wasn't it nice of David Cameron to parade his new sprog in front of the cameras yesterday? Along with his announcement that he won't qualify for CB under the new rules. Must be terrible being down to your last £30 million.
So enlighten me....
Or is having a moan and then shutting down the extent of your ability to debate an issue?
HT - I went off half cocked and clicked post before I'd finished. Have now edited my post. No need for the narky comment.
...........
I'm sure there's a technical answer out there somewhere, but personally I think it was a badly thought through idea and no one stopped to think about the practicalities of how it will work in reality. At any rate at this stage it's just an idea and needs to go through the legislative stages before it kicks in and I suspect that some kind of tax-break will thought up.
OK chill, obviously the reason for my comment was based purely on your post being one bitchy line long.
I think it is a stretch to say you are being 'taxed' on it. You (as a family) are not receiving money you were previously entitled to. But probably semantics.
When I received child benefit (so excuse me if its changed in the last ten years) you chose which partner would receive it. So yes in reality your wife gets this money not you, but again only because that is the way you have chosen to receive it.
No-one is suggesting that having children requires no sacrifice and in this situation it comes down to sacrificing income or sacrificing a child's time with a parent. But once again you chose to have children and chose that these was problems you wanted to face.
You have changed your issue though, in your original statement your issue appeared to be that it was nothing to do with you as your wife got the money, a gripe I didn't and still don't agree with.
You then go on to say that your issue is actually that your 40k earning neighbours still get it which is why you take issue with it, this is entirely different and something that has been debated.
Thanks BFR - glad it's not just me.
I get the fact that I pay tax on my income, but my missus has none (other than CB) and is therefore nowhere near the personal tax allowance, but that clearly doesn't seem to matter.
For people with two kids this is effectively like a £3k pa pay cut - and on top of the fact that I've had fcuk all of a pay rise in three years and the cost of everything else is going up (especially with the VAT rise), you could say I'm a bit miffed.
I mean, have you seen the price of strong continental lager these days? Shocking.
Eh, you what - the BNP?
On second thoughts, don't bother. I doubt it would be worth it.
I think most people think benefits should only be given to those in need, however as this was already in place many of us have factored it into the affordability, and coupled with no doubt other tax rises which in effect this is, just how much of a hit are we going to take.
For example if you also include a plan to get rid of the tax relief on child care, that could leave households like mine nearly 4k less well off per year, not even taking into account other tax rises like VAT. So hardworking families are really going to get a big kick in the nuts from all this.
Personally I think this should apply to future parents, and the cut off at two kids also, seem like far better ideas to me. Certainly if they do a tax break for married couples it should only be while their kids are at the age of needing full time childcare
One of those polls was in the Sun, call me sceptical but anything and everything in a Murdoch owned rag always needs careful checking.
The point is though that in cases where one parent earns over the threshold CB won't get paid, this includes examples like Off_it's where his wife doesn't work. Yet another family could have two earners taking home say £40k each and they qualify for CB.
I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that those who this is a bad idea want the BNP to run the nation. Quite simply this is a badly thought through idea and is unfair. It penalises some like Off_it who want to give their children a good start and as a higher-rate taxpayer he's entitled to get something back for all the tax he pays. To suffer from this clawback is therefore doubly unfair.
The root of all this is that for ideological reasons the Tory party want to abolish the concept of universal benefit entitlements. In this case you might say fine, it probably doesn't hit you - but the next few cuts in the welafre state might.
main problem is you need three subs, 1 at sea, 1 in repair refit and one in dock
But they are very hung up on the benefits bill and want to announce results. It's great that their rhetoric is keeping the IMF and markets stable but pretty silly given the need to improve this "big society" and encourage parents and all to help bring up new generation with better values.
Seriously_Red junior (aged 12) just starting to ask Marx type questions like why can't wealth be distributed according to need?!