# Child Benefit to be scrapped if you earn more than £44k



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension. 

I'm sure some people will ask why do I get it but to be honest it's more of a placebo for me. I pay shit loads of tax and now apart from my kids school (which it now looks I'll need to send him private) get nothing for it.

I never use to mind paying tax because I thought it was fair, now I've come to conclusion I'm basically being routinely fucked over by successive Governments.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

Is it 44k household income, or just one individual?

44k is a fair whack though.  Many families with two parents working don't make that much.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 4, 2010)

whilst disagreeing with the cut I also feel strangely unmoved by your plight


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

Me too.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.
> 
> ...



You get a lot more than schools for your taxes; have a good look around you over the next few days and think about where taxes are spent. 

You don't need to send your kids to private school; of course you could choose to try and buy your kids some possible advantage.

Universal child benefit should be defended because means testing it makes it vunerable (besides the fact that such benefits are cheap to administer); especially in a climate where benefits are under general attck.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Fucking twattish cunting bastards. 

Anyone who supports this: watch the income limit go down and down and down and richer people complaining that poor people shouldn't get child benefit. 

Is it a done deal, though? There doesn't have to be a vote on it or anything?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.
> 
> ...



Times are hard and we are all having to shoulder some of the burden. You get more than just schooling for the kids in return of taxation.


----------



## magneze (Oct 4, 2010)

You get nothing for your taxes apart from a school. Wow, no police, fire service, ambulance, roads, binmen etc. Where do you live?


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2010)

it's difficult to know which way to jump with this one.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

id favour scrapping it for excessive numbers of children.  Why should someone who has 6 kids get it for each kid.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Obviously he gets more than just schooling for his kid, and he's well-off earning 44k, but surely it's OK to react in an annoyed way to a stupid policy which takes money from you? 

And he probably won't move from there to 'I don't get it so, why should poor people?' but lots of others will.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

smokedout said:


> whilst disagreeing with the cut I also feel strangely unmoved by your plight



I understand that which makes it an easy cut, because it's easy to point out people have a lower income. My point is that I've never had a year where my taxes haven't gone up. My wages don't go up every year but the amount of money the Government pisses down the drain does. This was the only tangible benefit I have ever got from the Government and it cheeses me off that they are removing this because it feels like it's all take and no give.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> And he probably won't move from there to 'I don't get it so, why should poor people?' but lots of others will.



Exactly, I'm not going to bash anyone who is having a hard time financially because I've been there and it looks like I'll be heading back there at this rate.


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off


 
While I don't support the cuts, I do dream of a time when our household income is £44k a year, it sounds pretty well off to me!


----------



## smokedout (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> I understand that which makes it an easy cut, because it's easy to point out people have a lower income. My point is that I've never had a year where my taxes haven't gone up. My wages don't go up every year but the amount of money the Government pisses down the drain does. This was the only tangible benefit I have ever got from the Government and it cheeses me off that they are removing this because it feels like it's all take and no give.


 
still feeling strangely unmoved


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2010)

It will mean that it's worth some people cutting their hours so that they don't earn above the threshold because they will be worst off. Also being in receipt of CB means you get NI - so for many women that means no pension. Brilliant.


----------



## Thora (Oct 4, 2010)

killer b said:


> it's difficult to know which way to jump with this one.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> I understand that which makes it an easy cut, because it's easy to point out people have a lower income. My point is that I've never had a year where my taxes haven't gone up. My wages don't go up every year but the amount of money the Government pisses down the drain does. *This was the only tangible benefit I have ever got from the Government* and it cheeses me off that they are removing this because it feels like it's all take and no give.



Please give this a bit more thought.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> I understand that which makes it an easy cut, because it's easy to point out people have a lower income. My point is that I've never had a year where my taxes haven't gone up. My wages don't go up every year but the amount of money the Government pisses down the drain does. This was the only tangible benefit I have ever got from the Government and it cheeses me off that they are removing this because it feels like it's all take and no give.



I tend to agree with you.  I think £44k is too low a level at which to cut it I have to say.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Please give this a bit more thought.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## machine cat (Oct 4, 2010)

lol. you earn 44 grand a year and you're complaining about £20 a week?


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> id favour scrapping it for excessive numbers of children.  Why should someone who has 6 kids get it for each kid.


 
because 6 kids = buying 6x as much food, and additional amounts of clothes (although some can be passed down) toys, travels costs etc etc etc. don't be daft


----------



## kebabking (Oct 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> It will mean that it's worth some people cutting their hours so that they don't earn above the threshold because they will be worst off. Also being in receipt of CB means you get NI - so for many women that means no pension. Brilliant.



sorry, thats pants - anyone earning in the region of £44kpa is going to lose far more than £80pcm by cutting their hours. if they do that just to get CHB then they are so galacticly stupid that the local SS needs to look at whether they should be incharge of a bag of chips let alone a child.

HRP is potentially an issue - however anyone earning £44kpa will also be paying far more NIC than the HRP provides credit for. so their pension will not be affected.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> because 6 kids = buying 6x as much food, and additional amounts of clothes (although some can be passed down) toys, travels costs etc etc etc. don't be daft



We're entering, 

"What the Hell!"

"Shut Up!

"Be a Man!"  

"Look at You!" 

Kyle territory.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Obviously he gets more than just schooling for his kid, and he's well-off earning 44k, but surely it's OK to react in an annoyed way to a stupid policy which takes money from you?
> 
> And he probably won't move from there to 'I don't get it so, why should poor people?' but lots of others will.


 

Wait till the Daily Mail starts it's hate campaign against single mums who work fulltime _and receive £20 a week state money_! I'm giving it a few years.

How much will this cost to implement atm child benefit is universal and they sort it out pdq. Are they going to have to employ more people to do the means testing or are they just going to let people go without whilst they do their penny pinching.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 4, 2010)

This does strike me as a strange policy for a Tory government to implement. It will hit a lot of their own core supporters. I guess that they are giving themselves a mechanism for reducing Child Benefit for people on progressively lower salaries over the years until they abolish it altogether.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Please give this a bit more thought.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I've given it more thought. This is the only tax benefit I receive. 

I don't mind paying taxes for general service provision, but, this is the only area where the tax system specifically benefits me but giving me something back that isn't generic. I take that money and put it in an account towards whatever my kids want to do when they are 17/18 - hopefully University education.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> because 6 kids = buying 6x as much food, and additional amounts of clothes (although some can be passed down) toys, travels costs etc etc etc. don't be daft



S/he's not being daft - just deliberately provocative


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> id favour scrapping it for excessive numbers of children.  Why should someone who has 6 kids get it for each kid.


 
'Excessive' means you think some people should not exist just because they have older siblings. Urgh.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> lol. you earn 44 grand a year and you're complaining about £20 a week?


 
Yep, it's more the principal than the money.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> 'Excessive' means you think some people should not exist just because they have older siblings. Urgh.



Chavs.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

The thing about child benefit for high earners: no-one in their right mind would introduce it. It's just politically tough to take it away. £44k seems like quite a sensible threshhold.

Now for the wrinklies, Osborne: snatch the bus passes from their greedy, palsied hands! Apply capital gains tax on real-terms profit made from house sales! Means-test their winter fuel and charge them double whack for TV licenses!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

Don't forget the domestic help in the room above the garage.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

Hang on, I'm being redistributive here. Universal benefits steal from the mouths of the poor to subsidise the rich. We can give the loot to downtrodden cleaners.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Hang on, I'm being redistributive here. Universal benefits steal from the mouths of the poor to subsidise the rich. We can give the loot to downtrodden cleaners.


 
It will be eaten up by admin costs I bet.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

I can't really think of a very good argument why people who have the means to support their children should receive additional help from the government when there are people with far less means to support themselves paying taxes.


----------



## LDR (Oct 4, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Is it 44k household income, or just one individual?
> 
> 44k is a fair whack though.  Many families with two parents working don't make that much.


I've just heard on the news, it's if one individual earns more than £44 k then you lose you it.  Does that mean two people on 43K each would still get it?

We lose it, but £20 a week is a round at the pub in London so I can't complain.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 4, 2010)

It seems like a nice easy way to means test the benefit to me, without generating admin costs and making the application process hard.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 4, 2010)

LDR said:


> I've just heard on the news, it's if one individual earns more than £44 k then you lose you it.  Does that mean two people on 43K each would still get it?



Yes, so they don't need to work out your family income.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 4, 2010)

the problem this policy - though i agree with the principle - is going to have is that it allows for fundamental unfairness.

at the moment the policy say that only if the person claiming CHB earns more than £44kpa will the entitlement be removed, however it doesn't take joint incomes - the way most people work out how much money they have - into account.

so, a couple who individually earn £150K and £43k pa (£193K joint income per year) can still get get CHB, but a couple who both earn £45K pa (£90k per year joint income) can't claim it. if the idea is that people on decent incomes shouldn't get cash benefits , and that the middle class take a hit to protect those on lower incomes, then this is a policy fail.

it seems Osbourne did it this way to make it administratively cheaper to sort out - but it would be much fairer to abolish CHB entirely and put the cash into the existing Tax Credit system and end the eligability of any family with a joint income of over £50k. you'd save much more money, it'd cost no more than re-writing a few lines of code in the TC system to allocate the former CHB, and you'd not have the unfairness of basing it on single incomes.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2010)

kebabking said:


> sorry, thats pants - anyone earning in the region of £44kpa is going to lose far more than £80pcm by cutting their hours. if they do that just to get CHB then they are so galacticly stupid that the local SS needs to look at whether they should be incharge of a bag of chips let alone a child.
> 
> HRP is potentially an issue - however anyone earning £44kpa will also be paying far more NIC than the HRP provides credit for. so their pension will not be affected.
> 
> fail.



CB goes up if you have more than one child. If someone with 3 kids can cut their pay by £500-£100 a year gross vs losing £200/month net then it would make sense to work fewer hours. Perhaps someone should take away your chips 

ETA - and your last post is also wrong. Osborne is planning on taking away the benefit from any household where there is a higher rate tax payer.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Oct 4, 2010)

Aww poor dab.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I can't really think of a very good argument why people who have the means to support their children should receive additional help from the government when there are people with far less means to support themselves paying taxes.


 
Because by giving it to everybody you guarantee that all those who need it get it. 

Because by giving it to everybody you make it cheap to administer. 

Because by giving it to everybody you protect it by creating a universal interest in it. 

Because by giving it to everybody you send out a message that all children should be equally valued.

The fact that you 'can't really think of a very good argument' in favour of universal benefits says far more about your ability to think than it does about the positives of such benefits.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> CB goes up if you have more than one child. If someone with 3 kids can cut their pay by £500-£100 a year gross vs losing £200/month net then it would make sense to work fewer hours. Perhaps someone should take away your chips
> 
> ETA - and your last post is also wrong. Osborne is planning on taking away the benefit from any household where there is a higher rate tax payer.


 
Yep, if you have 2 kids you get about £143 a month, if you have 3 you would get just under 200 a month - it would make sense if you were right on the threshold say earning 44,500 pa to drop to 39,900 pa in order to keep receiving 140-200 a month (an additional 1680 -2400 pa).

Also, are the seriously suggesting that they are basing this on one persons income (i'm assuming the primary carer who gets the CB) than on joint household income?  And I'm also assuming that when they go 'oh this woman is earning £44,500 pa no more child benefit for you' they aren't taking the fact that she may have 3 or 4 kids all of whom she pays for some form of childcare for so she can go out and work, the fact that she may be halving her actual income on childcare won't be taken into account either?

There are loads of reasons to oppose this cut - unfortunately feeling like the government doesn't give you anything else isn't one of them.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> It seems like a nice easy way to means test the benefit to me, without generating admin costs and making the application process hard.


 
Eh? It is a means-tested benefit. It's inevitable that some people who are entitled to it won't get it due to admin fuck-ups - that happens with every means-tested benefit. 



moon23 said:


> I can't really think of a very good argument why people who have the means to support their children should receive additional help from the government when there are people with far less means to support themselves paying taxes.


 
It's a small enough payment that admin costs for means-testing make a real difference to how worthwhile means-testing is.

It's money that allows stay-at-home parents with working partners to have some of their 'own' income, which can be important in some destructive relationships.

If someone loses their job or goes to a lower wage, they don't have to reapply for the benefit. 

As a universal benefit, it's not usually the target of attacks on single parents and 'dole scroungers.' Make it for poor and middle-income people only and it's vulnerable. 


There are several more, but I'll let other people outline them. 

I also predict that, when this change is introduced, it will be counted as taxable income, affecting benefits, tax credits and tax payments.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Because by giving it to everybody you guarantee that all those who need it get it.
> 
> Because by giving it to everybody you make it cheap to administer.
> 
> Because by giving it to everybody you protect it by creating a universal interest in it.



You could say the same about the dole. Unless you're a swivel-eyed advocate of the citizen wage, you can't really use those arguments.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

kebabking said:


> the problem this policy - though i agree with the principle - is going to have is that it allows for fundamental unfairness.
> 
> at the moment the policy say that only if the person claiming CHB earns more than £44kpa will the entitlement be removed, however it doesn't take joint incomes - the way most people work out how much money they have - into account.
> 
> ...


 


Maurice Picarda said:


> You could say the same about the dole. Unless you're a swivel-eyed advocate of the citizen wage, you can't really use those arguments.


 
Not at all - child benefit is for the child, not the adult, and it's a smaller payment than the dole, meaning that admin costs impact more.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You could say the same about the dole. Unless you're a swivel-eyed advocate of the citizen wage, you can't really use those arguments.


 
I really can and I really have. 

Now instead of resorting to name calling why not try to argue your corner.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

Are you such an advocate?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Are you such an advocate?


 
No.

Now try arguing your corner.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## kebabking (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Not at all - child benefit is for the child, not the adult....



the problem is that the child has no control over it - it get paid to the claimant, only the claimant can access it, and 4 year olds don't get to go into town on their own.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> 'Excessive' means you think some people should not exist just because they have older siblings. Urgh.


 
what's older siblings got to do with it. I'm talking about people who have tons of kids and get benefit for them.  If you're on a lowish income show some restraint and dont have ridiculous numbers of kids.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 4, 2010)

1/10.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

kebabking said:


> the problem is that the child has no control over it - it get paid to the claimant, only the claimant can access it, and 4 year olds don't get to go into town on their own.


 
er, you know if you have a kid you have to feed, and clothe and take them with you places, live in a house, make sure they have a bed.  those things cost money.  if you have wages + tax credit + child benefit coming into your account each month, some of that money will be spent on those things.  not making sure you do those things for your kid is called child neglect - its a criminal offence.  i can tell you now for certain that only the most thrifty person could pay for all the things that a kid needs to be happy, safe, healthy and cared for within, or for less than what families get in tax credit and child benefit.  i can't see how its possible to be receiving those benefits and them not to go towards your child, unless you are neglecting your child...


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> er, you know if you have a kid you have to feed, and clothe and take them with you places, live in a house, make sure they have a bed.  those things cost money.  if you have wages + tax credit + child benefit coming into your account each month, some of that money will be spent on those things.  not making sure you do those things for your kid is called child neglect - its a criminal offence.  i can tell you now for certain that only the most thrifty person could pay for all the things that a kid needs to be happy, safe, healthy and cared for within, or for less than what families get in tax credit and child benefit.  i can't see how its possible to be receiving those benefits and them not to go towards your child, unless you are neglecting your child...


 
don't be silly, everyone knows us feckless poor feed our kids supernoodles so we can spend the child benefit on fags and white cider.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> what's older siblings got to do with it. I'm talking about people who have tons of kids and get benefit for them.  If you're on a lowish income show some restraint and dont have ridiculous numbers of kids.


 
What's a 'ridiculous' number of kids. You used the word "excessive" in describing human beings, which says it all. I don't think your beef is about benefit at all, just disgust at big families for some reason.

Why do you have a right to tell people how many children to have?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

trashy makes a good point about NI contributions, from that BBC link it appears that it will be scrapped for families where *one person* is earning more than £44K, meaning the one who's staying at home with the kids won't be contributing to their pension for that period.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> don't be silly, everyone knows us feckless poor feed our kids supernoodles so we can spend the child benefit on fags and white cider.



I actually went and bought some the other day with the specific intention of teaching my daughter how to make them.  It's all very well teaching her to bake and do bolognese and stuff, but she needs to know how to boil an egg and make noodles and so on too. 



weepiper said:


> trashy makes a good point about NI contributions, from that BBC link it appears that it will be scrapped for families where *one person* is earning more than £44K, meaning the one who's staying at home with the kids won't be contributing to their pension for that period.


 
That is probably the best argument of all. 

A household income of £44k isn't that much anyway - it's the same as two parents earning £22k. (For the pedants: I know they won't be liable; it's a comparison).


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> What's a 'ridiculous' number of kids. You used the word "excessive" in describing human beings, which says it all. I don't think your beef is about benefit at all, just disgust at big families for some reason.
> 
> Why do you have a right to tell people how many children to have?


 
I have no right but I don't think people who have a certain number of kids (Im talking 5+) should expect hand outs.  If you have that many support the ones above a certain number yourself.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> What's a 'ridiculous' number of kids. You used the word "excessive" in describing human beings, which says it all. I don't think your beef is about benefit at all, just disgust at big families for some reason.
> 
> Why do you have a right to tell people how many children to have?



Besides which, as has been pointed out, CB is for the kids, why penalise a 4th or 5th child for being born ?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Fucking twattish cunting bastards.
> 
> Anyone who supports this: watch the income limit go down and down and down and richer people complaining that poor people shouldn't get child benefit.
> 
> Is it a done deal, though? There doesn't have to be a vote on it or anything?


 
Well said.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Times are hard and we are all having to shoulder some of the burden. You get more than just schooling for the kids in return of taxation.


 
Yet another subject on which you are woefully ill imformed. Is there no end to your stupidity and economic ignorance?!

You do know that means tested benefits are more costly to administer don't you? Surely you know that.....?!?! So it's not even economically defensible. It is, as has been and no doubt will be pointed out, a direct attack on the universal welfare system, under the guise, ie outright lie, of cutting the deficit.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

It will also mean that the parent staying at home with the kids (which let's face it is overwhelmingly more likely to be the woman) will be COMPLETELY financially dependent on the earner. That's a horrible place to be even if the one earning isn't controlling and a bully. It's an attack on women's independence, this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Yet another subject on which you are woefully ill imformed. Is there no end to your stupidity and economic ignorance?!


 
Do you really want to know the answer to that mate?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> It will also mean that the parent staying at home with the kids (which let's face it is overwhelmingly more likely to be the woman) will be COMPLETELY financially dependent on the earner. That's a horrible place to be even if the one earning isn't controlling and a bully. It's an attack on women's independence, this.


 
I was just thinking that, after seeing one of Scifisam's earlier posts on this thread. Surely this is a serious issue for many women?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> It will also mean that the parent staying at home with the kids (which let's face it is overwhelmingly more likely to be the woman) will be COMPLETELY financially dependent on the earner. That's a horrible place to be even if the one earning isn't controlling and a bully. It's an attack on women's independence, this.


 
this too, hadnt thought about it like that. 

Thin end of the wedge, this.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Oct 4, 2010)

Seems a bit fucked up.

Family with one parent working earning £45 K will no longer getting the benefit.
Family with two parents working earning £40 k each will still get the benefit.

Neither me or my partner earn enough to lose the benefit but if you take our combined income we'd no longer be eligible.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Because by giving it to everybody you guarantee that all those who need it get it.
> 
> Because by giving it to everybody you make it cheap to administer.
> 
> ...



Exactly this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

kebabking said:


> the problem is that the child has no control over it - it get paid to the claimant, only the claimant can access it, and 4 year olds don't get to go into town on their own.


 
The money is for the child. The parent gets it and is given the trust and responsibility to spend it for the child. Do we really think so little of our fellow citizens that we won't trust them with this?


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2010)

*Thread title changed to read £44k and not $44k.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have no right but I don't think people who have a certain number of kids (Im talking 5+) should expect hand outs.  If you have that many support the ones above a certain number yourself.


 
What should the kids expect?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The thing about child benefit for high earners: no-one in their right mind would introduce it. It's just politically tough to take it away. £44k seems like quite a sensible threshhold.



I don't agree. It is society's acknowledgement, quite a small one really, of the value of children to all of us. Most places have one – in France they do it by giving all the children a personal tax allowance to be used by the parents. 

If you think the rich aren't paying their fair share, increase the top rate of income tax.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

Remember the tories promised not to do this before the election, the lib-dems always intended to, that means _this is one of their victories._ This is victory for cable, clegg and huhne. And how fitting that a tory announces at the tory conference as part of his set-piece.

The way they are dealing with opposition to this is to point to the income of those who have it cut, the response should be to point to those who are on under that and rely on CB. They're the real longer term targets here. That's the people being defended by opposing this - don't let them make it about the first lot. It's not.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

exactly butchers.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What should the kids expect?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
...for their parents to bring them up and feed them.  Child benefit was always going to go and it will go eventually completely.  Having children means taking responsibility.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ...for their parents to bring them up and feed them.  Child benefit was always going to go and it will go eventually completely.  Having children means taking responsibility.


 
Its 20 pound a week you miserable bastard.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree. It is society's acknowledgement, quite a small one really, of the value of children to all of us. Most places have one – in France they do it by giving all the children a personal tax allowance to be used by the parents.
> 
> If you think the rich aren't paying their fair share, increase the top rate of income tax.



through a tax allowance is a much better way of doing it.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Its 20 pound a week you miserable bastard.


 
not when you've got 8 kids it isnt


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

erm, logic fail!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ...for their parents to bring them up and feed them.  Child benefit was always going to go and it will go eventually completely.  Having children means taking responsibility.


 
And it's the child's fault if the parents are unable to do this? Bloody kids putting people out of work, depressing wage rates, undermining whole economies by speculative lending.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 4, 2010)

The best thing about child allowance is it goes directly to the mother i have known blokes who piss away their wages.There is no quarantee that the tax allowance will go to where it is intended


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

How long does it take before people can recognise a wedge strategy in action. Jesus Christ.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

More kids are going to cost more so it all averages out in the end. Even if someone does have 8 kids its 160/week and they've got 8 KIDS ffs. You're complaining about these paltry amounts and yet four favoured ideology would have everyone paying more for everything anyway and bailing out the banks.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> More kids are going to cost more so it all averages out in the end. Even if someone does have 8 kids its 160/week and they've got 8 KIDS ffs. You're complaining about these paltry amounts and yet four favoured ideology would have everyone paying more for everything anyway and bailing out the banks.


 
more like £140 a week. It's only £20 for the eldest.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

oh, ok, sickening isnt it? x


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> More kids are going to cost more so it all averages out in the end. Even if someone does have 8 kids its 160/week and they've got 8 KIDS ffs. You're complaining about these paltry amounts and yet four favoured ideology would have everyone paying more for everything anyway and bailing out the banks.



of course more kids costs more - so don't have that many if you can't afford to feed them.  I'm not advocating taking it away (not yet anyway) but 4 is enough for everyone isn't it?


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> of course more kids costs more - so don't have that many if you can't afford to feed them.  I'm not advocating taking it away (not yet anyway) but 4 is enough for everyone isn't it?



So you want to penalise the kids ?


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Oct 4, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> The best thing about child allowance is it goes directly to the mother i have known blokes who piss away their wages.There is no quarantee that the tax allowance will go to where it is intended



Err... not always?? Ours is paid to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> of course more kids costs more - so don't have that many if you can't afford to feed them.  I'm not advocating taking it away (not yet anyway) but 4 is enough for everyone isn't it?


 
The UK is below replacement rate – about 1.8 children per woman where replacement rate is about 2.1 – so we should be pleased when some women choose to have lots of kids. It makes up for all those single-child families.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Non means tested CB is cheaper to implement  Jesus how much taxpayers money is gona be wasted on this?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> id favour scrapping it for excessive numbers of children.  Why should someone who has 6 kids get it for each kid.


 
Absolutely. I would not consider ny more than 2 kids for any benefit ar tax credits. If you want kids make sure you can afford them first.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

Chester Copperpot said:


> Err... not always?? Ours is paid to me.


 
it is usually paid to whoever is staying at home with the child.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Maidmarian said:


> So you want to penalise the kids ?


 
That's a pointless riposte.  I fully understand that argument but that does not change the issue of responsibility.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK is below replacement rate – about 1.8 children per woman where replacement rate is about 2.1 – so we should be pleased when some women choose to have lots of kids. It makes up for all those single-child families.


 
Exactly!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

1927 said:


> Absolutely. I would not consider ny more than 2 kids for any benefit ar tax credits. If you want kids make sure you can afford them first.


 
Fuck the fuck off. So you'd penalise children for their parents' perceived irresponsibility?

You do know that if nobody had more than 2 kids, we'd be fucked demographically, don't you?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Chester Copperpot said:


> Err... not always?? Ours is paid to me.


 
Because somewhere along the line you elected to do this. I remember years ago choosing which parent gets it and into which bank account


----------



## Cloo (Oct 4, 2010)

I think maybe everyone ought to have it up until school age - while paying for childcare, it is genuinely useful to us to help pay essential costs. But once childcare costs are less of an issue, it's daft for households like ours to be receiving it.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck the fuck off. So you'd penalise children for their parents' perceived irresponsibility?



How about those taxpayers who agree with it pay for the extras and those who don't can opt out.  Like a charity donation for some people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> How about those taxpayers who agree with it pay for the extras and those who don't can opt out.  Like a charity donation for some people.


 
No. You've got to pay it too, you tight cunt.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That's a pointless riposte.  I fully understand that argument but that does not change the issue of responsibility.



But it's the children who will suffer, & no amout of moral outrage at the "feckless" parents will change that.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> The best thing about child allowance is it goes directly to the mother i have known blokes who piss away their wages.There is no quarantee that the tax allowance will go to where it is intended



Well that's obviously the mother's fault for shacking up with a feckless man. Choosing a partner is about responsibility you know!


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't understand the argument from the right-wingers here. People are perfectly entitled to have five children if they want to. Child benefit is a tiny fraction of the amount needed to raise a child, and far too little to be an enticement to have loads of children. Not so long ago large families were the nom, and they still are plenty of other places.

Is the argument being trotted out really 'the feckless poor, breading like rabbits, unable to support their children'? Have we reached that point already?


----------



## killer b (Oct 4, 2010)

She should steal from his wallet when she needs to get new nylons. Why should the taxpayer subsidise the underwear of the rich?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 4, 2010)

1927 said:


> Absolutely. I would not consider ny more than 2 kids for any benefit ar tax credits. If you want kids make sure you can afford them first.



I thpought that the West was in crisis because it needed MORE kids (future tax-payers) rather than less. But why let the economic reality - as spelled out clearly by even right-wing economists - get in the way of your prejudice?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Cloo said:


> I think maybe everyone ought to have it up until school age - while paying for childcare, it is genuinely useful to us to help pay essential costs. But once childcare costs are less of an issue, it's daft for households like ours to be receiving it.


 
No it isn't. You never know when your financial circumstances might change.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

I think also people are missing the issue here that someone on 44k might not be on that permanently or from one year to the next. They might have other costs to deal with (more able to deal with them than people on less income, but even so). It's dangerous to have one cut off point of income where someone becomes part of "the middle classes" and therefore not eligible for any benefit, for reasons that have been very well covered on this thread.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think also people are missing the issue here that someone on 44k might not be on that permanently or from one year to the next. They might have other costs to deal with (more able to deal with them than people on less income, but even so). It's dangerous to have one cut off point of income where someone becomes part of "the middle classes" and therefore not eligible for any benefit, for reasons that have been very well covered on this thread.


 
I suspect that the Government will have to be more arithmetic in the way this is applied.  Just having a cut off at £44 is a bit daft.  Plenty of those who are self-employed will get their income below this to keep getting it.  Plus £44k is not a huge salary and does not make you super rich by any stretch of the imagination.  It would obviously be better with phased cut-off points with a reducing benefit but that is going to cost more to administer.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

1927 said:


> Absolutely. I would not consider ny more than 2 kids for any benefit ar tax credits. If you want kids make sure you can afford them first.


 
You are in your 'own little world' aren't you; shame it doesn't include a spell checker.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I suspect that the Government will have to be more arithmetic in the way this is applied.  Just having a cut off at £44 is a bit daft.  Plenty of those who are self-employed will get their income below this to keep getting it. * Plus £44k is not a huge salary and does not make you super rich by any stretch of the imagination. *


 
Exactly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That's a pointless riposte.  I fully understand that argument but that does not change the issue of responsibility.


 
It's a well made riposte which you have failed to tackle. Can't you concieve of a social responsibility to the children? Or is the stick of responsibility limited to poor individuals and families?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

It's basically a mistake to think too hard about the specifics of this particular change. The basic fact is that the ConDems are going to use the excuse of 'austerity' to dismantle the welfare state and the last vestiges of the post-war social consensus - it's what they've always wanted to do and now they have an opportunity to actually do it. Obviously to do that they need to go after universal benefits, and since they aren't idiots the thin end of their wedge is going to be thin enough to be defensible; people on 44k are fairly well off by most people's standards and not likely to elicit much sympathy from the majority of the working class. 

The main point though is that they are not ever going to say 'there will be no welfare state as of tomorrow', they will just cut and cut and cut until there isn't anything worth defending any more. So sooner or later you have to draw a line in the sand and if you can't draw it at a small, beneficial, universal benefit like this then the prospects don't look good for defending the welfare state at all.


----------



## ethel (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> It will be eaten up by admin costs I bet.



yup and error and fraud.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's a well made riposte which you have failed to tackle. Can't you concieve of a social responsibility to the children? Or is the stick of responsibility limited to poor individuals and families?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
I really believe responsibility lies with parents.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

During the Siege of Madrid it was necessary to defend certain well off areas to stop the fascists taking over the heart of the city and winning the entire war. That defence didn't mean that those areas couldn't be re-organised after victory.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I really believe responsibility lies with parents.


 
Whether you really believe it or not, what does that mean for the children? Personally I'd place the actual welfare of real children before your imagined ideal of parental reponsibility, but then maybe I'm just more of a people person.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.
> 
> ...


 
Just chill and remember you have more money than you'll ever need, unless you rent a big house in knightsbridge?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> It's basically a mistake to think too hard about the specifics of this particular change. The basic fact is that the ConDems are going to use the excuse of 'austerity' to dismantle the welfare state and the last vestiges of the post-war social consensus - it's what they've always wanted to do and now they have an opportunity to actually do it. Obviously to do that they need to go after universal benefits, and since they aren't idiots the thin end of their wedge is going to be thin enough to be defensible; people on 44k are fairly well off by most people's standards and not likely to elicit much sympathy from the majority of the working class.
> 
> The main point though is that they are not ever going to say 'there will be no welfare state as of tomorrow', they will just cut and cut and cut until there isn't anything worth defending any more. So sooner or later you have to draw a line in the sand and if you can't draw it at a small, beneficial, universal benefit like this then the prospects don't look good for defending the welfare state at all.


 
whilst at first it seems reasonable, like you say we must remember they are Tories and next it'll be people on £34,000 a year, then £24,000..


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

and they can only win by the amount of people on £44 grand plus who will now be bitter at poor people who still get the benefit


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the Siege of Madrid it was necessary to defend certain well off areas to stop the fascists taking over the heart of the city and winning the entire war. That defence didn't mean that those areas couldn't be re-organised after victory.


 
I actually love you.

Not taking part in this debate anymore, people defending this fucking stupid cut by the goverment are fucking wankers.  Attacking women, attacking children and attacking the middle classes does not make for a fairer society - whether you like it or not child benefit makes up part of the economy, the fact that you get it when you have a kid goes towards how some families survive and how all families organise their finances.  Take away the universality of the benfit and you're fucking with the economy and people's lives in a stupid way for frankly paltry returns on the administration of the benefit that remains, _at the expense of children who already exist and have bellies that food needs to go into and feet that need little shoes._  I think the phrase 'pick on someone your own size' can be quite succinctly applied to our current government.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> whilst at first it seems reasonable, like you say we must remember they are Tories and next it'll be people on £34,000 a year, then £24,000..


 
Exactly. They're choosing a "middle class" target to make themselves seem like they're taking on "rich people"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I actually love you.
> 
> Not taking part in this debate anymore, people defending this fucking stupid cut by the goverment are fucking wankers.  Attacking women, attacking children and attacking the middle classes does not make for a fairer society - whether you like it or not child benefit makes up part of the economy, the fact that you get it when you have a kid goes towards how some families survive and how all families organise their finances.  Take away the universality of the benfit and you're fucking with the economy and people's lives in a stupid way for frankly paltry returns on the administration of the benefit that remains, _at the expense of children who already exist and have bellies that food needs to go into and feet that need little shoes._  I think the phrase 'pick on someone your own size' can be quite succinctly applied to our current government.


 
that's so well said, excelent post x


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Exactly. They're choosing a "middle class" target to make themselves seem like they're taking on "rich people"


 
expect the same with disablity benefits soon


----------



## ethel (Oct 4, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> expect the same with disablity benefits soon


 

exactly. DLA will be gone.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 4, 2010)

The whole things fucked and I'm glad I won't be in the UK come 2014.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

sarahluv said:


> exactly. DLA will be gone.


 
i imagine their speil will be something like, find someone who's nearly dead but  is claiming high rate mobility and high rate care, and incapacity or ESA, and housing benefit and council tax benefit and say THIS PERSON IS ON £400 a week!!!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> The whole things fucked and I'm glad I won't be in the UK come 2014.


 
I dont blame you mate.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I dont blame you mate.


 
whilst progressive countries are just about out of recession Disco Dave is fully determined to take us back there, and even worse


----------



## where to (Oct 4, 2010)

its definitely ideological then.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> whilst progressive countries are just about out of recession Disco Dave is fully determined to take us back there, and even worse


 
yes but at least we'll all have learnt an important lesson about 'taking responsibility for ourselves'


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> yes but at least we'll all have learnt an important lesson about 'taking responsibility for ourselves'


 
we're all in it together. The millionaire in his tax haven will also have to pay 20% VAT if he buys something in the UK!


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 4, 2010)

Stupid con dems. They got this one the wrong way round. They should pay the rich more to have kids.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have no right but I don't think people who have a certain number of kids (Im talking 5+) should expect hand outs.  If you have that many support the ones above a certain number yourself.


 
"Hand outs" another telling phrase, it's not a "hand out" or a gift, it is paid thru taxation that includes the parents taxation and any tax those children go onto pay.


Now again, why should fifth or sixth children be the ones to pay the price for being born into a big family? Maybe one day they will be helping look after you in your old age by contributing towards YOUR pension?

Is there anything else we should scrap for them, education, free hospital treatment? Why stop at benefits??


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

sarahluv said:


> exactly. DLA will be gone.


 
My friend works as an assistant OT and says all her patients are being refused DLA despite obvious need. Hardly news, but clearly getting rid of DLA claims by stealth, I suppose all these people will be miraculously judged to be fit for work as well too.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Plenty of those who are self-employed will get their income below this to keep getting it.



For an extra £20 a week? When you've got childcare costs of thousands, and all the other expenses that go with bringing up a child? Get real


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Is there anything else we should scrap for them, education, free hospital treatment? Why stop at benefits??


 
wouldn't surprise me if this was gonna be along the line at some point.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

mr steev said:


> For an extra £20 a week? When you've got childcare costs of thousands, and all the other expenses that go with bringing up a child? Get real


 
Not everyone has childcare costs of thousands - very few people have costs anywhere near that after their youngest child is 4. 

Self-employed people have more ways of being creative (legally) with their tax without actually earning less. Some of the wealthiest self-employed people I know pay very little tax due to this.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Whether you really believe it or not, what does that mean for the children? Personally I'd place the actual welfare of real children before your imagined ideal of parental reponsibility, but then maybe I'm just more of a people person.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Quite & I notice the point still hasn't been addressed.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> "Hand outs" another telling phrase, it's not a "hand out" or a gift, it is paid thru taxation that includes the parents taxation and any tax those children go onto pay.
> 
> 
> Now again, why should fifth or sixth children be the ones to pay the price for being born into a big family? Maybe one day they will be helping look after you in your old age by contributing towards YOUR pension?
> ...


 
I think Ive more than contributed to my own pension thank you without needing anyone else to do it.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Maidmarian said:


> Quite & I notice the point still hasn't been addressed.


 
I'm not sure there is a way to address it. I have seen people say 'let the children starve! Darwin would approve!' but it's obvious trolling.

Anyway, children are not and never have been the sole responsibility of their parents - the society they live in cares for them too. Plus, it's not as if £20 a week pays for _everything_ for a kid, so the parents are still responsible.


----------



## bemused (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> wouldn't surprise me if this was gonna be along the line at some point.


 
Universal state pensions are next I bet.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I think Ive more than contributed to my own pension thank you without needing anyone else to do it.


 
If you're receiving a _state _pension you'd be needing people to pay tax into it after you retire. Maybe you don't want to claim it, I dunno.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I'm not sure there is a way to address it. I have seen people say 'let the children starve! Darwin would approve!' but it's obvious trolling.
> 
> Anyway, children are not and never have been the sole responsibility of their parents - the society they live in cares for them too. Plus, it's not as if £20 a week pays for _everything_ for a kid, so the parents are still responsible.



Agreed


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> Universal state pensions are next I bet.


 
they'd love to but I don't think they'll get away with it -- yet (wait till we're old tho  )   Look forward to the day that state pension is described as a 'handout' by the Daily Mail. Total hypocrisy really as there's no difference in principle to state pension as any other universal benefit really.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I think Ive more than contributed to my own pension thank you without needing anyone else to do it.


 
Actually, no: you've contributed towards the pension of current retirees. The money you pay in is like getting a promissory note for future payments, but they're dependant on income and investments in the future. If there aren't people earning, going out to work, paying tax, generating profits and so on, where do you think the money's going to come _from_?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

Cloo said:


> I think maybe everyone ought to have it up until school age - while paying for childcare, it is genuinely useful to us to help pay essential costs. But once childcare costs are less of an issue, it's daft for households like ours to be receiving it.


 
Stop claiming then. No one's forcing you to take it. By the way if you think childcare costs stop at school age you're in for a shock!


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Actually, no: you've contributed towards the pension of current retirees. The money you pay in is like getting a promissory note for future payments, but they're dependant on income and investments in the future. If there aren't people earning, going out to work, paying tax, generating profits and so on, where do you think the money's going to come _from_?


 
err no - that is the physical payment of it - the amount you get is based on the contributions you've made.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> Universal state pensions are next I bet.


 
would take decades to phase out because payments that individuals have already made.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> err no - that is the physical payment of it - the amount you get is based on the contributions you've made.


 
The point being that without current contributors previously earned entitlements are worthless. You will be dependent on others for your state pension; maybe even some of those 5th, 6th and 7th children whose piggy banks you want to raid.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> err no - that is the physical payment of it - the amount you get is based on the contributions you've made.


 
Where do you think the money will come from? What do you think money actually _is_? It's not like storing a load of extra-long-life tins of food for forty years and when you open them they're still as good as when you put them in; the value of money in the future depends on income being generated _in the future_. It's like buying seeds and depending on future generations to grow the crops.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> err no - that is the physical payment of it - the amount you get is based on the contributions you've made.


 
you were promised a certain amount based on your contributions - that money hasn't been put away somewhere for you though, the money you should receive will be paid using the tax and ni contributions of future generations - if there isn't enough to go around then the government will move the goalposts for the payment of pensions too just like they have with child benefit.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2010)

> i imagine their speil will be something like, find someone who's nearly dead but is claiming high rate mobility and high rate care, and incapacity or ESA, and housing benefit and council tax benefit and say THIS PERSON IS ON £400 a week!!!!!




I suspect this in one of the rationales for the introduction of the Single Universal Benefit, the media will be able to identify how much a claiamnt is recieving, demonise them and lobby for cuts, the Local Housing Allowance(replaced housing benefit) introduced by NL was brought in with this dynamic in mind, once under public/media scrutiny coucils would compete to lower the rate, Child benefit will now be scrutisined the same way, and salami sliced, all this happens in the US, the nirvana for all neo-liberals, look there if you want to see the future.

btw, I agree with KS, at least in other countries you know that people will robustly oppose such changes and will show some solidarity, little here in the UK


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> would take decades to phase out because payments that individuals have already made.


 
You really don't get how the state pension works do you. 

The government could means test the pension (as they are suggesting with child benefit) arguing that those that don't need it shouldn't get so that there's more for those who do. Your contributions would secure a general entitlement to the pension, which would then be means tested against your other sources of income. Of course if you did this to the state pension, you would have to keep it a such a level that it didn't provide a disincentive for people to act responsibly and make their own provision (mirroring what's likely to happen with benefits).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## mr steev (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Not everyone has childcare costs of thousands - very few people have costs anywhere near that after their youngest child is 4.
> 
> Self-employed people have more ways of being creative (legally) with their tax without actually earning less. Some of the wealthiest self-employed people I know pay very little tax due to this.


 
ok. I was going by my own circumstances tbf. Not really thinking about wealthy self-employed people, or after school age 
At the end of the day though, I don't think people are really going to limit their earnings just for an extra £20/week


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This does strike me as a strange policy for a Tory government to implement. It will hit a lot of their own core supporters. I guess that they are giving themselves a mechanism for reducing Child Benefit for people on progressively lower salaries over the years until they abolish it altogether.


 
That *would* be in line with changes that were discussed the last time the Tories were in govt.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

mr steev said:


> ok. I was going by my own circumstances tbf. Not really thinking about wealthy self-employed people, or after school age
> At the end of the day though, I don't think people are really going to limit their earnings just for an extra £20/week


 
maybe not, but if they have 2 or 3 or 4 children they might limit their earnings by a few pounds a week in order to gain thousands more each year...

i know people who have done this (for very real, financial, not living in poverty reasons) with their tax credits claims - by earning a few pounds a week more they were suddenly no longer eligible for free prescriptions, dental care, eye tests etc which added up came to £1000s which their few pounds a week more did not make it worth earning...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> 'Excessive' means you think some people should not exist just because they have older siblings. Urgh.


 
You appear to have divined gunneradt's ideology. He's another of the "kill the poor" mob.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

kebabking said:


> the problem this policy - though i agree with the principle - is going to have is that it allows for fundamental unfairness.


It also opens other supposedly-universal benefits to attack.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> 1/10.


 
An improvement on his usual score, then.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

mr steev said:


> ok. I was going by my own circumstances tbf. Not really thinking about wealthy self-employed people, or after school age
> At the end of the day though, I don't think people are really going to limit their earnings just for an extra £20/week


 
But they wouldn't necessarily be limiting their earnings, just the income which counts for tax purposes. Plus, if you had two kids, child benefit'd be £1,752.40 per year tax-free. Well worth working a couple of hours fewer, spending them with your kids or doing something else fun, in order to keep that. 



radio_atomica said:


> maybe not, but if they have 2 or 3 or 4 children they might limit their earnings by a few pounds a week in order to gain thousands more each year...
> 
> i know people who have done this (for very real, financial, not living in poverty reasons) with their tax credits claims - by earning a few pounds a week more they were suddenly no longer eligible for free prescriptions, dental care, eye tests etc which added up came to £1000s which their few pounds a week more did not make it worth earning...



Actually, I do wonder, when I see these calculations, how they're worked out - you'd have to have phenomenally terrible teeth every single year for it to be worth thousands, since sight tests are often free for everyone anyway (and there are payment help schemes for working people with really bad sight - although they might well be abolished, of course), prescriptions  cost max. £100pa and kids get everything free.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> you were promised a certain amount based on your contributions - that money hasn't been put away somewhere for you though, the money you should receive will be paid using the tax and ni contributions of future generations - if there isn't enough to go around then the government will move the goalposts for the payment of pensions too just like they have with child benefit.


 
I fully understand how it works thank you.  My point is there could not be a change based on payments that have been made - you could do it for future generations.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I fully understand how it works thank you.  My point is there could not be a change based on payments that have been made - you could do it for future generations.


 
='I'm alright, Jack, and fuck the rest of you'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK is below replacement rate – about 1.8 children per woman where replacement rate is about 2.1 – so we should be pleased when some women choose to have lots of kids. It makes up for all those single-child families.


 
Wrong sort of kids for the likes of Galton gunneradt, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

Some interesting thoughts here from Tax Research. We all (well most of us) spotted this was a classic wedge issue, but there's the danger fo  it may work in reverse, uniting the poorest and the middle class against the lib-dems and tories instead of splitting them and allying one half with the govt. In fact, the more i think about it, it's a ridiculous use of the strategy as it attempts to use those less likely to support them and the cuts ( i.e the poorest) as the ones who will rally round them!

An interesting point in that above note is the claim that:


> Third it will create a marginal tax rate of well over 100% at around £44,000 of income for many people.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

right, this is what i don't get.  NHS free at the point of care is a universal benefit in the same way that child benefit is - yet if the government suddenly decided to charge people with an income of over £44k at the point of care even if it was a percentage contribution of their costs that would be fucking outrageous, yet its okay to take away child benefit because that's cash that goes into their account because children also require their parents to purchase consumer goods in order to effectively care for them?

it's actually fucking mental.  all that's going to happen is that people with kids or middle incomes are going to be hating people poorer than them who still get it and richer people who don't really need it and poor people or people without kids are going to hate the middle income people who are complaining about it and in the midst of it we're all forgetting to hate the fuckers that are fucking up our economy for the sake of what is effectively pennies to keep from having to introduces taxes on those who can afford to pay, or should already be paying and aren't.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I fully understand how it works thank you.  My point is there could not be a change based on payments that have been made - you could do it for future generations.


 
You clearly don't understand it at all.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

There are going to be an awful lot of jobs paying £43,999.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> in the midst of it we're all forgetting to hate the fuckers that are fucking up our economy for the sake of what is effectively pennies to keep from having to introduces taxes on those who can afford to pay, or should already be paying and aren't.


 
this is probably what they're hoping for.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Actually, I do wonder, when I see these calculations, how they're worked out - you'd have to have phenomenally terrible teeth every single year for it to be worth thousands, since sight tests are often free for everyone anyway (and there are payment help schemes for working people with really bad sight - although they might well be abolished, of course), prescriptions  cost max. £100pa and kids get everything free.



this is a fair point, i haven't actually sat down and worked it out, but this is what my friend said to me.  sight tests aren't free for adults, neither are glasses.  if you need a crown or a few of your teeth get really bad one year actually your dental fees can cost loads but yes you are right, it probably doesn't amount to thousands - but for a family who are finding it hard to budget on a low income, it certainly did help them to stay under the threshold and know that when they needed those things they'd be paid for.  even if it's only a perception of being better off, some people will still do it.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> this is probably what they're hoping for.


 
it's pretty clear to me that this is entirely what they are aiming for.  i feel the need to go and swear at some conservatives now.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 4, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.


 
That'll teach you to vote LibDem


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> it's pretty clear to me that this is entirely what they are aiming for.  i feel the need to go and swear at some conservatives now.


 
their whole schtick at the moment is 'divide and conquer', all this crap about how those on benefits shouldn't be 'getting more' than a hardworking honest upright family blah blah blah. The whole thing is designed to make everyone resent an easy target.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> You clearly don't understand it at all.


 
ok you educate me then.  Explain how there would or could be no return for those that have made contributions.  I'll take my refund now actually and invest it myself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> I don't understand the argument from the right-wingers here. People are perfectly entitled to have five children if they want to. Child benefit is a tiny fraction of the amount needed to raise a child, and far too little to be an enticement to have loads of children. Not so long ago large families were the nom, and they still are plenty of other places.
> 
> Is the argument being trotted out really 'the feckless poor, breading like rabbits, unable to support their children'? Have we reached that point already?



Of course that argument is already being trotted out. It's a staple of a particular selfish and self-righteous right-wing type.
The laughable part of holding such views is that, _ipso facto_, immigration would need to increase in future years to make up the pool of reserve labour that neo-liberal economics requires if "the feckless poor" were discouraged from breeding, which would piss that same right-wing type off even more!


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok you educate me then.  Explain how there would or could be no return for those that have made contributions.  I'll take my refund now actually and invest it myself.


 
because the money you have paid in NI contributions has already been spent.  if the goverment did not have any money coming in in NI when the time comes for you to claim your pension, they could not give any money to you.  can anyone make it any clearer?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> their whole schtick at the moment is 'divide and conquer', all this crap about how those on benefits shouldn't be 'getting more' than a hardworking honest upright family blah blah blah. The whole thing is designed to make everyone resent an easy target.


 
exactly. however, in terms of the middle classes, ive a feeling this strategy may backfire somewhat. also i notice little or nothing has been said of inherited income etc.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

People can choose to have as many kids as they like - but they shouldnt expect financial help in doing so


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> People can choose to have as many kids as they like - but they shouldnt expect financial help in doing so


 
You'll be arguing next that smokers etc won't be allowed to use the nhs.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> because the money you have paid in NI contributions has already been spent.  if the goverment did not have any money coming in in NI when the time comes for you to claim your pension, they could not give any money to you.  can anyone make it any clearer?


 
Good grief.  Do you not realise how long this has been the status quo?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> People can choose to have as many kids as they like - but they shouldnt expect financial help in doing so


 
The kids don't choose to be born. And remember you're going to need them to pay your pension.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You'll be arguing next that smokers etc won't be allowed to use the nhs.


 
Smokers more than pay for their healthcare.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

And children, by and large, pay for their child benefit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

thats where it leads though. do you not see?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Smokers more than pay for their healthcare.


 
children pay for their child benefit by growing up and working.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The kids don't choose to be born. And remember you're going to need them to pay your pension.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 

exactly. god this government's policies are really like "socialism for the rich" aren't they?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> children pay for their child benefit by growing up and working.


 
or not


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Good grief.  Do you not realise how long this has been the status quo?


 
you are the one claiming that there will definately, without doubt, be your money there for you to claim when you reach state pension age...you asked us how to explain that it wouldn't be. that's why.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> this is a fair point, i haven't actually sat down and worked it out, but this is what my friend said to me.  sight tests aren't free for adults, neither are glasses.  if you need a crown or a few of your teeth get really bad one year actually your dental fees can cost loads but yes you are right, it probably doesn't amount to thousands - but for a family who are finding it hard to budget on a low income, it certainly did help them to stay under the threshold and know that when they needed those things they'd be paid for.  even if it's only a perception of being better off, some people will still do it.



IME, you can always find somewhere that will give you a free sight test if you know it's likely you're going to have to buy glasses or contact lenses. The government only give eligible people (children or adults) £49 towards the cost of a pair of glasses (total, lenses and frames). And that's every two years, so the benefit from the optical allowance is £25 per person per year. 

NHS dental care doesn't cost thousands. Here are the charges. Note the bit under the table that states:



> You only pay one charge for each course of treatment, so for example if you had a check-up, X-ray, teeth polish, a simple filling and a crown you would pay a total of £198 if it all occurred within a two month period.



If you needed multiple crowns fitted over a period longer than 2 months, plus braces, it could get up to £500 or so. But only for one year and you'd have to have really severely messed-up teeth to spend that much. 

Like I said before, prescriptions shouldn't cost more than £100 - the price of a 'season ticket,' which anyone can buy.

Sorry - it's just that this is the sort of thing that's also often brought up by right-wingers: 'those scroungers gets loads of free stuff as well as benefits!' and it's simply not true.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> you are the one claiming that there will definately, without doubt, be your money there for you to claim when you reach state pension age...you asked us how to explain that it wouldn't be. that's why.


 
How long will it be before they "cant afford" to pay pensions?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> During the Siege of Madrid it was necessary to defend certain well off areas to stop the fascists taking over the heart of the city and winning the entire war. That defence didn't mean that those areas couldn't be re-organised after victory.


 
A very good analogy.

Maintaining the universality of benefit, in the same way as the universality of defence will allow the clear differential to be dealt with after. As Louis mentioned maintaining that universality makes the argument for the equal validation of all children, they're all worthy based upon their birth, it's a progressive notion of equality. 
Child benefit at present £20.00pw for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child-ie hardly a kings ransom-is not the end of that debate. The offset in maintaining that universality can be done when looking at the tax/credits issue. Increase the top rate, a higher gradation  for Income Tax. That offset is alot easier and much less cumbersome than administering a change and the introduction of a politically motivated attack on universality. The very language used ie 'Middle Class Benefits', is both factually inaccurate and entirely politically loaded. Neither numerically nor financially is it a benefit taken up predominantly by the middle-class, it's a lie that is being given creedence buy ALL the major press/media outlets.
There's also the bit missed by those 'defending' the change. Scrapping CB universality is all part of the plan to reduce the civil service in the drive to Universal Credit, which will make it easier for IDS to reduce the staffing in DWP/HMRC. DWP delivers benefits ie ESA/JSA/IS?IB/CA/DLA/AA etc, HMRC pays CB and CTC/WTC. Given these benefits are due to be 'ended' on the introduction of the much vaunted 'Universal Credit' as there's no need to have two seperate departments if there's 1 credit with additional premiums. How many tens of thousands will be made unemployed? This will not be at a cost of £20.00pw, £33.40pw, £46.70 as with Child Beneift, but at least double even treble the latter in JSA/ESA/IS (perhaps Universal Credit when/if it comes in) plus the additional cost of Local Housing Allowance, Council Tax Benefit, Morthage Interest Relief..... How many millions will that cost? Where is the saving there? Yet again economically illiterate and more clear evidence of the ideological not 'economically' logical attacks on the public sector.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How long will it be before they "cant afford" to pay pensions?


 
probably about a week...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

well said mate.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> you are the one claiming that there will definately, without doubt, be your money there for you to claim when you reach state pension age...you asked us how to explain that it wouldn't be. that's why.


 
there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> probably about a week...


 
Eventually we'll have it so that stuff like education and the nhs is means tested as well. Why do these middle class families on 44k a year waste school places for the more needy when they could be sending the kid to a private school.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


 
there'd have to be some mighty big changes for lots of things not to be payable when you've paid into it all your life, but that's exctly whats happening.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> IME, you can always find somewhere that will give you a free sight test if you know it's likely you're going to have to buy glasses or contact lenses. The government only give eligible people (children or adults) £49 towards the cost of a pair of glasses (total, lenses and frames). And that's every two years, so the benefit from the optical allowance is £25 per person per year.
> 
> NHS dental care doesn't cost thousands. Here are the charges. Note the bit under the table that states:
> 
> ...


 
No, you are right actually.  But the point still stands that people will sacrifice a few pounds to gain even small benefits., so people are more than likely to drop their income to stay within getting the much higher amounts of tax credit.  Maybe not so many at the current point of £44k but once they start dropping the threshold more and more people will.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok you educate me then.  Explain how there would or could be no return for those that have made contributions.  I'll take my refund now actually and invest it myself.


 
I've already explained it. 

Even if you took your money and invested it, where do you think the money from your investments is going to come from in 20 or 30 years' time when you retire? The money doesn't spontaneously appear - it has to be generated by working people. 

Seriously: if you took an apple seed and stored it in a box marked 'for future generations to plant,' and there were no future generations to plant that seed, would you be surprised to discover that there were no apples?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


 
you actually trust them, don't you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

where to said:


> its definitely ideological then.


 
It's never been anything else, for any of the parties. Not since the eighties, anyway.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


 
yes, there would, and that is what is currently happening to child benefit.  the state pension doesn't work like a private pension.  we pay tax and national insurance and in return for that the govt provides certain benefits, some universal, some means tested that help us out when we need it - like nhs healthcare, or child benefit, or pensions.  there isn't a little bank account somewhere called 'gunneradt's pension' that the government would have to get special permission to take the money from and use for something else.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> No, you are right actually.  But the point still stands that people will sacrifice a few pounds to gain even small benefits., so people are more than likely to drop their income to stay within getting the much higher amounts of tax credit.  Maybe not so many at the current point of £44k but once they start dropping the threshold more and more people will.


 
Yup, I agree with your general point. It's just that, if your friends mention this again, make sure they know how little they're actually saving by getting free NHS care, because it'd be daft to choose to earn thousands less on the basis that you'll make that back in NHS savings.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yup, I agree with your general point. It's just that, if your friends mention this again, make sure they know how little they're actually saving by getting free NHS care, because it'd be daft to choose to earn thousands less on the basis that you'll make that back in NHS savings.


 
she wasn't earning thousands less, i think her husband got offered a payrise of 4p an hour or something and asked if he could turn it down so they wouldn't go over the highest rate of tax credits threshold.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> yes, there would, and that is what is currently happening to child benefit.  the state pension doesn't work like a private pension.  we pay tax and national insurance and in return for that the govt provides certain benefits, some universal, some means tested that help us out when we need it - like nhs healthcare, or child benefit, or pensions.  there isn't a little bank account somewhere called 'gunneradt's pension' that the government would have to get special permission to take the money from and use for something else.



I work in insurance - I know how it works - my point is that this could not be changed significantly very easily.  You could change it for future generations - similar in the way businesses moved from final salary stakeholder pensions.  Beyond that, Im struggling to see how it could be done easily.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> she wasn't earning thousands less, i think her husband got offered a payrise of 4p an hour or something and asked if he could turn it down so they wouldn't go over the highest rate of tax credits threshold.


 
That's fair enough then. It would also probably not be worth the extra paperwork. Ugh, paperwork. 

Anyone who ever says that child benefit should be administered through the working tax credits system has clearly never had to deal with it themselves.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I work in insurance - I know how it works - my point is that this could not be changed significantly very easily.  You could change it for future generations - similar in the way businesses moved from final salary stakeholder pensions.  Beyond that, Im struggling to see how it could be done easily.


 
 they will just decide to do it, the same way they've just decided to stop paying CB!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> My friend works as an assistant OT and says all her patients are being refused DLA despite obvious need. Hardly news, but clearly getting rid of DLA claims by stealth, I suppose all these people will be miraculously judged to be fit for work as well too.


 
The pattern that's emerging appears to be to first refuse those with lower needs, and then to work through existing claimants from low need upward.

It'll be interesting to see what sort of excuses they can formulate to put me back to work, given how many of their own people have written me off over the last 10 years.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I work in insurance - I know how it works - my point is that this could not be changed significantly very easily.  You could change it for future generations - similar in the way businesses moved from final salary stakeholder pensions.  Beyond that, Im struggling to see how it could be done easily.


 
so how come they can change child benefit so easily? like they are doing.  now.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


> they will just decide to do it, the same way they've just decided to stop paying CB!


 
you don't contribute anything, as such, for child benefit.  But you do with a state pension.


----------



## radio_atomica (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you don't contribute anything, as such, for child benefit.  But you do with a state pension.


 
what do you contribute for state pension?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I work in insurance - I know how it works - my point is that this could not be changed significantly very easily.  You could change it for future generations - similar in the way businesses moved from final salary stakeholder pensions.  Beyond that, Im struggling to see how it could be done easily.


 
If the choice was paying lots of old people big pensions or letting people of working age take home enough money to support themselves and their families, then the oldies get told to stick it. 

And you don't understand how it works - you keep showing that. I could say 'I understand how quantum mechanics works' but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you don't contribute anything, as such, for child benefit.  But you do with a state pension.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

Just to make something clear, the proposed method for doing this is not to 'cut off' CB payments at source, but to claw it back from those no longer validly claiming _through the tax system_ - what a mess


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I think Ive more than contributed to my own pension thank you without needing anyone else to do it.


 
What you do or don't think is irrelevant measured against reality, and reality is that what you've contributed via NI will only meet the pension through a pooled-risk scheme levying NI from employees and employers. Your contributions, of whatever size, wouldn't achieve anything like the amount you'll realise from the government in private hands, unless you were an exceptionally adroit investor.
So, you *do* need others, and I bet it really rankles, doesn't it?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Just to make something clear, the proposed method for doing this is not to 'cut off' CB payments at source, but to claw it back from those no longer validly claiming _through the tax system_ - what a mess


 
Really? God. I bet the recent staff cuts at HMRC will help with that then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> If you're receiving a _state _pension you'd be needing people to pay tax into it after you retire. Maybe you don't want to claim it, I dunno.


 
Unlikely. He'll probably claim every penny he can milk off.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Just to make something clear, the proposed method for doing this is not to 'cut off' CB payments at source, but to claw it back from those no longer validly claiming _through the tax system_ - what a mess


 
Which will make for more work as whoever administers CB, now/in the future, will have to check if CB has been claimed in order to ensure it's not clawed back erroneously. There will also need to be a further check to check that the claimant is not paid over the cut off. Instead of a simple redistribution of wealth based on taxes they've introduced an extra function, ie an extra cost, of reducing an already increasing bill..... OPh the idiocy.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> probably about a week...


 
National Insurance Fund surplus was £170 billion last time I checked (2009),, so probably more than a week. 

However, there's a massive incentive for the govt to fuck over state pensions, and that incentive is the number of "baby-boomers" who reach entitlement age in 2012 and after, whose entitlement will add around 150,000 more claimants a year than previously experienced. Given the model used to pay state pensions (from current contributions), the government is looking at an explosive rise in their benefits budget, and to a group that they will find very hard to fuck over once they're well-informed about this threat. So, it's likely that the ConDems will, if they push through this "de-universalisation" of Child Benefit successfully, use it as a template for setting a cap for receipt of state pension.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

One of those people will probably be my mum as she was in the higher income bracket for much of the time when she was younger (she still works full time but on a much, much lower salary)
she may have a private pension tho, not sure


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


 
Not if the wedge strategy of de-universalising Child Benefit is successful.

Which means that even a selfish, self-righteous prick such as yourself should be fighting the de-universalisation.

Ironic, eh?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> National Insurance Fund surplus was £170 billion last time I checked (2009),, so probably more than a week.
> 
> However, there's a massive incentive for the govt to fuck over state pensions, and that incentive is the number of "baby-boomers" who reach entitlement age in 2012 and after, whose entitlement will add around 150,000 more claimants a year than previously experienced. Given the model used to pay state pensions (from current contributions), the government is looking at an explosive rise in their benefits budget, and to a group that they will find very hard to fuck over once they're well-informed about this threat. So, it's likely that the ConDems will, if they push through this "de-universalisation" of Child Benefit successfully, use it as a template for setting a cap for receipt of state pension.


 
That is very true.  Ultimately, there needs to be a point at which new earners do not pay into this NI fund in the same way.  State pensions are not sustainable but...they cannot be withdrawn for those that have paid in.  You draw a line in the sand and draw up a new scheme and take a hit for the losses that will occur for a generation until the scheme pays for itself.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not if the wedge strategy of de-universalising Child Benefit is successful.
> 
> Which means that even a selfish, self-righteous prick such as yourself should be fighting the de-universalisation.
> 
> Ironic, eh?


 
you cannot fight that which is unsustainable


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

weepiper said:


>


 
Where's longdog's brickwall smilie when you need it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> One of those people will probably be my mum as she was in the higher income bracket for much of the time when she was younger (she still works full time but on a much, much lower salary)
> she may have a private pension tho, not sure


 
What you're likely to see is a ceiling like with CB. So, if your mum is over 65 and has, say, an income (maybe private pension and work combined) of £35,000 (arbitrary figure alert!), then the govt may decide she doesn't need a state pension too.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That is very true.  Ultimately, there needs to be a point at which new earners do not pay into this NI fund in the same way.  State pensions are not sustainable but...they cannot be withdrawn for those that have paid in.  You draw a line in the sand and draw up a new scheme and take a hit for the losses that will occur for a generation until the scheme pays for itself.


 
Yeah, right. When I started paying NI, the pension age for women was 60. It's now 65. But I'd already paid in, so how can this change me?

Gunneradt, are you really imagining a future where pensions are untouchable, even though with our reproduction rate it'll mean people of working age starving in hovels to pay for old people to live in luxury? Future governments won't find a workaround? Reeeaally?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What you're likely to see is a ceiling like with CB. So, if your mum is over 65 and has, say, an income (maybe private pension and work combined) of £35,000 (arbitrary figure alert!), then the govt may decide she doesn't need a state pension too.


 
aye she works dnt have a pension yet, but her income is a *lot* less than that now (and theres some other finance stuff too that i shouldn't really post about on here), but it has in the past been higher. 35k is not bad atall, but its hardly raking it in though is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That is very true.  Ultimately, there needs to be a point at which new earners do not pay into this NI fund in the same way.  State pensions are not sustainable but...they cannot be withdrawn for those that have paid in.  You draw a line in the sand and draw up a new scheme and take a hit for the losses that will occur for a generation until the scheme pays for itself.



You're attempting to use a moral argument in the face of the state's financial imperatives. Do you see your problem, especially if this gets pushed through on the tails of the de-universalisation of CB?
This would be win/win for the ConDems. De-universalise state pensions in such a way that you can project any protest as "the ungrateful wealthy", scoring Brownie points for being "progressive".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you cannot fight that which is unsustainable


 
You haven't shown, in any shape or form (actuarial figures would be fine, as you're "in insurance") that Child Benefit is "unsustainable". In fact, in real terms, the costs have been *reducing* for the last decade or so.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> aye she works dnt have a pension yet, but her income is a *lot* less than that now (and theres some other finance stuff too that i shouldn't really post about on here), but it has in the past been higher. 35k is not bad atall, but its hardly raking it in though is it?


 
Post-tax it's a hell of a lot of money, especially considering that most people that age won't have mortgages to pay or children to support.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're attempting to use a moral argument in the face of the state's financial imperatives. Do you see your problem, especially if this gets pushed through on the tails of the de-universalisation of CB?
> This would be win/win for the ConDems. De-universalise state pensions in such a way that you can project any protest as "the ungrateful wealthy", scoring Brownie points for being "progressive".



Ah, so that why they're planning to claim CB back through the tax system..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, right. When I started paying NI, the pension age for women was 60. It's now 65. But I'd already paid in, so how can this change me?
> 
> Gunneradt, are you really imagining a future where pensions are untouchable, even though with our reproduction rate it'll mean people of working age starving in hovels to pay for old people to live in luxury? Future governments won't find a workaround? Reeeaally?


 
State pensions, in reality, are eminently "touchable", and they will be. That much is certain, whatever ruse is used to justify it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Post-tax it's a hell of a lot of money, especially considering that most people that age won't have mortgages to pay or children to support.


 
she's not earning that now though, nowhere near appraoching it in fact, and hasnt for years. 

the point im making is that someone earning that isn't part of the "super-rich".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> aye she works dnt have a pension yet, but her income is a *lot* less than that now (and theres some other finance stuff too that i shouldn't really post about on here), but it has in the past been higher. 35k is not bad atall, but its hardly raking it in though is it?


 
Depends on your circumstances, and on your location. £35,000 will go quite a bit further north of the Watford gap than it will to the south of it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I work in insurance - I know how it works - my point is that this could not be changed significantly very easily.  You could change it for future generations - similar in the way businesses moved from final salary stakeholder pensions.  Beyond that, Im struggling to see how it could be done easily.


 
Your employemnt in insurance obviously hasn't given you a knowledge of how the state pension is provided; you've just seen the words national insurance and made some ill informed assumptions.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> there would have to some mighty legislative changes for a state pension not to be payable if you had paid into it all your life.


 
You used to be able to claim unemployment benefit in the holidays between university terms, providing of course you had previously paid sufficient contributions through the national insurance system. Then the government changed the law and you couldn't; no refunds were given.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Post-tax it's a hell of a lot of money, especially considering that most people that age won't have mortgages to pay or children to support.


 
You do realise that if your income exceeds your tax allowance, you're still taxed, even if you're beyond pension age? Any ceiling imposed would be highly unlikely to be a nett rather than a gross figure.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends on your circumstances, and on your location. £35,000 will go quite a bit further north of the Watford gap than it will to the south of it.


 
Yep. Im not claiming someone earning that is poor which they're obviously not, they're middle class but they're not "rich" in the way we'd understand it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Ah, so that why they're planning to claim CB back through the tax system..


 
Not to come over all CTer, but it does seem likely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

Comprehensive overview



> Means testing increases complexity, stigma and confusion. While take up rates for Child Benefit are currently close to 100 per cent, rates for means tested benefits are therefore far lower. In future years, as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement, we can expect these take up rates to fall, with poverty rates consequently increasing. Last year the Government’s Child Poverty Unit concluded:
> 
> “There are 400,000 children living in poverty as a result of families not claiming all the benefits and tax credits to which they are entitled.”





> Fraud levels can also be expected to rise, as can administration costs, payment delays and levels of public misunderstanding.





> There are also important unanswered questions about women’s pension rights, as Child Benefit claims entitle women caring for children, while their partners work, to have National Insurance contributions and credits paid into their state pension account.





> Households with incomes above £80,000 will receive the benefit, while those with incomes just over £44,000 will have their benefit cut.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

Guess who at last years tory conference?



> We will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licenses. They are valued by millions.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

I'm confused about what people are saying about women's pensions being affected, I thought the proposal was to not pay it if the person _claiming_ it earned more than £44k, so surely they'd still be contributing to their pensions.
Not agreeing this is right btw just trying to clarify what the actual rules are.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You used to be able to claim unemployment benefit in the holidays between university terms, providing of course you had previously paid sufficient contributions through the national insurance system. Then the government changed the law and you couldn't; no refunds were given.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
that was more or less a loophole and used by those who weren't looking for work at all


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> State pensions, in reality, are eminently "touchable", and they will be. That much is certain, whatever ruse is used to justify it.



no what I was saying is that the system needs to change.  It is unsustainable or will be soon enough.  Nw workers will be moved out of state pension eventually - Im sure of that but you'll have to go some to get those that have paid out of it.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You haven't shown, in any shape or form (actuarial figures would be fine, as you're "in insurance") that Child Benefit is "unsustainable". In fact, in real terms, the costs have been *reducing* for the last decade or so.


 
I actually wasn't referring to child benefit in particular - we were talking about pensions


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> that was more or less a loophole and used by those who weren't looking for work at all


 
Not a very effective loophole then, seeing as most people want to claim all year round and not just at half term.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I'm confused about what people are saying about women's pensions being affected, I thought the proposal was to not pay it if the person _claiming_ it earned more than £44k, so surely they'd still be contributing to their pensions.
> Not agreeing this is right btw just trying to clarify what the actual rules are.


 
It's if one parent earns 44 grand or more.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

It wasn't a loophole at all - students who weren't studying and weren't employed were considered to be unemployed, because they were, and received unemployment benefit on that basis.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not a very effective loophole then, seeing as most people want to claim all year round and not just at half term.



yes but it was claimed by university students for every holiday when they had no intention of working.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I'm confused about what people are saying about women's pensions being affected, I thought the proposal was to not pay it if the person _claiming_ it earned more than £44k, so surely they'd still be contributing to their pensions.
> Not agreeing this is right btw just trying to clarify what the actual rules are.


 
IIRC if your kids get Child Benefit, you get an NI credit.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> she's not earning that now though, nowhere near appraoching it in fact, and hasnt for years.
> 
> the point im making is that someone earning that isn't part of the "super-rich".


 
No, I wouldn't say they're super-rich, but I didn't know that was what you were refuting (I didn't see anyone claim that but might have missed it). It is an awful lot of money to live on without housing costs. 

@VP: I thought you were talking net. Either way, it's a decent sum, but whatever - even if it were ten times as much, it shouldn't mean that the person getting it can't get a state pension. 

If there were difficulty in denying people the right to a pension then it'd be very easy to claw back the money in some other way, like a higher rate of tax for some brackets of 'investment income' and classifying pensions under that, or charging council tax or the future equivalent based on income including pensions - whatever, some way would be found if the pensions cost was too high.

If the government can so easily take money away from cute widdle babies they're hardly going to hold back from taking it from wrinkly old people.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes but it was claimed by university students for every holiday when they had no intention of working.


 
I'm sure this makes sense to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no what I was saying is that the system needs to change.  It is unsustainable or will be soon enough.  Nw workers will be moved out of state pension eventually - Im sure of that but you'll have to go some to get those that have paid out of it.



There's currently no politically or financially achievable way to engineer such a change, though, which is why de-universalising the state pension would appeal to the ConDems (or indeed to any neo-lib government that wants to minimise vote loss). Fuck off an estimated (old figure from one of Frank Field's DWP studies. I'll try to dig up the full reference) 30-35% of state pension claimants through an income ceiling and you give the current system enough headroom to cope with the demographic problems of the next 15-20 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes but it was claimed by university students for every holiday when they had no intention of working.


 
People like my wife far preferred to work, given the difference between the income per week from labour as opposed to dole money. She could earn enough during holidays to top up her grant and pay for luxuries like heating.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 4, 2010)

Was there a requirement to be actively seeking work in the 60s? I know my dad claimed when he wasn't working (although latter was the norm). I have a feeling that refusal of a suitable job was grounds for disqualification, but I guess you had to be offered one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> @VP: I thought you were talking net. Either way, it's a decent sum, but whatever - even if it were ten times as much, it shouldn't mean that the person getting it can't get a state pension.


I'm not so worried about the effects on individuals as where a creeping de-universalisation of benefits leads, which is down an inexorable route to the loss of what's left of the "welfare state".


> If there were difficulty in denying people the right to a pension then it'd be very easy to claw back the money in some other way, like a higher rate of tax for some brackets of 'investment income' and classifying pensions under that, or charging council tax or the future equivalent based on income including pensions - whatever, some way would be found if the pensions cost was too high.


You *could* do that, but my point is that if you imposed a pensions ceiling via the tax system )as is proposed with CB, you avoid all the bad publicity of imposing a handful of disparate measures, and all without actually "snatching back" money physically.


> If the government can so easily take money away from cute widdle babies they're hardly going to hold back from taking it from wrinkly old people.


Wrinkly old people have a vote, miniature Winston Churchills don't, and wrinklies are a demographic whose size will only increase for the next 15 years, so any government that wishes to retain power will have to play their cards close to their chests, which can be done quite nattily through a pensions ceiling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm sure this makes sense to you.


 
Take off your "social justice and equality" head and put your "all students are scroungers" head on, Wurzel!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Take off your "social justice and equality" head and put your "all students are scroungers" head on, Wurzel!


 
See, having never been a student perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it was a full time occupation in and of itself. Silly me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Was there a requirement to be actively seeking work in the 60s? I know my dad claimed when he wasn't working (although latter was the norm). I have a feeling that refusal of a suitable job was grounds for disqualification, but I guess you had to be offered one.


 
Yep. From what I've gleaned from my dad, you went to the Labour Exchange, told them your "skill-set", and they sent you for interviews. If you turned down suitable work without food reason your money got stopped.
Mind you, as he also said, if you had any sense, you took any job offered because you could then use the fact that you had a job and were looking to "improve yourself" to get a better job. This was, of course, in an age where jobs were more available than now.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> See, having never been a student perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it was a full time occupation in and of itself. Silly me.


 
That's why you couldn't claim during term-time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> See, having never been a student perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it was a full time occupation in and of itself. Silly me.


 
Well quite. In my wife's day (mid to late 1980s) students could be failed if they worked during term-time. You were expected to concentrate on your studies, and not to have to worry about amassing tens of thousands of pounds of student debt *and* working while studying.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

Came across this in "my documents folder" and worth having a read of:



> Comparing taxes and benefits in 1979, 1997 and 2008.
> 
> Benefits for children were eroded between 1979 and 1997 but have become more generous since 1999. However, this increased generosity is targeted at low-income families, leads to worse incentives to work more hours and does not hold its value over time. This presents problems in dealing with child poverty in the medium term.



and



> It is higher-income families who have gained most through 30 years of change and the lowest income families who have lost ground. How much ground depends on whether they can remain in work throughout their lives. With continuous lifetime employment diminishing, the low earners look set to fall further behind.



http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/comparing-taxes-benefits

The latest submission by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on what it terms "21st Century Welfare" can be found here:

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/DWP-welfare-response-Oct2010.pdf


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite. In my wife's day (mid to late 1980s) students could be failed if they worked during term-time. You were expected to concentrate on your studies, and not to have to worry about amassing tens of thousands of pounds of student debt *and* working while studying.


 
Still, Essex's answer to Paul Calf clearly knows better.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> that was more or less a loophole and used by those who weren't looking for work at all


 
No it was used by people like myself who had been paying NI for the best part of a decade, went to study as a mature student and found their entitlement withdrawn. Does your ignorance know no bounds?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> That's why you couldn't claim during term-time.



I believe you could in the far, far past?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Was there a requirement to be actively seeking work in the 60s? I know my dad claimed when he wasn't working (although latter was the norm). I have a feeling that refusal of a suitable job was grounds for disqualification, but I guess you had to be offered one.



This was the late 1980s not the 1960s. Work paid more but was not always available.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite. In my wife's day (mid to late 1980s) students could be failed if they worked during term-time. You were expected to concentrate on your studies, and not to have to worry about amassing tens of thousands of pounds of student debt *and* working while studying.


 
I know a few people at oxford uni and they're not allowed to work while studying iirc.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I believe you could in the far, far past?



I distinctly remember my mum getting something when she went to uni as a mature. Long fucking time ago now though, and she had worked for 20 odd years first.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No it was used by people like myself who had been paying NI for the best part of a decade, went to study as a mature student and found their entitlement withdrawn. Does your ignorance know no bounds?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



It was also claimed by those who had worked for five minutes and then claimed it every college holiday - and this was up the 80s at least.  I forget the exact entrance requirements but they weren't tough.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Was there a requirement to be actively seeking work in the 60s? I know my dad claimed when he wasn't working (although latter was the norm). I have a feeling that refusal of a suitable job was grounds for disqualification, but I guess you had to be offered one.


 
No. You just had to be available for work and not turn down a job if offered. Of course, unemployment was well under 1 million and you were in fact quite likely to be offered a job by the dole.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I know a few people at oxford uni and they're not allowed to work while studying iirc.


 
My sis got told not to work because the Engineering degree is basically a 9-5 job, but she still had to.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It was also claimed by those who had worked for five minutes and then claimed it every college holiday - and this was up the 80s at least.  I forget the exact entrance requirements but they weren't tough.


 
Presumably these people were going to uni with the intention of using their education to find work at a later point, though.

Also, the irony of a tax dodger complaining about spongers appears to be lost on you. You fucking sponger.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. You just had to be available for work and not turn down a job if offered. Of course, unemployment was well under 1 million and you were in fact quite likely to be offered a job by the dole.


 
I bet people claiming it weren't relentlessly vilified by the media and govt also.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Presumably these people were going to uni with the intention of using their education to find work at a later point, though.
> 
> Also, the irony of a tax dodger complaining about spongers appears to be lost on you. You fucking sponger.



Grow up - I pay 3 classes of national insurance.  How much do you pay?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> I bet people claiming it weren't relentlessly vilified by the media and govt also.


 
Excellent doc on BBC4 recently about unemployment in Hartlepool in the 1960's, on iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tw1jx/Waiting_for_Work/

Well worth watching.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Was there a requirement to be actively seeking work in the 60s? I know my dad claimed when he wasn't working (although latter was the norm). I have a feeling that refusal of a suitable job was grounds for disqualification, but I guess you had to be offered one.


 
I found myself unemployed in around 1972 - £5 unemployment benefit - in cash too. 

After a while they sent you upstairs to the 'Charlie Drake' department - "Hello my Darlings" . They gave you a card with the name and address of an employer. You went had a short interview. You either got it, or not? I usually did. Then it got tougher when Thatcher appeared.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Grow up - I pay 3 classes of national insurance.  How much do you pay?


 
I pay my way, which is more than you. You tax dodging sponger.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I pay my way, which is more than you. You tax dodging sponger.



Oh right, well done.  You carry on paying your way


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I found myself unemployed in around 1972 - £5 unemployment benefit - in cash too.
> 
> After a while they sent you upstairs to the 'Charlie Drake' department - "Hello my Darlings" . They gave you a card with the name and address of an employer. You went had a short interview. You either got it, or not? I usually did. Then it got tougher when Thatcher appeared.


 
You mean they actually had _jobs_ in the job centre once????


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Oh right, well done.  You carry on paying your way


 
And you carry on dodging your taxes whilst whinging about spongers, you hypocritical thieving sponging bastard.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And you carry on dodging your taxes whilst whinging about spongers, you hypocritical thieving sponging bastard.



you are quite a joke

Im a tax dodger because I employ an accountant - great logic.  There must be one hell of a lot of tax dodgers in the country including just about every business and self employed person earning more than threepence ha'penny.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You mean they actually had _jobs_ in the job centre once????



Yes, unbelievable to think that now looking at how the job market has proceeded from the early 80's to this current climate we're in. Hey and guess what? I've just this very morning had to contact "Job Centre Plus"! "Plus" what?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you are quite a joke
> 
> Im a tax dodger because I employ an accountant - great logic.  There must be one hell of a lot of tax dodgers in the country including just about every business and self employed person earning more than threepence ha'penny.


 
You evade tax = tax dodger. You don't pay your way. You are a parasite.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 4, 2010)

My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you are quite a joke
> 
> Im a tax dodger because I employ an accountant - great logic.  There must be one hell of a lot of tax dodgers in the country including just about every business and self employed person earning more than threepence ha'penny.


 
"Tax avoidance" being the polite term.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you are quite a joke
> 
> Im a tax dodger because I employ an accountant - great logic.  There must be one hell of a lot of tax dodgers in the country including just about every business and self employed person earning more than threepence ha'penny.


and that doesn't make anyone's tax dodging one bit more morally acceptable. inevitable, yes, the govts fault, certainly, acceptable - no.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I've just this very morning had to contact "Job Centre Plus"! "Plus" what?


 
Job Centre + DSS = Job Centre Plus, I think.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


 
Exactly. Thin end of the wedge. Attacking the middle class so that they look more "progressive".


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.



Is that net?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and that doesn't make anyone's tax dodging one bit more morally acceptable. inevitable, yes, the govts fault, certainly, acceptable - no.


 
Now let me think.  One does business mileage and uses gas/electricity, has a business mobile phone and buys.......heaven forbid................stationery.  My God, it's awful.  These law breakers should be reined in for ...erm...legititmately reducing their taxes because they've incurred business expenses.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


 
I think your child benefit will be safe once this happens - it's based on one person earning 44k, regardless of how much their partner earns.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Now let me think.  One does business mileage and uses gas/electricity, has a business mobile phone and buys.......heaven forbid................stationery.  My God, it's awful.  These law breakers should be reined in for ...erm...legititmately reducing their taxes because they've incurred business expenses.


 
Parasite.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


 
I thought the idea was that it had to be a sngle earner - set at £44k as that is the higher tax threshold.  I agree with you though.  That is way too low to set this at.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Parasite.


 
Awful isn't it


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Awful isn't it


 
Vermin.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Vermin.


 
Vermin who probably pays a good deal more than you


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Now let me think.  One does business mileage and uses gas/electricity, has a business mobile phone and buys.......heaven forbid................stationery.  My God, it's awful.  These law breakers should be reined in for ...erm...legititmately reducing their taxes because they've incurred business expenses.


come off it - straw man. NOBODY - least of all me - denes the legality/legitimacy of tax avoidance. That's simply not the point.  However, I reiterate, tax avoidance of all forms is immoral, and morally unacceptable. Whilst I fully accept yours are hardly sins of Ashcroftian proportions, it is true that the most needy and disadvantaged people in society go without essential services at least in part because you, and people like you, would rather pay money to already-affluent chartered accountants than accept your full measure of social and communal responsibility.
Ultimately, it's your conscience, not mine.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Vermin who probably pays a good deal more than you


 
Vermin who doesn't pay his way. You fucking leech. Your loadsamoney act doesn't change the fact you are a greedy parasite. Just makes you sound like an even bigger prick.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> . . . would rather pay money to already-affluent chartered accountants  . . .



Accountancy fees are tax deductible for a Ltd Company.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 4, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Is that net?



Sorry just checked it wont affect us-still my point remains...I find some views expressed here quite disconcerting. Just cause people earn 44K...


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 4, 2010)

Major conceptual changes . . . 3-4-5 year processes . . . proper paradigm shift . . . very interesting. Ramifications unknowable.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Accountancy fees are tax deductible for a Ltd Company.


which simply compounds the wrong


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

> There are myriad ways in which wealthy people avoid being on PAYE, but no escape for the ordinary wage slaves.





> Why shouldn't everyone possess the rights so enjoyed by the rich and the self-employed?



From Peter McKay in The Daily Mail too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311452/PETER-MCKAY-Starve-beast--kill-PAYE.html


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> which simply compounds the wrong



you dont have to be VAT registered for these kind of transactions to be tax deductible


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


 
You're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, 44k sounds a lot to someone like me on a council estate oop north but I suppose if you're a single parent with a number of children in London it might not go quite as far.

Anyhow, it's obvious that £44k as a threshold will soon plummet.
(And as you know now you are able to claim at least for now!)


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> You're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, 44k sounds a lot to someone like me on a council estate oop north but I suppose if you're a single parent with a number of children in London it might not go quite as far.
> 
> Anyhow, it's obvious that £44k as a threshold will soon plummet.
> (And as you know now you are able to claim at least for now!)


 
I think even up North it's not a high household wage - it's 22k per parent, which is a decent wage, not high.

With being self-employed the thing that's shocked me most is how little NI I need to pay. It's a weekly sum rather than related to how much I earn - £2.40 per week. I've always paid way more NI than that on an equally small income when on PAYE.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I think even up North it's not a high household wage - it's 22k per parent, which is a decent wage, not high.
> 
> With being self-employed the thing that's shocked me most is how little NI I need to pay. It's a weekly sum rather than related to how much I earn - £2.40 per week. I've always paid way more NI than that on an equally small income when on PAYE.


 
Yes I was surprised to hear that too. And the amount of NI you seem to pay on a very small PAYE income always seems staggering.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes but it was claimed by university students for every holiday when they had no intention of working.



No it wasn't. Most of us got jobs & worked for the Xmas & Summer vacations, but had to sign on for Easter, when jobs were extremely scarce.


----------



## N_igma (Oct 4, 2010)

£2.40 a week NI please tell me this is some sort of cruel joke????


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 4, 2010)

N_igma said:


> £2.40 a week NI please tell me this is some sort of cruel joke????


 
It can go up (obviously) but I think you have to be earning more than whatever the tax allowance is for that year. I think.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> With being self-employed the thing that's shocked me most is how little NI I need to pay. It's a weekly sum rather than related to how much I earn - £2.40 per week. I've always paid way more NI than that on an equally small income when on PAYE.


 
The £2.40 is class 2 contribution (which is voluntary) as self employed you also have to pay class 4 which is a percentage on your earnings (more or less the same as your tax - well for me it is as a relatively low earner)


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Yes I was surprised to hear that too. And the amount of NI you seem to pay on a very small PAYE income always seems staggering.



yes but you pay 8% class 4 national insurance on profits


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 4, 2010)

mr steev said:


> The £2.40 is class 2 contribution (which is voluntary) as self employed you also have to pay class 4 which is a percentage on your earnings (more or less the same as your tax - well for me it is as a relatively low earner)



on profits - not earnings


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

N_igma said:


> £2.40 a week NI please tell me this is some sort of cruel joke????


 
Innit! I've never earnt much - between £12 - 16k - but I'm sure I pay about £20 a week on average (£80 from a monthly pay packet sounds about right). What's that all about then?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> on profits - not earnings


 
Yup, which is rather different. Even with that 8% I'm going to be paying way less because it'll be 8% of about £4,000 even without deducting a portion of my rent, utilities, materials for work, etc. and that's going to work out a hell of a lot less than if I were PAYE. Really low earners benefit a lot from not being PAYE.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 4, 2010)

The point is there are *other* options instead of attacking benefits. By arguing the toss whether people on 44k a year deserve it or not is _exactly_ what they want. Whilst people are bickering....then the bankers continue to get away with it and the tories succeed in their ideological crusade.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> My household income (joint) is over 44k. With the changes to Child Tax Credit and now CB we stand to lose around £200 a month. Thats a massive chunk. Im slightly flabbergasted that people in this thread seem to have little sympathy for people earning over 44k when bankers are enjoying huge bonuses again and work for banks we own-they have got away with this huge fucking mess...the tories are rubbing their hands with glee and certain urbanites have little sympathy for households like mine. Nice.


 
My understanding was that only individuals earning over £44k would be hit not joint earnings over £44k so you could have two people on £25k and be fine.

I don’t think a universal benefit is a very sensible idea, there is little point in taking money of people through taxation only to give it back to give some of it back via a benefit. This just creates a bureaucracy and is wasteful. 

The opening post complains about being taxed and not getting anything back, but it’s the things like giving Child Benefit and Fuel allowances to the top 10% of earners that increases our spending and need for higher taxation in the first place.  

We need to reduce the amount of money that we are spending on serving the national debt, and that requires making some spending cuts. Most of these cuts are relativley modest and only represent a return to 2006-7 spending levels as a percentage of GDP.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> The point is there are *other* options instead of attacking benefits. By arguing the toss whether people on 44k a year deserve it or not is _exactly_ what they want. Whilst people are bickering....then the bankers continue to get away with it and the tories succeed in their ideological crusade.


 
The Bankers did not create the financial crises on their own. Everyone is guilty of driving up the bubble in real estate, and increasing consumer debt to such a huge level. 

Bashing the one industry that we are actually quite successful with in Britain, e.g. financial services isn’t going to help the problem not matter how political satisfying it might be to find a scapegoat for out ills.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My understanding was that only individuals earning over £44k would be hit not joint earnings over £44k so you could have two people on £25k and be fine.


 
And you could have a married couple with 2 children where the father earns £45k and the wife stays at home looking after the children who will lose out as opposed to a couple with one child where one earns £40k and one £25k will will get child benefit. That makes sense....


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My understanding was that only individuals earning over £44k would be hit not joint earnings over £44k so you could have two people on £25k and be fine.
> 
> I don’t think a universal benefit is a very sensible idea, there is little point in taking money of people through taxation only to give it back to give some of it back via a benefit. This just creates a bureaucracy and is wasteful.
> 
> ...


 
Did you skip reading the rest of the thread?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My understanding was that only individuals earning over £44k would be hit not joint earnings over £44k so you could have two people on £25k and be fine.


sorry, no - it's joint household income


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Bankers did not create the financial crises on their own. Everyone is guilty of driving up the bubble in real estate, and increasing consumer debt to such a huge level.
> 
> Bashing the one industry that we are actually quite successful with in Britain, e.g. financial services isn’t going to help the problem not matter how political satisfying it might be to find a scapegoat for out ills.


sorry, but this is bullshit; the banks acted with astonishing greed, myopia and recklessness


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> And you could have a married couple with 2 children where the father earns £45k and the wife stays at home looking after the children who will lose out as opposed to a couple with one child where one earns £40k and one £25k will will get child benefit. That makes sense....


 
I agree it doesn't seem to make much sense. Having thought about it the only conclusion I can draw is that it makes it easier to adminster by simply looking at someone's tax code, and it flagging if they are in the higher bracket rather than working out joint earnings.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree it doesn't seem to make much sense. Having thought about it the only conclusion I can draw is that it makes it easier to adminster by simply looking at someone's tax code, and it flagging if they are in the higher bracket rather than working out joint earnings.


 
And it's even easier to keep it universal and tax the higher earners.... You see you might even learn something.... I won't hold my breath mind...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don’t think a universal benefit is a very sensible idea, there is little point in taking money of people through taxation only to give it back to give some of it back via a benefit. This just creates a bureaucracy and is wasteful.



This is not true. There is less bureaucracy and waste with universal benefits. It takes less effort to take taxes and then give back universal benefits than to take taxes and give back means-tested benefits. If you want to adjust the overall amount the rich pay, the easiest and cheapest way is to alter the amount of tax they pay, not the amount of benefits they receive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, no - it's joint household income


 
No it's not. It's being done on tax codes – as they've realised that means-tesing in any other way would be really expensive to do.

I think they are going to run into trouble with this. Not only have they created marginal tax rates of over 100%, which is stupid, but they are going to hit a very particular type of family very hard indeed. One at work earning £45-50, another at home looking after the kids. Potentially you have, say, a family of 5 living on that one set of earnings losing nearly £50 per week. And all that money going directly to the carer, providing theme with protection, which was one of the original rationales of CB. 

How very un-Tory! And how patently unfair. They are going to have to reintroduce some kind of joint tax return here. I don't see how else they can square the anomalies.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yup, which is rather different. Even with that 8% I'm going to be paying way less because it'll be 8% of about £4,000 even without deducting a portion of my rent, utilities, materials for work, etc. and that's going to work out a hell of a lot less than if I were PAYE. Really low earners benefit a lot from not being PAYE.



It depends on your business I guess. I'm a tutor with very little overheads (I suppose I should blag it and claim I'm marking at home so deduct elecy etc, but I don't) so my earnings are my profit.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, no - it's joint household income


 
Their press release says it will only impact on families with a high rate earner.

_The 6.6 million families with no higher rate taxpayers who receive the benefit will remain unaffected by the change. _

http://www.conservatives.com/News/N...veils_tough_but_fair_approach_to_welfare.aspx


----------



## Goatherd (Oct 4, 2010)

If it is combined income then the BBC are reporting it wrong.



> From 2013, benefits will be removed from any family where one parent earns more than about £44,000 a year.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Guess who at last years tory conference?


 
Fucking lying bastards. Wait for the rest of them to go


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is not true. There is less bureaucracy and waste with universal benefits. It takes less effort to take taxes and then give back universal benefits than to take taxes and give back means-tested benefits. If you want to adjust the overall amount the rich pay, the easiest and cheapest way is to alter the amount of tax they pay, not the amount of benefits they receive.


 
A high taxation rate has other negative knock on effects that you are not taking into account, even if we did accept that going to the effort of collecting money from everyone only to then redistribute it to everyone was an efficient thing to do.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Goatherd said:


> If it is combined income then the BBC are reporting it wrong.


 
Seeing as both Osborne himself and the Beeb are saying it's based on tax rate, not combined income then I suspect it is Streathamite who is in the wrong. Unless he can find a third-party source that is somehow more accurate than the Chancellor who announced it that is. If he can with all due to respect i'll be impressed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A high taxation rate has other negative knock on effects that you are not taking into account, even if we did accept that going to the effort of collecting money from everyone only to then redistribute it to everyone was an efficient thing to do.


 
Like what? 

This measure will save £1 bn a year allegedly, although it will be less than that once the increased bureaucracy has been taken into account. Now let us say that this is equivalent to a 2p rise in the higher rate of income tax, raising it from 40% to 42%. What negative knock-on effect would that have? You're taking the same amount of money out of people's pockets.

I fail to see what is 'magical' about current rates of income tax such that any change upwards for any sector would be damaging. Yet there has been not a peep about raising income tax. Why is that? And how would it be more damaging than, say, increasing VAT?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Seeing as both Osborne himself and the Beeb are saying it's based on tax rate, not combined income then I suspect it is Streathamite who is in the wrong. Unless he can find a third-party source that is somehow more accurate than the Chancellor who announced it that is. If he can with all due to respect i'll be impressed.


 
It's not particularly hard to show Osborne to be a liar - he's been caught out today for example above and claiming that the benefit cap won't apply to the disabled when his own press release on the cap says that it will. However it is one parent.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2010)

It's about time children were made to tighten their belts in these tough economic times to help pay for banker's whopping bonuses. Strangely though, the proposals for council tax on tree and wendy houses don't seem to have been mentioned yet. Maybe next year.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Like what?
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11117181
> This measure will save £1 bn a year allegedly, although it will be less than that once the increased bureaucracy has been taken into account. Now let us say that this is equivalent to a 2p rise in the higher rate of income tax, raising it from 40% to 42%. What negative knock-on effect would that have? You're taking the same amount of money out of people's pockets.
> 
> I fail to see what is 'magical' about current rates of income tax such that any change upwards for any sector would be damaging. Yet there has been not a peep about raising income tax. Why is that? And how would it be more damaging than, say, increasing VAT?


 
If you put on the form that you are not eligible to apply if you earn over £44K a year it might mean less applications to process and less bureaucracy. It's not necessarily going to cost more in bureaucracy if you are processing fewer applications. Whereas raising the income tax threshold makes Britain a less attractive place to stay or do business for wealthy people. It also makes more people reliant on the state, and increases a culture whereby people expect things to be handed to them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If you put on the form that you are not eligible to apply if you earn over £44K a year it might mean less applications to process and less bureaucracy. It's not necessarily going to cost more in bureaucracy if you are processing fewer applications. Whereas raising the income tax threshold makes Britain a less attractive place to stay or do business for wealthy people. It also makes more people reliant on the state, and increases a culture whereby people expect things to be handed to them.


 
What the fuck are you talking about – people earning £45k are suffering from a culture where people expect things to be handed to them?????

You are really horrible, you know that.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's not particularly hard to show Osborne to be a liar - he's been caught out today for example above and claiming that the benefit cap won't apply to the disabled when his own press release on the cap says that it will. However it is one parent.



Fair enough, I suspect he does have his inconstancies. I was at their conference today, and everyone was saying it was not combined which is why I was surprised to be told I was wrong. I’m not infallible either and can only go with what people like Osborne, the beeb and other says.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What the fuck are you talking about – people earning £45k are suffering from a culture where people expect things to be handed to them?????
> 
> You are really horrible, you know that.


 
I mean look at the opening post, they complain about high taxes they pay and then think that Child Benefit is some great thing they are getting. If you put two and two together you realise that the reason you get taxed is because of benefits like this being paid out to the top earners.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I mean look at the opening post, they complain about high taxes they pay and then think that Child Benefit is some great thing they are getting. If you put two and two together you realise that the reason you get taxed is because of benefits like this being paid out to the top earners.


 

you're disgusting. what a load of bullshit !!


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I mean look at the opening post, they complain about high taxes they pay and then think that Child Benefit is some great thing they are getting. If you put two and two together you realise that the reason you get taxed is because of benefits like this being paid out to the top earners.


since when did £45k make anyone a  'top earner'? And universal benefits are NOT the reason for Mr & Mrs average getting clobbered on tax; it's because the rich don't pay their fair share.
e2a; god, you tories really are vile.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... I fail to see what is 'magical' about current rates of income tax such that any change upwards for any sector would be damaging. Yet there has been not a peep about raising income tax. Why is that? And how would it be more damaging than, say, increasing VAT?


 
Income tax has been the argumentative's defence since New Labour or even before, if they don't raise income tax they say in speeches that they did not put taxes up. Despite all the other stealth taxes which they tweak whenever they feel the need. 

For some reason income tax rates are rarely touched. 
However Brown put the 50% rate in, and removed the 10% rate so it can be done but then he didn't get reelected did he.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

A progressive and fair system would be based on low taxes and benefits only to those who need them. Otherwise people on lower incomes have to shoulder the taxation burden for benefits to the better off. Why for instance should I contribute my taxes towards a banker getting child benefit for their kids when I earn in the mid £20s

I have no problem with cutting chid benefit to those on high taxes, it seems a reasonable effort to help cutting the national debt that is crippling us with it's repayments (repayments that mean we are spending more of our GDP servicing debt then on usefully things)


----------



## scifisam (Oct 4, 2010)

Moon, do you have me on ignore or something?



mr steev said:


> It depends on your business I guess. I'm a tutor with very little overheads (I suppose I should blag it and claim I'm marking at home so deduct elecy etc, but I don't) so my earnings are my profit.


 
Do you not have travel fees? There are loads of things you can count and HMRC are surprisingly helpful at pointing them out to you. 

I haven't actually put in a claim while in this job, but ISTM that there are rather a lot of things I can claim against the work I'm doing - it feels like a blag, but it's not really.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2010)

I wonder if this change will lead to people not getting married so much. 

How I wonder will the tax authorities define a "household"? and who is part of it and who not. Or am I mistaken, will they just check the parents, what? even if they are seperated? 

Ideally I think also it should have been on joint incomes but perhaps that might be even harder to administrate.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My understanding was that only individuals earning over £44k would be hit not joint earnings over £44k so you could have two people on £25k and be fine.



Which is fucking nuts if that's the case.  You'll have a situation where a single parent family with an income of £44K gets no child benefit but a two parent family with two incomes of £43K (i.e. combined £86K) do get it.  That's grossly unfair and fucking dumb.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Bankers did not create the financial crises on their own. Everyone is guilty of driving up the bubble in real estate, and increasing consumer debt to such a huge level.



Come on then, tell me my part in it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Moon you defend everything the government does, if you were a communist party member in north korea you would do the same no doubt ! It is unbelievable how brainwashed you are, at a time when so many lib dems or lib dem supporters are abandoning the party, soon it will be only clegg and a few of the "faithful" like yourself !


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> raising the income tax threshold makes Britain a less attractive place to stay or do business for wealthy people.


look you complete fuckwit, let's nail this *once and for all*. The route to prosperity and economic success for GB plc does NOT lie in simply bending over backwards and giving the wealthy every single fucking thing they want simply because they never feel obliged to return the compliment in sufficient amounts. That's how they got rich in the first place, by being selfish and tight.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which is fucking nuts if that's the case.  You'll have a situation where a single parent family with an income of £44K gets no child benefit but a two parent family with two incomes of £43K (i.e. combined £86K) do get it.  That's grossly unfair and fucking dumb.


 
But I think that is the way it is. 

Perhaps it is harder to administrate to take two incomes of each parent into account. 

It does make better sense to take combined income into account though, at least I think it does.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which is fucking nuts if that's the case.  You'll have a situation where a single parent family with an income of £44K gets no child benefit but a two parent family with two incomes of £43K (i.e. combined £86K) do get it.  That's grossly unfair and fucking dumb.


 
I agree it's a bit stupid, I suggest it's being linked to the higher rate tax for administrative ease. That's just a guess though.

It's also unfair at the moment that a single parent on £25k pays taxes so a banker on £130,000 can claim child benefit.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I have no problem with cutting chid benefit to those on high taxes, it seems a reasonable effort to help cutting the national debt that is crippling us with it's repayments (repayments that mean we are spending more of our GDP servicing debt then on usefully things)


It is not, and will not, so please stop repeating this lie, and we can blow a massive hole in the debt by selling our majority stakes in Lloyds, NR and RBS - it's just this needs to be done slowly


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

And you are talking about scrapping child benefit for moderately wealthy people/the middle/ upper middle class, how is that going to help britain become an "attractive place for wealthy people"? It is not - let's have a race to the bottom eh ??


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree it's a bit stupid, I suggest it's being linked to the higher rate tax for administrative ease. That's just a guess though.
> 
> It's also unfair at the moment that a single parent on £25k pays taxes so a banker on £130,000 can claim child benefit.


 
So your answer is to make something that has a little unfairness, but a good philosophy behind it, into something even more unfair with no philosophy?  Way to go.

*slow hand clap*


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Come on then, tell me my part in it.


actually, yes, good point, me too please!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree it's a bit stupid, I suggest it's being linked to the higher rate tax for administrative ease. That's just a guess though.
> 
> It's also unfair at the moment that a single parent on £25k pays taxes so a banker on £130,000 can claim child benefit.


 
What the fuck ? I dont care if they claim child benefit ot not, its £20 a week ffs !!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

The damage bankers have caused to the economy has nothing to do with them claiming child benefit, but keep drinkin the kool aid ...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which is fucking nuts if that's the case.  You'll have a situation where a single parent family with an income of £44K gets no child benefit but a two parent family with two incomes of £43K (i.e. combined £86K) do get it.  That's grossly unfair and fucking dumb.


 
The tories don't like single parent families very much though. So I'm sure it makes perfect sense to them.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Come on then, tell me my part in it.


 
Your reckless share dealing is well known Blagsta 

Seriously saying 'Everyone' is responsible is an exaggeration on my part, certainly there were many people involved in property trading & development who helped push up housing prices. It's a real-estate boom that is really behind the problem. I accept there were some very reckless bankers as well though. 

The sovereign debt crisis is another major problem, and one in which many nations were in collective denial over their debt whilst lenders were happy to keep lending and governments were happy to keep spending. That’s not the sole fault of bankers, politicians, government and consumers all played their own parts.  

What's worse is not only do we have the problem of our sovereign debt, but also the deferred debt of the many PFI schemes that Labour brought in. If you take into account our debt repayments on PFI infrastructure that is currently hidden off the books then we are in even more shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

PFI schemes lol, but the tories are planning to introduce more privatisations, don't you see that the failure of PFI is an argument against your argument?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What the fuck ? I dont care if they claim child benefit ot not, its £20 a week ffs !!


 
£20 a week makes a big differance to someone on a low income, they could be taxes less if top earners were not eligible for this benefit. I say could, as the more pressing problem is reducing the national debt, which is where the savings will go towards. Less national debt means less of our GDP going on servicing debt and more being spent on usefull things. It's a long-term view but in the end it will result in more prosperty and growth.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Do you not have travel fees? There are loads of things you can count and HMRC are surprisingly helpful at pointing them out to you.



Not at the moment no. I work round the corner 2 days a week - don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy with my circumstances (gf works full time, I work 2 days and look after our daughter for the other 3)
Before this I did travel, but rarely more than a few miles and was a bit slack saving petrol reciepts as myself and gf shared a car. I intend on looking into claiming back milage next tax return though.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> PFI schemes lol, but the tories are planning to introduce more privatisations, don't you see that the failure of PFI is an argument against your argument?


 
Privatisations and PFI are not the same thing. I don't understand how the failure of PFI has any bearning on the argument regarding child benefits.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What's worse is not only do we have the problem of our sovereign debt, but also the deferred debt of the many PFI schemes that Labour brought in. If you take into account our debt repayments on PFI infrastructure that is currently hidden off the books then we are in even more shit.


but PFI is an implicitly pro-capitalist, tory-style policy that the tories supported, that sits fat more currrently with the grain of libdem and tory philosoiphy than with Labour's histortical outlook, and if any libdem politician mounted a crusade against PFI, I must have blinked and missed it.
you're the pro-big business one, right?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> £20 a week makes a big differance to someone on a low income, they could be taxes less if top earners were not eligible for this benefit. I say could, as the more pressing problem is reducing the national debt, which is where the savings will go towards. Less national debt means less of our GDP going on servicing debt and more being spent on usefull things. It's a long-term view but in the end it will result in more prosperty and growth.


 
If a banker gets £20 a week child benefit it doesn't magically turn into £20k a week just because a "top earner" is getting it. The national debt has nothing to do with people getting child benefit you utter fool


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Privatisations and PFI are not the same thing. I don't understand how the failure of PFI has any bearning on the argument regarding child benefits.


 
What the ... Jesus !!


----------



## moon23 (Oct 4, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but PFI is an implicitly pro-capitalist, tory-style policy that the tories supported, that sits fat more currrently with the grain of libdem and tory philosoiphy than with Labour's histortical outlook, and if any libdem politician mounted a crusade against PFI, I must have blinked and missed it.
> you're the pro-big business one, right?


 
Anyone who supported PFI was wrong to do so including the Tories. 

PFI is not a free-market idea; it is pro big-business.  It is protectionism for particular industries that benefited from schemes setup by the state that they couldn't fail to make a vast amount of money from.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your reckless share dealing is well known Blagsta
> 
> Seriously saying 'Everyone' is responsible is an exaggeration on my part, certainly there were many people involved in property trading & development who helped push up housing prices. It's a real-estate boom that is really behind the problem. I accept there were some very reckless bankers as well though.
> 
> ...



So it wasn't everyone then, it was the needs of capital.  Glad we agree on something.  Question is, why are you supporting ordinary people paying for it?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't think the tories have gone far enough. Child penalties are the way forward. An extra £1000 tax for each child would be a good start.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

So privatisation is better than PFI? Do you not see that the Tories are also introducing PFI "schemes" by another name?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

btw, PFI was first introduced by a tory government


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

This one is fucking clueless isn't he?

What is PFI if not free market? It's introducing greater "choices" into public services etc ...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Privatisations and PFI are not the same thing. I don't understand how the failure of PFI has any bearning on the argument regarding child benefits.


Then try thinking a bit harder. The ideological underpinnings of PFI, privatisation and the cuts are one and the same; "private sector good, public sector bad", a general belief that Public Services are part of the problem, and free enterprise the only possible source of a solution, a belief that The State should do as little as possible, and spend as little as possible.
It's not that hard to work out


----------



## weltweit (Oct 4, 2010)

I know a Roman Catholic family with 7 kids and another on the way. 

The dad is a hospital consultant of some kind, whatever, it is almost certain he will be over £44k


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a real-estate boom that is really behind the problem.


 
Was it fuck. That was a symptom, not the fucking cause.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Was it fuck. That was a symptom, not the fucking cause.


 
Are you some kind of extremist or something?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Anyone who supported PFI was wrong to do so including the Tories.
> 
> PFI is not a free-market idea; it is pro big-business.  It is protectionism for particular industries that benefited from schemes setup by the state that they couldn't fail to make a vast amount of money from.


HUH??? And where is this mythical dividing line between big business and free markets? They're one and the same!
And yet again you've missed the point: The ideological underpinnings of PFI were that capitalism's superior efficiency rating would deliver better on infrastructure projects - exactly the same reasoning your shameless party have signed up to.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

At least the tories have principles, even if they're shit ones, and at least you know where you stand with them, you know who they are. You lot are left wing when they want to get young people's and students' vote and right wing when they want to nick votes from tories !


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Anyone who supported PFI was wrong to do so including the Tories.
> 
> PFI is not a free-market idea; it is pro big-business.  It is protectionism for particular industries that benefited from schemes setup by the state that they couldn't fail to make a vast amount of money from.


 
Free markets are a fiction, total jackanory.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 4, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I can't really think of a very good argument why people who have the means to support their children should receive additional help from the government when there are people with far less means to support themselves paying taxes.


 
^^^

this tbh...

Effectively you're getting some tax back for having kids - in a sense this move is just increasing taxes for the wealthy. If the govt is a bit short of cash then I don't see why making people who earn 44k a year pay a bit more is in itself a bad move.

The dangerous part is if the barrier for exclusion gets lowered over time/doesn't keep up with inflation or if there are future plans to scrap it completely. But the idea in itself, scrapping the benefit for people who are already earning significantly more than the national average, isn't a bad one.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Dowie said:


> ^^^
> 
> this tbh...
> 
> ...


 
You do realise you answer your first point with your second, don't you?


----------



## elbows (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which is fucking nuts if that's the case.  You'll have a situation where a single parent family with an income of £44K gets no child benefit but a two parent family with two incomes of £43K (i.e. combined £86K) do get it.  That's grossly unfair and fucking dumb.


 
People are already going mad about this aspect of it. Tories have dug themselves into a hole on this one because theyd rather base it on joint income but they want really simple benefits system, dont want more household means testing (expect when it comes to the also announced cap on total benefits), so they've gone for this stupidly unfair approach. IDS reckons they can make it better when they've reformed the overall system to a far greater extent via their universal credits plan, years down the road.

I have some mixed feelings about this attack on universal benefits. Id far rather they didnt do this, and found some other way of getting the money back from those that can well afford to do without it, but some of the stuff people are saying in the likes of the Guardian is making my stomach churn:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-under-fire-welfare



> "The welfare state will only survive if it has the support of the middle classes and child benefit is their key payback. If you take away £1,000 from families with one child, the moment one of the parents earns around £44,000 a year is a very big step and could seriously undermine the welfare system."
> 
> A source with knowledge of the benefits system said: "Services for poor people soon become poor services."


----------



## rioted (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Was it fuck. That was a symptom, not the fucking cause.


TBF it's a bit complicated than that. The party that had put an end to boom and bust for all time presided over massive housing inflation but didn't bother re-introducing fair rent officers to keep housing costs down for the poor.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

It is a bad idea. Why shouldnt all children be valued the same? There is not any guarantee that someone's income who's on 44k won't fall dramatically, fmaily problems, domestic abuse etc, and have them have to leave. businesses etc can go bankrupt (and have).  

Funny how lib dems like you say stuff like class doesn't matter etc and then want to punish someone for earning 44k, which makes them well off, but hardly makes them part of the "super rich" depending on what else they are spending thhe money on. They might have an impossible mortgage etc. 


As I mentioned before, there's also no mention of inherited wealth in these "proposals".


----------



## moochedit (Oct 4, 2010)

The people on £44k+ losing CB don't need £20 a week and most of them won't care about losing it. 

I think they are doing this, so that when they cut other things in october (?) that do hit poorer people, the media can't run stories about millionaries getting CB while poor people lose benifits they actually need.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moochedit said:


> The people on £44k+ losing CB don't need £20 a week and most of them won't care about losing it.
> 
> I think they are doing this, so that when they cut other things in october (?) that do hit poorer people, the media can't run stories about millionaries getting CB while poor people lose benifits they actually need.


 
Have you read the thread?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

rioted said:


> TBF it's a bit complicated than that. The party that had put an end to boom and bust for all time presided over massive housing inflation but didn't bother re-introducing fair rent officers to keep housing costs down for the poor.


 
But still clearly not the cause of the recession.


----------



## moochedit (Oct 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Have you read the thread?


 
admittedly not all of it, sorry has someone else said that ?


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

Just came across this:



> Left Economics Advisory Panel co-ordinator Andrew Fisher described the move as "an ideological attack on the principle of universal benefits" and believes that the £1bn saved will have little bearing on the economy. He said: "If Mr Osborne is worried about lower-rate taxpayers subsidising the rich, why not raise taxes by charging 50 per cent on income over £100,000?"



and:



> By 2013, child benefit will have been frozen for three years - a real-terms cut of 10 per cent to an already low level of benefit.



http://uk-unemployed-betrayed.blogspot.com/2010/10/british-tories-end-universal-welfare.html


----------



## arthurgriffith (Oct 4, 2010)

Child benefit was the nearest Britain got to being a fair society, we are all losers, a dream has been shattered, next our whole social system will disintegrate and the place taken over by gangs with machine guns mounted on the back of pick ups. And all for £20


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

rioted said:


> TBF it's a bit complicated than that. The party that had put an end to boom and bust for all time presided over massive housing inflation but didn't bother re-introducing fair rent officers to keep housing costs down for the poor.


 
Why do you have a thing about the labour party rioted? Criticise them by all means (i certainly fucking do) but we have to remember who is the government now


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Voting whig will do that.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 4, 2010)

moochedit said:


> admittatley not all of it, sorry has someone else said that ?



"Under the new restrictions families with two earners paying basic-rate tax would still receive the benefit even if their combined salary is more than £44,000. This could mean households with a total income of £88,000 would still be eligible for child benefit while single-earner households taking home half that would lose out."

Ibid


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 4, 2010)

moochedit said:


> admittatley not all of it, sorry has someone else said that ?


 
Well, the point is that removing the universality of benefits then makes it easier to further attack them.  Also, the way that they're planning to do this means that a household on 80K can get child benefit while a household on £45k won't.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

I just don't get this, why the constant need to point out the evils of labour, not having a go mate but you know most of us on here aren't in labour and gordon brown isn't the prime minister any more, this is a tory policy (which could have been a labour policy) but he tories are carrying it out, so it's not relevant - i know they are all neo liberals/capitalist parties, but let's save the labour bashing for the elections eh, 
not saying we shouldnt criticise labour, we should, but this is a thread about tories and lib dems, and most of the policies that labour carried on were started by the tories anyway ...


----------



## Sue (Oct 4, 2010)

Whenever there's any attack on benefits or talk of reducing benefit fraud and all the rest of it, no-one, least of all the government, ever seems to mention the vast sums people are entitled to in benefits but don't claim. 

Obviously one reason for attacking universal benefits. Think of the money that can be saved when people don't claim what they're entitled to.

But then we are all in this together, let's not forget...


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 4, 2010)

PCS response to Child benefit cuts plans


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 4, 2010)

A while back I managed to blag my way into the dinner organised for a visiting speaker at Trinity College Dublin (told you I was posh, didn't I?).

The talk turned to child benefit (Irish style) and the consensus among these academics-with-jobs was that 'oh no, people like us don't need it'.

I tried to put the other side of the coin - that means testing is a false economy, that universality should be defended. 

I didn't get an argument in return - only the repetitive assertion that 'people like us don't need it'. At this point I lost my temper and starting shouting about THE CRIMINALS THAT RUN THIS COUNTRY. 

In hindsight it occurs to me that in response to the anxieties caused by the present crisis, people like that cling to the belief that their middle class status will keep them safe, and the need to maintain that status requires them to believe that they could lose child benefit without any undue hassle. They may find out the hard way just how wrong they are. . .

The whole scapegoating efforts here and in UK ('this person is on 400 a week!', etc.) indicates an attempt to shift the debate onto emotional territory, where fears and anxieties can be more easily exploited. . .


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 4, 2010)

Good post Idris.


----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> id favour scrapping it for excessive numbers of children.  Why should someone who has 6 kids get it for each kid.



Are you in the Green Party?


----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 4, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why do you have a thing about the labour party rioted? Criticise them by all means (i certainly fucking do) but we have to remember who is the government now


 
Because he's a typical LibDem-Anarchist hybrid, qv Shevek, Icepick, Waldo, In/bloom etc


----------



## Dowie (Oct 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You do realise you answer your first point with your second, don't you?


 
Not really - I still think the idea in itself, that high earners don't necessarily need to get tax relief for having kids - or in other words - tax well off people a bit more - is fair. I'm just worried about how something like this might (though not necessarily inevitably) progress.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 4, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned Vodafone yet? That they have been let off a £6bn tax bill? At a time when we are so short of cash as a country that we need to save £1bn on CB (minus admin costs). Shurely some mistake?


----------



## elbows (Oct 4, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> I tried to put the other side of the coin - that means testing is a false economy, that universality should be defended.


 
Shocking and disgusting as it may be that we have reached this point, I think people need to make this defence by reminding people of more of the substance and beliefs that powered the great universal benefits into being in the first place. I dont think talking about how unfair the changes are is enough, the original vision of universal benefits needs to be communicated much more. Personally Ive had a fairly complicated reaction to this policy announcement, and the stuff I quoted from the Guardian earlier that I shall quote again below, seems to be a horrible way of describing reasons for keeping universal benefits, someone please help me by doing a better job!



> "The welfare state will only survive if it has the support of the middle classes and child benefit is their key payback. If you take away £1,000 from families with one child, the moment one of the parents earns around £44,000 a year is a very big step and could seriously undermine the welfare system."
> 
> A source with knowledge of the benefits system said: "Services for poor people soon become poor services."


----------



## elbows (Oct 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Has anyone mentioned Vodafone yet? That they have been let off a £6bn tax bill? At a time when we are so short of cash as a country that we need to save £1bn on CB (minus admin costs). Shurely some mistake?


 
Dont worry, Im sure there are plenty of excuses for that. Its already done, too late, cant reverse it, and the man responsible had to grovel and say sorry to the Tories, and anyway if the Child Benefit stuff saves a billion a year then it'll only take 6 years of pain to make up the shortfall.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 5, 2010)

audiotech said:


> "Under the new restrictions families with two earners paying basic-rate tax would still receive the benefit even if their combined salary is more than £44,000. This could mean households with a total income of £88,000 would still be eligible for child benefit while single-earner households taking home half that would lose out."
> 
> Ibid



So should it be based on household income?

The single person earning more than £44,000 will be taxed at 40% for anything above that value whereas the couple earning up to £88,000 will still be eligible for the standard rate and be taxed at 20% so the single person loses out there too....


----------



## ethel (Oct 5, 2010)

some thoughts i posted elsewhere earlier:

truly awful decision:


means testing for HMRC to implement with fewer staff
error and fraud
child benefit award notification is used as evidence for other benefits
if two parents earn £43k each they'll keep the benefit, if a single parent earns £44k, they'll lose it.
if you are self employed it's possible to have large changes in income year to year. administrative nightmare.
child benefit provides stay at home parents with a bit of money that they feel is their own. it can be a godsend to people in abusive relationships.
the cut saves sod all in the grand scheme of things.
most of the money goes straight back into the economy, so it's really a transfer payment.
afaik it's being done through the SA system ie. you tick a box on the SA tax return (which all higher rate tax payers are supposed to get) and if someone in your household claims child benefit, then you'll pay it back as tax
receipt of child benefit provides the main carer with a NI credit towards their state pension
Child benefit applications feed through to the NI system and an NI number is automatically generated for that child and is sent to them when they are 15. yet more admin, WHOOP.



it was one of the last universal benefits, a recognition that children are important and they've abolished it.

DLA will be next.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A progressive and fair system would be based on low taxes...


What exactly is "progressive" about low taxes, in terms of how they serve the electorate? 


> and benefits only to those who need them.


Quantify "need", please.


> Otherwise people on lower incomes have to shoulder the taxation burden for benefits to the better off. Why for instance should I contribute my taxes towards a banker getting child benefit for their kids when I earn in the mid £20s


Why are you worrying about something as picayune as the cost of universal child benefit when you should be worrying about the cutting of corporation tax, and the ridiculous settlements that HMRC are allowing business to make on their taxes?


> I have no problem with cutting chid benefit to those on high taxes, it seems a reasonable effort to help cutting the national debt that is crippling us with it's repayments (repayments that mean we are spending more of our GDP servicing debt then on usefully things)


 
You're great at parroting party lines, but you still have next to no understanding of economics, do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> It is not, and will not, so please stop repeating this lie...


Unlikely. He's been disabused of his error several times now, but still rows back to his fib at every opportunity. 


> ...and we can blow a massive hole in the debt by selling our majority stakes in Lloyds, NR and RBS - it's just this needs to be done slowly


It's odd that people who purport to support market freedom/neo-liberalism, and the asset=stripping of the public sector don't understand this, and that paying down the debt gradually is financially and economically safer *for the people of this country* than trying to pay large chunks down through cuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Privatisations and PFI are not the same thing.



They are, however, similar in primary intent, which is to put realise as great a profit as possible through the marketisation of public goods and services.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> This one is fucking clueless isn't he?



Indeed. The Force is not strong in this one.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 5, 2010)

Dowie said:


> Not really - I still think the idea in itself, that high earners don't necessarily need to get tax relief for having kids - or in other words - tax well off people a bit more - is fair. I'm just worried about how something like this might (though not necessarily inevitably) progress.


 
But that's the whole point of something like this! The point is to reduce the amount until only the poorest receive it and then become stigmatised for doing so.

Also as pointed out, single parents are likely to lose out versus households with a double income that exceeds £44k.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Tory Minister Phil Hammond claimed on c4 news last night that CB was still a universal benefit. He has a habit of lying on the news - in the week before the election he said on newsnight:



> “We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit. … The universality of child benefit is really important to people, it reassures them about the availability of that benefit.”


----------



## rioted (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...bollocks...


You really are a tosser. Ideological tribalism! Tory attacks on the rich MUST be criticised. Bring back New Labour!!


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tory Minister Phil Hammond claimed on c4 news last night that CB was still a universal benefit. He has a habit of lying on the news - in the week before the election he said on newsnight:


 
BBC reporter last night and this morning making it clear that once, and if, they get this one through then the universality of other benefits is up for grabs too. It's quite blatantly a wedge in to door to end the universal nature of the welfare state. There's nothing necessary about this, it's utterly ideological.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 5, 2010)

So what's the rationale behind this taking effect in  2 1/2 years time given the Etonians are keen to include £6 billion of additional cuts in  this financial year?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

It's great timing for the run up to the election. Sheer genius - a reverse wedge strategy and put into action at a time of max electoral vulnerability. And they say Etonians don't have it any more.

Here's the criticisms of the IFS


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 5, 2010)

> reverse wedge strategy




Why not front load it as Boris is doing with fare increases? Once the 'crisis' is over in 4 years they could begin to restore it. 

Or: there's a much wider agenda.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I just don't get this, why the constant need to point out the evils of labour, not having a go mate but you know most of us on here aren't in labour and gordon brown isn't the prime minister any more, this is a tory policy (which could have been a labour policy) but he tories are carrying it out, so it's not relevant - i know they are all neo liberals/capitalist parties, but let's save the labour bashing for the elections eh,
> not saying we shouldnt criticise labour, we should, but this is a thread about tories and lib dems, and most of the policies that labour carried on were started by the tories anyway ...


yup,and it also blunts the cutting edge when we really, REALLY do have a need to sink our fangs into the soft underbelly of The People's Party....


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 5, 2010)

rioted said:


> You really are a tosser. Ideological tribalism! Tory attacks on the rich MUST be criticised. Bring back New Labour!!


why on earth can't you attack both Labour for their past failures AND the tories for the vicious onslaught on all of us that's going on right now?  The two aren't mutually exclusive, ffs! (in fact, the two parties are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> why on eart5h can't you attack both Labour for their past failures AND the tories for the vicious onslaught on all of us that's going on right now?  The two aren't mutually exclusive, ffs! (in fact, the two parties are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin)


 
Also, someone on 44k is well off, but they're hardly "rich".

why should "rich people" be able to use the nhs when they can pay privately? 

why should "rich people" be able to send their kids to state schools when they can afford not to? We all know about the shortage of school places? 


That's what's coming, a few years down the line.

And that's where the logic of everyone who's defending this is going to end up. 

Is that what the people defending this on the grounds that they're middle class and "dont need the money" want? You fucking mugs.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 5, 2010)

sarahluv said:


> some thoughts i posted elsewhere earlier:
> 
> truly awful decision:
> 
> ...


 
children ceased to be important once New Labour chucked single mums off income support and made them grovel for jobs with the other millions


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 5, 2010)

rioted said:


> You really are a tosser. Ideological tribalism! Tory attacks on the rich MUST be criticised. Bring back New Labour!!


 
Out of all the people to say support new labour, this makes no sense whatsoever since butchers has posted consistently attacking them over the last few years.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Also, someone on 44k is well off, but they're hardly "rich".
> 
> why should "rich people" be able to use the nhs when they can pay privately?
> 
> ...


 
I think this is going to happen soon.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't know about "soon" but I think it's their long term goal.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I don't know about "soon" but I think it's their long term goal.


 
i am surprised they haven't started charging for missed appts yet - which would be fair until you consider a lot of people who do fuck doctors around like that have mental problems...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Actually, I think they will be forced to go back on a lot of this stuff because of the popular outcry it will create tbh. Assuming of course that there is a popular outcry. I think they don't dare to mention this stuff so are attacking the first stuff bit by bit - but they've overstepped the mark on this occasion


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 5, 2010)

actually, I'm wondering if the bastards aren't being incredibly crafty here; flag up a whole load of incredibly, wildly unpopular stuff early on, then watch and note the screams of anguish, then row back to what they _really _wanted. Thatcher's mob were past masters of this tactic


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2010)

> Has anyone mentioned Vodafone yet? That they have been let off a £6bn tax bill? At a time when we are so short of cash as a country that we need to save £1bn on CB (minus admin costs). Shurely some mistake?





Thats obscene, if there was an effective anti-cuts movement(i think it is still embryonic) they could have made much of that


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Actually, I think they will be forced to go back on a lot of this stuff because of the popular outcry it will create tbh. Assuming of course that there is a popular outcry. I think they don't dare to mention this stuff so are attacking the first stuff bit by bit - but they've overstepped the mark on this occasion


 
i do agree, they could hit the poor as much as they like but now they're going for well off people there will be hell on.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It is a bad idea. Why shouldnt all children be valued the same? There is not any guarantee that someone's income who's on 44k won't fall dramatically, fmaily problems, domestic abuse etc, and have them have to leave. businesses etc can go bankrupt (and have).
> 
> Funny how lib dems like you say stuff like class doesn't matter etc and then want to punish someone for earning 44k, which makes them well off, but hardly makes them part of the "super rich" depending on what else they are spending thhe money on. They might have an impossible mortgage etc.
> 
> ...


 
It's about people who can afford it shouldering some of the burden with the budget deficit reduction. That's fair.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

No it's not. Fuck off.

Why isn't your whole approach about that then? Rather than unambiguously hitting the poorest?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's about people who can afford it shouldering some of the burden with the budget deficit reduction. That's fair.


 
So why is this policy going to give child benefit to households on 80K but not to single parents on £44K?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> actually, I'm wondering if the bastards aren't being incredibly crafty here; flag up a whole load of incredibly, wildly unpopular stuff early on, then watch and note the screams of anguish, then row back to what they _really _wanted. Thatcher's mob were past masters of this tactic


 
My impression was that some Conservatives were annoyed they hadn't made the ideological and economic arguments for defecit reduction and a small state and that the leadership were arguing it on pragmatic grounds.

Also they said the longer they leave the cuts the less Labour will be held responsible for the fiscal problems  we are in. To be honest the spending reduction is quite modest, we are still spending almost as much in total it's just more now is going on servicing our debt so we have less to spend on other things.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> So why is this policy going to give child benefit to households on 80K but not to single parents on £44K?


 
Becuase it's based on the tax bracket system for administative ease. I agree there are problems with this way of doing it though and it won't seem fair for some people as it's a broad brush approach.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Also they said the longer they leave the cuts the less Labour will be held responsible for the fiscal problems  we are in.


 
And that struck you as a reasonable political position rather than an utterly cynical (and stupid( move did it ??


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

25 - 40% cuts are modest?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Also they said the longer they leave the cuts the less Labour will be held responsible for the fiscal problems  we are in. To be honest the spending reduction is quite modest, we are still spending almost as much in total it's just more now is going on servicing our debt so we have less to spend on other things.


 How much more goes on servicing the debt now than, say, 20 years ago during the last recession (presided over by the Tories, of course)? Do you know? The overall debt was lower, but interest rates at the time were higher.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase it's based on the tax bracket system for administative ease. I agree there are problems with this way of doing it though and it won't seem fair for some people as it's a broad brush approach.


 
So in fact it won't achieve what you said.  In fact, just the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Why are you at the tory party conference moon23?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you at the tory party conference moon23?


 
because he's a tory


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's about people who can afford it shouldering some of the burden with the budget deficit reduction. That's fair.


 
So how about the proposed tax breaks for married people. Are they more able to shoulder some of the burden than single parents? Is that fair?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

> It's about people who can afford it shouldering some of the burden with the budget deficit reduction. That's fair.



His says this whilst supporting the budget that unambiguously puts the burden on the poorest. You miserable wannabe networking fucking hack.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

trashpony said:


> So how about the proposed tax breaks for married people. Are they more able to shoulder some of the burden than single parents? Is that fair?


 
it's single people's fault for not getting married, especially if they're also unemployed. Why dont they just get married, after they've just got a job as well.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> And that struck you as a reasonable political position rather than an utterly cynical (and stupid( move did it ??


 
No it didn't, it seemed cynical.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> His says this whilst supporting the budget that unambiguously puts the burden on the poorest. You miserable wannabe networking fucking hack.



Did that anaylsis take into account this Child Benefit proposal?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

You accept the analysis of the budget  then first off? Let's be clear. And that this was the one you supported?.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No it didn't, it seemed cynical.


 
Of course. 


Maybe the government should start paying dating agencies to force single people out of their feckless single state and force them to get married, it could be contracted to A4E or something. Maybe these dating agencies should have special targets - you have to marry the first person we introduce you to or no tax breaks/Child benefit for YOU!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Did that anaylsis take into account this Child Benefit proposal?


 
the proposal that will hit poorer people more you mean?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You accept the analysis of the budget  then first off? Let's be clear. And that this was the one you supported?.


 
I take it into consideration, I disagree with things like the VAT rise which will hit poor people hard.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> the proposal that will hit poorer people more you mean?


 
It will hit earners ober £44K more. They are not poorer than those under £44K.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I take it into consideration, I disagree with things like the VAT rise which will hit poor people hard.


 
You're not a minister. You don't get to _take things under consideration_. You either support a regressive budget that hits the poorest hardest or you don't. You do. You pompous cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're not a minister. You don't get to _take things under consideration_. You either support a regressive budget that hits the poorest hardest or you don't. You do. You pompous cunt.


 
I'm not being pompous, I don't support all of the budget.  As allready stated I think the VAT rise is regressive and a mistake.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

but by continuing to be in the lib dem party - you are a member and you pay subs, right?? and by going to the tory conference *you are supporting it*, even if you have misgivings about some of it. Your actions in this case are what is important. 

it would be like me saying "I dont support the unions, i think they hold th country to ransom too much" when i had just been on a TUC demo and after i had just handed over a load of money to a strike fund


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but by continuing to be in the lib dem party and by going to the tory conference you are supporting it, even if you have misgivings about some of it.


 
From what I understand he's going to be parading outside with a plackard that says "not in my name2 and campaigning to win the tories and lib dems over to a policy of taxing the rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not being pompous, I don't support all of the budget.  As allready stated I think the VAT rise is regressive and a mistake.


 
Yes you are being pompous, yes you do support all the budget.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but by continuing to be in the lib dem party and by going to the tory conference you are supporting it, even if you have misgivings about some of it.


 
Being in a party that is part of a coalition government doesn't require agreeing with every policy or every aspect of the budget.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Yes it does.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Being in a party that is part of a coalition government doesn't require agreeing with every policy or every aspect of the budget.


 
You are handing over subs right ?? 

So you are supporting it. 


There is a difference between "agreement" and "support".


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Random said:


> From what I understand he's going to be parading outside with a plackard that says "not in my name2 and campaigning to win the tories and lib dems over to a policy of taxing the rich.


 
I'd be more likely to simply talk to people and presuade them that the VAT rise is a bad idea rather than wave a placard. The rich allready are taxed, i'm far more concerned about reducing the tax burden on the poor than increasing it on the rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Who the fuck are you going to talk you? Pomposity!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

I can hear the Lib Dem dissent and opposition right about now against some of these policies...


*deadly silence*


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

I'm glad you said deadly rather than deathly because that's going to be the real life outcome.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You are handing over subs right ??
> 
> So you are supporting it.
> 
> Don't be silly, there are lot's of members of political parties that disagree with some of their parties policy. The aim is to attempt to change that policy from within through democratic means when you disagree. When a political pary is in a coaltion this is true to an even greater extent.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Random said:


> From what I understand he's going to be parading outside with a plackard that says "not in my name2 and campaigning to win the tories and lib dems over to a policy of taxing the rich.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Mug. No one in your party cares what you think. Where's your opposition? What have you and your party done to oppose VAT?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who the fuck are you going to talk you? Pomposity!


 
People within the party.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Don't be silly, there are lot's of members of political parties that disagree with some of their parties policy. The aim is to attempt to change that policy from within through democratic means when you disagree. When a political pary is in a coaltion this is true to an even greater extent.



Huh? There's a difference between agreeing with something and supporting it. Do you not get it? By handing over subs, by doing campaigning work for the lib dems, you are helping them. You are SUPPORTING their policies, whether you agree with them or not. You are helping it to continue. There isn't someone looking at the money you hand over and going, "Hmm, VAT increase. He doesn't agree with that so let's not use his money to promote it".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People within the party.


 
About doing what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Let's stop this crap quoting right now please.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Mug. No one in your party cares what you think. Where's your opposition? What have you and your party done to oppose VAT?


 
Some Lib Dem MPs tabled an amendment to the budget resolutions saying that the Treasury should carry out an assessment of the impact of the new 20% VAT rate "on business, charities and households across the income and age groups". I focus on other policy areas.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's stop this crap quoting right now please.


 
, fixed it now


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Huh? There's a difference between agreeing with something and supporting it. Do you not get it? By handing over subs, by doing campaigning work for the lib dems, you are helping them. You are SUPPORTING their policies, whether you agree with them or not. You are helping it to continue. There isn't someone looking at the money you hand over and going, "Hmm, VAT increase. He doesn't agree with that so let's not use his money to promote it".


 
What do you envisage, a world where people have a tantrum and leave their political party the minute they have one policy disagreement? Can you not understand the process of democratic debate and policy making within a political party?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some Lib Dem MPs tabled an amendment to the budget resolutions saying that the Treasury should carry out an assessment of the impact of the new 20% VAT rate "on business, charities and households across the income and age groups". I focus on other policy areas.


 
Fucking hell. How well did this furious revolt go?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Mug. No one in your party cares what you think. Where's your opposition? What have you and your party done to oppose VAT?


 
Well that would be precisely fuck all. No opposition as far as I can see to any of the 'coalition' policy proposals that the Lib Dems would once actively criticise. They're just going along with it all.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It will hit earners ober £44K more. They are not poorer than those under £44K.



Nope - some people with no income other than child benefit will have it removed.
If on the other hand you earn £43.5K you might well still be eligable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some Lib Dem MPs tabled an amendment to the budget resolutions saying that the Treasury should carry out an assessment of the impact of the new 20% VAT rate "on business, charities and households across the income and age groups".* I focus on other policy areas.*



lol

If only Labour MPs could have thought of that in 2003 – "Iraq War? Probably wrong, but couldn't tell ya mate. My area's housing."


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

Furious lol.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking hell. How well did this furious revolt go?


 
It didn't need to go far for the protest to be registered. The Coaliton is under constant pressure from a media (and a Labour party) that are looking to exploit any sign of disagreement as a split. Sadly the modern media is not really able to grasb the concept of a disagreement being settled or compromise.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Nope - some people with no income other than child benefit will have it removed.
> If on the other hand you earn £43.5K you might well still be eligable.


 
Bollocks, any indivdual with income under £44K a year will still get it.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

Never mind what the Labour party are doing/not doing, where's the fucking vocal and visible Lib Dem opposition to some of these 'coalition' policy decisions which people thought your party were against?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It didn't need to go far for the protest to be registered. The Coaliton is under constant pressure from a media (and a Labour party) that are looking to exploit any sign of disagreement as a split. Sadly the modern media is not really able to grasb the concept of a disagreement being settled or compromise.


 
Registered?  Not with me. So what happened? Do we still have this regressive tax and you still support the tories?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, any indivdual with income under £44K a year will still get it.


 
We're not talking largely about individuals though.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

stephj said:


> Never mind what the Labour party are doing/not doing, where's the fucking vocal and visible Lib Dem opposition to some of these 'coalition' policy decisions which people thought your party were against?


 
Lib-dems support it. They support all of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What do you envisage, a world where people have a tantrum and leave their political party the minute they have one policy disagreement? Can you not understand the process of democratic debate and policy making within a political party?


 
No absolutely not. There are a few things I don't agree with the "party line" on. However, I am happy to support its other work because I think that the work it does is good and valuable and those issues are minor points mostly about Israel and Palestine which are fairly trivial really (although they may become non trivial at a later time, altho its unlikely tbh) and nothing to do with the main work it's doing. If you take that position re VAT (that it's not important, although you seem to think the opposite given that you've been so keen to disassociate yourself from it) then fair enough, but it's no good squealing about how you "don't support" it and trying to disassociate yourself when you are an activist for the lib dems, you are an active member and hand over subs. Trying to make out that the policy decisions taken by the lib dems are something outside of you, that if you don't agree with it it can just go away. 

I'm happy to admit that my money could be used for things that I slightly disagree with, but unlike you I'm not desperately trying to disassociate myself from it and claiming that because I disagree with it it makes me "different". 

Especially since your party is in government. One thing disagreeing with the policies officially supported by the party if you've been out of power for 90 years. Quite another if you are in government and busy throwing away any principles you may have had in the first place.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> No absolutely not. There are a few things I don't agree with the "party line" on. However, I am happy to support its other work because I think that the work it does is good and valuable and those issues are fairly trivial really (although they may become non trivial at a later time) and nothing to do with the main work it's doing. If you take that position re VAT (that it's not important, although you seem to think the opposite given that you've been so keen to disassociate yourself from it) then fair enough, but it's no good squealing about how you "don't support" it and trying to disassociate yourself when you are an activist for the lib dems, you are an active member and hand over subs. Trying to make out that the policy decisions taken by the lib dems are something outside of you, that if you don't agree with it it can just go away.
> 
> Especially since your party is in government.


 
It's very simple, I don't support that particular measure but support the overal work and effect the party has.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's very simple, I don't support that particular measure but support the overal work and effect the party has.


 
Which is for a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest whilst attacking the conditions of life for the poorest. What a fucking star!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, any indivdual with income under £44K a year will still get it.


 
i don't think you've quite grasped what child benefit is paid for.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's very simple, I don't support that particular measure but support the overal work and effect the party has.


 
Which is....?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> lol
> 
> If only Labour MPs could have thought of that in 2003 – "Iraq War? Probably wrong, but couldn't tell ya mate. My area's housing."



If you think the Iraq war is a comparable issue to  A VAT increase from 17.5% then you need your head checked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If you think the Iraq war is a comparable issue to  A VAT increase from 17.5% then you need your head checked.


 
and i'm not sure you've caught the gist of comparing things.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> We're not talking largely about individuals though.


 
Part of the major problem with the benefits system over the years has been that in attempts to iron out any inconstancy it has become vastly complex and bureaucratic. Yes having a simple way to determine wealth e.g. tax bracket is going to negatively impact on some people where one partner does not work. This is the price of making a £1 Billion saving. A more complex  but arguably fairer system would cost more money to administer, however you are then using resources to make a particular benefit fair, when those resources could be used elsewhere to make things fair in another manner (e.g. through not having to cut education as much).

I Daresay that it is characteristic of many left-leaning people to hanker after a perfectly egalitarian and fair system. This leads to a vast and complex sprawling bureaucracy, where production and overall wealth starts to fall.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Bankers did not create the financial crises on their own. Everyone is guilty of driving up the bubble in real estate, and increasing consumer debt to such a huge level.
> 
> Bashing the one industry that we are actually quite successful with in Britain, e.g. financial services isn’t going to help the problem not matter how political satisfying it might be to find a scapegoat for out ills.



Bullshit. You're arguing a chicken and egg point when the reality is consumer driven debt was allowed by the banks. They were providing mortgages to people who weren't even working and it was irresponsible lending.  

I also reserve the right to be angry...given that bankers bonuses are now back to pre recession levels...they have got away with this relatively unscathed and mine and my partners job is at risk.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I Daresay that it is characteristic of many left-leaning people to hanker after a perfectly egalitarian and fair system.


 you're not a left-leaning person. so i suppose that means you don't hanker after a fair system.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Part of the major problem with the benefits system over the years has been that in attempts to iron out any inconstancy it has become vastly complex and bureaucratic. Yes having a simple way to determine wealth e.g. tax bracket is going to negatively impact on some people where one partner does not work. This is the price of making a £1 Billion saving. A more complex  but arguably fairer system would cost more money to administer, however you are then using resources to make a particular benefit fair, when those resources could be used elsewhere to make things fair in another manner (e.g. through not having to cut education as much).
> 
> I Daresay that it is characteristic of many left-leaning people to hanker after a perfectly egalitarian and fair system. This leads to a vast and complex sprawling bureaucracy, where production and overall wealth starts to fall.


 
Jesus christ. Need i bother?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's very simple, I don't support that particular measure but support the overal work and effect the party has.



That's fair enough, but don't you see that it's one thing not to agree with something in theory and another in reality, when this is something which will affect people's lives, this will hurt people, real people, children, etc ?? 

If you support a party in government you support its policies of that government. There's no little box called "Moon23's subs" they look at and think "I'm not going to use that money to promote a VAT increase of 17.5%"! Do you not get it? These policies are having an efect in the real world, it's not like you''re out of powerr and can say what you like!!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes having a simple way to determine wealth e.g. tax bracket is going to negatively impact on some people where one partner does not work. This is the price of making a £1 Billion saving. A more complex  but arguably fairer system would cost more money to administer,
> ...


 
Well there you have it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

A whopping great billion pounds. Where else could we get such sums? Any ideas?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I Daresay that it is characteristic of many left-leaning people to hanker after a perfectly egalitarian and fair system. This leads to a vast and complex sprawling bureaucracy, where production and overall wealth starts to fall.



No it doesn't. Universal provision – be it of education, health care or a citizen's wage – paid for by a progressive direct tax system in which the rich pay the most. Simple, unbureaucratic, egalitarian and fair.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> Bullshit. You're arguing a chicken and egg point when the reality is consumer driven debt was allowed by the banks. They were providing mortgages to people who weren't even working and it was irresponsible lending.
> 
> I also reserve the right to be angry...given that bankers bonuses are now back to pre recession levels...they have got away with this relatively unscathed and mine and my partners job is at risk.



Banker bashing may be political satisfying, and I agree such vast bonuses are unfair when people are at risk of losing their jobs. However  the city is one of the largest financial centres in the world, and our exported financial services bring in a vast amount of revenue. Any attempt to bash bankers that is too punitive will result in relocation to other fiscal centres that will be happy to take our business away from us. 

 The British economy needs a prosperous financial centre to help with it’s economic re-growth, and that reason we must resist the urge to punish bankers as in doing so we would only inflict a far wider amount of pain on the wider public.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

So what's the overall work and effect the Lib Dems have?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A whopping great billion pounds. Where else could we get such sums? Any ideas?


 
Cutting the NHS budget or international aid.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)




----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 5, 2010)

or chasing unpaid business taxes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

rioted said:


> You really are a tosser. Ideological tribalism! Tory attacks on the rich MUST be criticised. Bring back New Labour!!



Attacks that are probably laying the groundwork for an all-out assault across the welfare state *should* be criticised, for the means, not necessarily because of the short-term ends.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Cutting the NHS budget or international aid.


 
Or how about making Vodafone pay their fucking tax bill? £6bn right there. Oh no, because we might make them stamp their feet and move their HQ to a more tax hospitable location. Oh wait, corporation tax is higher in a lot of other countries isn't it? Perhaps not


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Cutting the NHS budget or international aid.


 
There, he's finally done it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2010)

Moon lacks the moral courage to own up to their support for the coalition's policies.

Moon lacks the intellectual integrity to face up to gaping holes in their own knowledge and arguments.

Moon lacks the basic human empathy to place real people before the half digested dogma of 'there is no alternative'.

Moon is an empty vessel making an ugly noise.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> actually, I'm wondering if the bastards aren't being incredibly crafty here; flag up a whole load of incredibly, wildly unpopular stuff early on, then watch and note the screams of anguish, then row back to what they _really _wanted. Thatcher's mob were past masters of this tactic


 
Myself, I'm wondering if Osborne isn't loving it. This furore over CB can be deflected onto IDS, and any bad feeling accruing from the electorate and the party to IDS is nectar for Osborne.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's about people who can afford it shouldering some of the burden with the budget deficit reduction. That's fair.


 
You're making assumptions about what that £44,000 might have to cover.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's very simple, I don't support that particular measure but support the overal work and effect the party has.


 
But by handing money over you are supporting it. By promoting the Lib Dems on here and recruiting people in real life and going to their events, YES you are supporting it. You are helping to promote the party and thus its policies. Whether you as an individual "agree" with them or not. 

Wouldn't make much sense for me to hand over money every week, and then when talking to people, be like, "Actually Mate I want to privatise the NHS"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Moon lacks the moral courage to own up to their support for the coalition's policies.
> 
> Moon lacks the intellectual integrity to face up to gaping holes in their own knowledge and arguments.
> 
> ...


 
Moon is the lib-dem future.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, any indivdual with income under £44K a year will still get it.



Let me explain it slowly

No....they...wont.

There are a good number of people, primarily those who give birth to children, who have no income whatsoever, none, nada, not a sausage, who are now set to lose child benefit and presumably the pension protection that goes with it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Cutting the NHS budget or international aid.


 
Adding 5p to the higher rate of income tax, perhaps? 



No, silly me, that would raise far more than £1bn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase it's based on the tax bracket system for administative ease. I agree there are problems with this way of doing it though and it won't seem fair for some people as it's a broad brush approach.


 
It's a kite being flown in advance of using the tax system for other purposes.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what's the overall work and effect the Lib Dems have?


 
They make society a more liberal and fair place to live. In practice this means:

Winning a referendum on a new electoral system
 Taking some of the lowest paid out of tax
Introducing the pupil premium
 Introduced a bankers levy
 Green deal to boost energy efficiency
 Fixed term parliaments, house of lords reform
 Scrapping of ID cards, rolling back Database State
Freedom Bill, regulation of CCTV, removing innocent people from DNA database, review of terror laws
More rehabilitation of offenders 
 Pensions earnings link


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're making assumptions about what that £44,000 might have to cover.


 
Exactly, they might be caring for sick relatives etc. Their job might be at risk. They might have to work impossible hours (or work two or three people's jobs) and barely ever got to spend time with their family.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The British economy needs a prosperous financial centre to help with it’s economic re-growth, and that reason we must resist the urge to punish bankers as in doing so we would only inflict a far wider amount of pain on the wider public.



Oh thats ok then. I could lose my job and they shouldnt be punished because in the long term more people and services could be cut. Genius.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

Mustn't allow those greedy bankers to quit the UK


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase it's based on the tax bracket system for administative ease. I agree there are problems with this way of doing it though and it won't seem fair for some people as it's a broad brush approach.


 
it won't seem fair because it isn't fair


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

stephj said:


> Mustn't allow those greedy bankers to quit the UK


 
quite. they should stay behind to clear up the mess they made


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> they should stay behind to clear up the mess they made


 
If only. If only.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> But by handing money over you are supporting it. By promoting the Lib Dems on here and recruiting people in real life and going to their events, YES you are supporting it. You are helping to promote the party and thus its policies. Whether you as an individual "agree" with them or not.
> 
> Wouldn't make much sense for me to hand over money every week, and then when talking to people, be like, "Actually Mate I want to privatise the NHS"


 
You don't understand how parties work, paying membership means you can have a democratic say in the direction of the party. Having a tantrum and resigning over every policy difference means you will be political marginalised. Suggesting that people resign over a rise or fall in the VAT rate is ridiculous, resigning over a moral question as important as an illegal war is perhaps a different matter. 

Your definition of support is flawed too as you are failing to notice the distinction I’m making between supporting a policy and supporting a policy. They mean different things, which should be obvious to most people.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Moon is the lib-dem future.


and the present. with knobs on.
e2a; which means, to all intents and purposes, the Conservative present


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Being in a party that is part of a coalition government doesn't require agreeing with every policy or every aspect of the budget.


 
At a personal membership level, perhaps not, but it requires your parliamentary party to sanction and support policy change, the budget etc. These policies do not get legislated, and budget motions passed, without agreement and (more importantly) voting with the Tories.
Any legislation passed that needs the coalition vote to carry it is te *joint* responsibility of the two parties. You can't claim to be behind any "good" things, and have no responsibility for any "bad" things.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't understand how parties work, paying membership means you can have a democratic say in the direction of the party.



Sorry, you don't understand ho parties work if you believe this.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

How long have you bee in the lib-dems moon? And how long were you in the SP - what is your party membership experience?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Moon lacks the moral courage to own up to their support for the coalition's policies.
> 
> Moon lacks the intellectual integrity to face up to gaping holes in their own knowledge and arguments.
> 
> ...


 
Is there any reasoning behind your statements or are we meant to accept them as upheld truths simply because you have stated them?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

We hold these truths to be self-evident.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Don't be silly, there are lot's of members of political parties that disagree with some of their parties policy. The aim is to attempt to change that policy from within through democratic means when you disagree. When a political pary is in a coaltion this is true to an even greater extent.


 
Except that, as you may or may not have noticed, all three main political parties have revised their constitutions and/or articles of association to render internal democracy more difficult, and the exercise of executive power more easy.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't understand how parties work, paying membership means you can have a democratic say in the direction of the party. Having a tantrum and resigning over every policy difference means you will be political marginalised. Suggesting that people resign over a rise or fall in the VAT rate is ridiculous, resigning over a moral question as important as an illegal war is perhaps a different matter.
> 
> Your definition of support is flawed too as you are failing to notice the distinction I’m making between supporting a policy and supporting a policy. They mean different things, which should be obvious to most people.


or, to put another way, "it's better to betray any principles I might have held and completely prostitute myself politically, as then my masters may throw me the occasional tokenist bone, as long as I let them use me as their ideological alibi"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

stephj said:


> I can hear the Lib Dem dissent and opposition right about now against some of these policies...
> 
> 
> *deadly silence*


 
I'm hearing some from party members, but fuck all from parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

We were assured rebellion if there was a coalition and then if the coalition did bad stuff.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> or, to put another way, "it's better to betray any principles I might have held and completely prostitute myself politically, as then my masters may throw me the occasional tokenist bone, as long as I let them use me as their ideological alibi"


 
In the world of simplistic urbanite characterisations that are prevalent on this board yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't understand how parties work, paying membership means you can have a democratic say in the direction of the party. Having a tantrum and resigning over every policy difference means you will be political marginalised. Suggesting that people resign over a rise or fall in the VAT rate is ridiculous, resigning over a moral question as important as an illegal war is perhaps a different matter.
> 
> Your definition of support is flawed too as you are failing to notice the distinction I’m making between supporting a policy and supporting a policy. They mean different things, which should be obvious to most people.


 
You're going to be politically marginalised come the next election anyway mate, "tantrums" or not. What "tantrums" anyway? 

And if you read my posts careful I was the one who was making a distinction between agreement and support, you haven't made any distinction at all.


Btw, what is the point of your party existing? Why don't you just become a tory? 
Serious question btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In the world of simplistic urbanite characterisations that are prevalent on this board yes.


Yes what?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2010)

As I said it makes an ugly noise.



moon23 said:


> They make society a more liberal and fair place to live. In practice this means:
> 
> Winning a referendum on a new electoral system - _which could actually produce a less proportional vote than the current system._
> Taking some of the lowest paid out of tax - _out of income tax but into increased regressive VAT._
> ...



That's just an initial response; I could get really my teeth stuck into your illinformed claims if you'd like.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They make society a more liberal and fair place to live. In practice this means:
> 
> Winning a referendum on a new electoral system
> Taking some of the lowest paid out of tax
> ...


 
That's just a list of policies and points you read from the lib dem manifesto, and you havent answered the question. In theoretical etc terms what is the point of it ?? What positive effects is it having? tell me one, right now.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> As I said it makes an ugly noise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
One like statements hardly make for a refutation, you're at best as intellectually lazy as I am when it comes to posting on a forum board.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> That's just a list of policies and points you read from the lib dem manifesto, and you havent answered the question. In theoretical etc terms what is the point of it ?? What positive effects is it having? tell me one, right now.


 
Scrapping ID cards, we no longer have a massively illiberal scheme.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Scrapping ID cards, we no longer have a massively illiberal scheme.


 
Yes we do. ID cards weren't introduced to start with. Is "scrapping" a proposed policy of a government ie one that hadn't been introduced yet, that lost the last election (like all political parties do) part of the "overall work and effect"? 
Next!


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Scrapping ID cards, we no longer have a massively illiberal scheme.


 
It was already a Tory policy anyway to scrap it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You're going to be politically marginalised come the next election anyway mate, "tantrums" or not. What "tantrums" anyway?
> 
> And if you read my posts careful I was the one who was making a distinction between agreement and support, you haven't made any distinction at all.
> 
> ...


 
If I re-read your posts it's clear you decided to ignore my own distinction between supporting a policy and supporting the party and instead attempted a semantic redefinition of support. The definition you are using takes it at it's fullest possible meaning which ignores my defining caveat. Instead you deploy a sophistic trick of introducing another term of 'agreement' which you say I should use instead.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

These civil liberties in the middle of economic inequality - economic inequality that you're committed to in creasing  mean nothing. Nothing.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

stephj said:


> It was already a Tory policy anyway to scrap it.



Irrelevant, the Identity and Documents Bill that scraps the card would need Lib Dem support even if there wasn't a formal coalition.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If I re-read your posts it's clear you decided to ignore my own distinction between supporting a policy and supporting the party and instead attempted a semantic redefinition of support. The definition you are using takes it at it's fullest possible meaning which ignores my defining caveat. Instead you deploy a sophistic trick of introducing another term of 'agreement' which you say I should use instead.


 
I dont use your definition because you do support it. Your actions speak louder than writing some crap on a message board.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> These civil liberties in the middle of economic inequality - economic inequality that you're committed to in creasing  mean nothing. Nothing.


 
Civil Liberties are an important consideration alongside fairness of economic opportunity, and the reduction of poverty. The two are however seperate issues.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Irrelevant, the Identity and Documents Bill that scraps the card would need Lib Dem support even if there wasn't a formal coalition.


 
No it wouldn't. Enough Labour rebels to secure that one even in the unlikely event that the Labour leadership opposed the scrapping.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> These civil liberties in the middle of economic inequality - economic inequality that you're committed to in creasing  mean nothing. Nothing.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Irrelevant, the Identity and Documents Bill that scraps the card would need Lib Dem support even if there wasn't a formal coalition.


 
and so i suppose the lib dems would need to be persuaded to follow the tory lead on this


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I dont use your definition because you do support it. Your actions speak louder than writing some crap on a message board.


 
I support the party, but disagree with this policy. How can I be any more explicit?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Civil Liberties are an important consideration alongside fairness of economic opportunity, and the reduction of poverty. The two are however seperate issues.


 
You've just said that getting 1 billion back quick is more important than spending a little more money in the short term to ensure a fairer benefits structure.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> One like statements hardly make for a refutation, you're at best as intellectually lazy as I am when it comes to posting on a forum board.


 
Ok let's take your claim re. pensions and earnings. The Tories were committed to this yet you are trying to claim it as a specifically Lib Dem achievement (was that a failure of intellectual integrity or just simple dishonesty?). Yet you make no mention of the highly regressive switch from linking benefit levels and the RPI, to linking benefits and the CPI. Your party is in government with the Tories and is as responsible as them for this long term attack on the standard of living of some of the poorest people in this country.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

What's worse, having to carry a card around or being thousands of pounds worse off ?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I support the party, but disagree with this policy. How can I be any more explicit?


 
I know you disagree with the policy, you've said so several times and I believe you. 

Do something about it then.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> and so i suppose the lib dems would need to be persuaded to follow the tory lead on this


 
No, that's the point the Lib Dems oppose ID cards so they would be happy to support a bill that scrapped them. That is one good thing that the Lib Dems have done, their opposition to ID cards has helped seen them scrapped.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I know you disagree with the policy.
> 
> Do something about it then.


 
Ok will do, and i'll make a start now and stop wasting too much time on Urban.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, that's the point the Lib Dems oppose ID cards so they would be happy to support a bill that scrapped them. That is one good thing that the Lib Dems have done, their opposition to ID cards has helped seen them scrapped.


 
So one party supporting another party's policy that supported it anyway ... ah, forget it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ok will do, and i'll make a start now and stop wasting too much time on Urban.


 
Glad to hear it. Let us know how you get on.


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're making assumptions about what that £44,000 might have to cover.


 


frogwoman said:


> Exactly, they might be caring for sick relatives etc. Their job might be at risk. They might have to work impossible hours (or work two or three people's jobs) and barely ever got to spend time with their family.


 

Mmmm, I am affected in that I earn a wage (just) into the higher tax band but support both myself and my other half in the south-east (she was made redundant & can't find another job yet) plus help out my parents.

Am not touched by this particular issue but if we had a child then I imagine we would be struggling financially in any case and losing £80/month wouldn't help.

Not everyone on £40K+ is living the life of Riley.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

stephj said:


> You've just said that getting 1 billion back quick is more important than spending a little more money in the short term to ensure a fairer benefits structure.


 
Having to spend a vast chunk of your GDP on servicing debt is not fair. Reducing our defecit now is fairer in the long one. The vast majority of people are not in the higher tax bracket, and most will see this as those with the broadest shoulders taking some of the strain.

That Labour are defending tax subsidies for the wealthiest is beyond me. 

and on that comment i'm off for now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Exactly, which is why making a simplistic assumption that anyone earning above 40k is "rich" is naive to say the least, whoever it's coming from, the left or the right. Sorry to hear of your situation mitre.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So one party supporting another party's policy that supported it anyway ... ah, forget it.


 
Yes that support is necessary to see it passed through the commons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No, that's the point the Lib Dems oppose ID cards so they would be happy to support a bill that scrapped them. That is one good thing that the Lib Dems have done, their opposition to ID cards has helped seen them scrapped.


 
it won't be too long until the lib dems are scrapped.


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Exactly, which is why making a simplistic assumption that anyone earning above 40k is "rich" is naive to say the least, whoever it's coming from, the left or the right. Sorry to hear of your situation mitre.


 
I'm doing alright, it's a bit tough at the moment and there aren't any "luxuries" but at least I still have my head above water (albeit with about £10 left in my account before payday  )

Work in construction and about 35% of my colleagues have been laid off over the last 2 years so I could be a lot deeper in the shite than I am.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> Bullshit. You're arguing a chicken and egg point when the reality is consumer driven debt was allowed by the banks.


"Promoted" or "encouraged" are more apt descriptions than "allowed", IMO.


> They were providing mortgages to people who weren't even working and it was irresponsible lending.


Of course it was, and you can bet that the consequences were understood by the banks.
What was also implicitly understood by the banks, unfortunately, was that they could rely on the state to bail them out if everything went pear-shaped.


> I also reserve the right to be angry...given that bankers bonuses are now back to pre recession levels...they have got away with this relatively unscathed and mine and my partners job is at risk.


As are hundreds of thousands more, plus an even greater number if the economy belly-flops into recession.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Banker bashing may be political satisfying, and I agree such vast bonuses are unfair when people are at risk of losing their jobs. However  the city is one of the largest financial centres in the world, and our exported financial services bring in a vast amount of revenue.


Nope, I'm not having that. This line always gets trotted out by apologists, and it's plain bullshit. The City still contributes less (just over 16%) than the industrial sector (just shy of 24%), even though the industrial sector has been gutted, filleted and de-scaled (% figures for 2008).


> Any attempt to bash bankers that is too punitive will result in relocation to other fiscal centres that will be happy to take our business away from us.


Spurious argument. Those financial centres (not fiscal. Don't use words you obviously don't understand, eh?) that can offer similar advantages to the City have similar or greater underlying costs. Those that don't have such costs lack utility. This is why threats of relocation are rarely carried out. 


> The British economy needs a prosperous financial centre to help with it’s economic re-growth, and that reason we must resist the urge to punish bankers as in doing so we would only inflict a far wider amount of pain on the wider public.


What absolute shite. An apologia for capital from someone who barely understands the economy.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Mitre10 said:


> Mmmm, I am affected in that I earn a wage (just) into the higher tax band but support both myself and my other half in the south-east (she was made redundant & can't find another job yet) plus help out my parents.
> 
> Am not touched by this particular issue but if we had a child then I imagine we would be struggling financially in any case and losing £80/month wouldn't help.
> 
> Not everyone on £40K+ is living the life of Riley.


 
Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Parasite


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


 
You've been criticised for a specific lie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


 
how is £40k an average wage in the south-east?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_distribution_across_UK_regions


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


 
On this thread most of the defence has been of universal benefits and those at the bottom of the income pile. Why you've come back on here with more of your misanthropic bile, I've no idea.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


 
and from this source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

what the bloody fuck gives you the idea £40k is mean, mode or median in the south-east?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how is £40k an average wage in the south-east?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_distribution_across_UK_regions


 It's not, this is part of the specific lie he's been put right on at least twice now.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ive always in the been criticised for suggesting that £40k ish is an average salary in the south east.  It's strange that Labour is now defending higher rate taxpayers.  This rate is far too low to scrap child benefit.  Id rather see a reduction in child benefit based on the number of children families have given that they will still receive some benefit if that were the case.


 
Apart from the fact that isn't true, why are you happy to take money away from a poor family on far less than £40k just because they have kids. Child benefit is meant to benefit _all _children, not just the ones that were fortunate to be the eldest.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Parasite


 
on benefits per chance?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> and from this source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
> 
> what the bloody fuck gives you the idea £40k is mean, mode or median in the south-east?


 
I know virtually no-one earning less than that and managing in any shape or form.  It's fine when you have 2 earners in a household but any less and you're stuffed.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> on benefits per chance?


 
Tax dodging vermin


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I know virtually no-one earning less than that and managing in any shape or form.  It's fine when you have 2 earners in a household but any less and you're stuffed.


 
no, i didn't say 'please post up some irrelevant bollocks', i said 'what the bloody fuck gives you the idea £40k is mean, mode or median in the south-east?'


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tax dodging vermin


 
You really are quite the most idiotic person Ive come across.  Remember that you need taxpayers to pay your benefits.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i didn't say 'please post up some irrelevant bollocks', i said 'what the bloody fuck gives you the idea £40k is mean, mode or median in the south-east?'



Based on the fact that I don't know anyone earning less than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You really are quite the most idiotic person Ive come across.  Remember that you need taxpayers to pay your benefits.


 
people on benefits pay tax too. have you heard of indirect taxation?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> people on benefits pay tax too. have you heard of indirect taxation?


 
Not much though eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Based on the fact that I don't know anyone earning less than that.


 
no, i didn't say 'how much do you and your mates get', i said 'what the bloody fuck gives you the idea £40k is mean, mode or median in the south-east?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not much though eh?


 
you're caught out lying again though.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you're caught out lying again though.



you've lost me there.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You really are quite the most idiotic person Ive come across.  Remember that you need taxpayers to pay your benefits.


 
We need tax payers to pay what they fucking owe, you thieving parasite.

Btw, I'm not on benefits, not that it would matter if I was you tax dodging cockroach.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Based on the fact that I don't know anyone earning less than that.


 
I don't know any Slovenians, ergo Slovenians do not exist.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not much though eh?


 
Are they VAT exempt, parasite?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't know any Slovenians, ergo Slovenians do not exist.


 
have to say Slovenians don't number highly round here


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Whoosh


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are they VAT exempt, parasite?


 
not on 20 Rothmans, no


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes that support is necessary to see it passed through the commons.


 
Still, hardly a great shining lib-dem achievement.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> not on 20 Rothmans, no


 
You think fags are tax free, thief?


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You think fags are tax free, thief?


 
oh good grief.  I'll give you the number of my accountant and he can send you some documents that might educate you on tax affairs.  You stick to smoking Slovenians.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> oh good grief.  I'll give you the number of my accountant and he can send you some documents that might educate you on tax affairs.  You stick to smoking Slovenians.


 
You and your accountant are both parasites.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You and your accountant are both parasites.


 
Excellent


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt: stealing from the state every day


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Mitre10 said:


> I'm doing alright, it's a bit tough at the moment and there aren't any "luxuries" but at least I still have my head above water (albeit with about £10 left in my account before payday  )
> 
> Work in construction and about 35% of my colleagues have been laid off over the last 2 years so I could be a lot deeper in the shite than I am.


 
that's good at least, least your holding up innit. Sorry to hear about your colleagues though


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2010)

what is baffling me is the anger from many people on the left/progressives, the unions, etc, when social cleansing may happen in London and maybe other big cities when the HB Caps come in...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> social cleansing may happen in London and maybe other big cities when the HB Caps come in...



Could you explain what you mean by this, for the benefit of the naive?

E2A: Oh, HB, not CB. Got it. (Wonders about impact on rental market and property prices)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

Why is it baffling you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 5, 2010)

thanks for shitting on an interesting thread you guys


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2010)

> Why is it baffling you?



because of the attention yet again, benefit changes for the mainly wealthy have got in the MSM and on discussion lists, the poorest are about to be truly hammered into the 19th C, I'm more concerned about that


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2010)

It does seem unfair if a couple earning together over 44k but each less than that will keep the benefit but single earners will not. But I don't think there are many couples in that situation. 

At least that is what the man on the radio said today


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It will hit earners ober £44K more. They are not poorer than those under £44K.



Are you being deliberately obtuse?  We've already established that households with incomes of £85K could still be eligible, but households with incomes of £44K won't be.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 5, 2010)

weltweit said:


> It does seem unfair if a couple earning together over 44k but each less than that will keep the benefit but single earners will not. But I don't think there are many couples in that situation.
> 
> At least that is what the man on the radio said today


 
tis all beside the point anyway


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, I'm not having that. This line always gets trotted out by apologists, and it's plain bullshit. The City still contributes less (just over 16%) than the industrial sector (just shy of 24%), even though the industrial sector has been gutted, filleted and de-scaled (% figures for 2008).



16% is a serious chunk of our economy, and we are the largest financial exporter in the world. The City bring in Billions to our economy, it's madness to start lambasting it unilaterally.



> Spurious argument. Those financial centres (not fiscal. Don't use words you obviously don't understand, eh?) that can offer similar advantages to the City have similar or greater underlying costs. Those that don't have such costs lack utility. This is why threats of relocation are rarely carried out.



They won't have similar costs if some of the tax the banker mentality gets put into government policy. Thankfully most politicians realise this hence why the levy is relatively modest.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse?  We've already established that households with incomes of £85K could still be eligible, but households with incomes of £44K won't be.




No we haven't established that households with incomes of over £44K won't be eligible. We have established that households where only one partner works and the other earns over £44K won't be. The maximum possible differential is between £88k and £44k, this however is the extreme end of what will be a statistical spread. In most cases the other partner will have some form of income, or the person earning over £44K will be earning significantly over £44k, and as such can afford it.  

If you also implement the coalitions agreement to bring in transferable tax allowances between married couples then in married households where only one person is earning they can transfer their allowance across that would mitigate this effect.

The underlying point about having a simpler benefit system to reduce the deficit so we can spend out GDP on useful things rather than servicing Brown’s debt remains.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

weltweit said:


> It does seem unfair if a couple earning together over 44k but each less than that will keep the benefit but single earners will not. But I don't think there are many couples in that situation.
> 
> At least that is what the man on the radio said today


 
Not that many people are in this situation, and it's no more unfair then someone who earns £320,000 getting £20 a week for his kid that he simply pays into a trust for when they go to university whilst poor families pay taxes spend their benefit on food and their kids have to work through university.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

> The City bring in Billions to our economy, it's madness to start lambasting it unilaterally.


Agreed. Let's join together. Make it effective.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> because of the attention yet again, benefit changes for the mainly wealthy have got in the MSM and on discussion lists, the poorest are about to be truly hammered into the 19th C, I'm more concerned about that


 
Ae these two issues completely separate from each other? No.

I'm sure your thread will get plenty of posts in due course.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not that many people are in this situation, and it's no more unfair then someone who earns £320,000 getting £20 a week for his kid that he simply pays into a trust for when they go to university whilst poor families pay taxes spend their benefit on food and their kids have to work through university.


 
That's the talking point the wankers in Ireland use as well. And the best answer to it is SO FUCKING WHAT?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> because of the attention yet again, benefit changes for the mainly wealthy have got in the MSM and on discussion lists, the poorest are about to be truly hammered into the 19th C, I'm more concerned about that


 
*GOOD.* The fact that this will hit middle class people, without meaning to be cynical, will potetially mobilise a section of society with (at the moment) far more power than the majority of claimants. It will also mean that people MAY start looking into other benefits that are being cut and discovering things for themselves. Don't look at this way. 

Besides, child benefit affects everyone. It's not going to remain at 44k for long. 

And besides, how many others things "can't we afford?"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

@ Treelover 

Look at how the Daily Mail etc are frothing over this. 

Look at it as a (potential) positive. (not the cut itself obviously, the fact it's being focused on by the media, talked about, etc - the fact that middle class people are being hit by this means that welfare issues will be brought to more peoples attention and in a way which Osborne and his lib dem minions havent counted on)


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Agreed. Let's join together. Make it effective.


 
I'm not opposed at attempts to find some international agreement on the matter, although the chances of that seem very slim.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not that many people are in this situation, and it's no more unfair then someone who earns £320,000 getting £20 a week for his kid that he simply pays into a trust for when they go to university whilst poor families pay taxes spend their benefit on food and their kids have to work through university.


 
They wont be working through university now you lib dems have had their way. In fact they won't be going to university at all


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No we haven't established that households with incomes of over £44K won't be eligible. We have established that households where only one partner works and the other earns over £44K won't be. The maximum possible differential is between £88k and £44k, this however is the extreme end of what will be a statistical spread. In most cases the other partner will have some form of income, or the person earning over £44K will be earning significantly over £44k, and as such can afford it.
> 
> If you also implement the coalitions agreement to bring in transferable tax allowances between married couples then in married households where only one person is earning they can transfer their allowance across that would mitigate this effect.
> 
> The underlying point about having a simpler benefit system to reduce the deficit so we can spend out GDP on useful things rather than servicing Brown’s debt remains.



deliberately obtuse it is


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not opposed at attempts to find some international agreement on the matter, although the chances of that seem very slim.


 
We all agree to hang them from the nearest lampost?  Something like that you mean?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> We all agree to hang them from the nearest lampost?  Something like that you mean?


 
Now that really would be in the national interest.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> @ Treelover
> 
> Look at how the Daily Mail etc are frothing over this.
> 
> Look at it as a (potential) positive. (not the cut itself obviously, the fact it's being focused on by the media, talked about, etc - the fact that middle class people are being hit by this means that welfare issues will be brought to more peoples attention and in a way which Osborne and his lib dem minions havent counted on)


 
It's very cunning of Osborne, he knows it will provoke fury from a group of people who are very vocal and defending themselves. It's only helping to increase the covereage of the announcement. It's like something Blair would have done baiting the left.

However most voters (including Tory voters) will never earn in the top rate of income tax and see this as rebalancing fairness  and most Tory activists, rich or poor, are against the state taking with one hand and giving back with the other.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

tory activists lol.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> We all agree to hang them from the nearest lampost?  Something like that you mean?


 
No like an internationaly agreed banking reform.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Now that really would be in the national interest.


 
What lynching people? That's sick.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's very cunning of Osborne, he knows it will provoke fury from a group of people who are very vocal and defending themselves. It's only helping to increase the covereage of the announcement. It's like something Blair would have done baiting the left.
> 
> However most voters (including Tory voters) will never earn in the top rate of income tax and see this as rebalancing fairness  and most Tory activists, rich or poor, are against the state taking with one hand and giving back with the other.


 
How on earth will "most voters" see this as "rebalancing fairness" when everything else is being cut to fuck?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> ... and most Tory activists, rich or poor, are against the state taking with one hand and giving back with the other.


 
I don't think just tory activists. I am against the state taking with one hand and giving back with the other, it just seems overly complex.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What lynching people? That's sick.


 
So is punishing the poor for the mistakes of the rich.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> So is punishing the poor for the mistakes of the rich.


 
Which is what transferring private debt into collective soverign debt has done.


----------



## treelover (Oct 5, 2010)

@Froggie, I meant in wider society not here, but my point still stands, the very poorest are being ignored in the UK, this is like the US, you do have a point though, this M/C cut may draw people into the wider debate.


Oh, and btw, I not endorsing this end to universalism, just noting the coverage.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Which is what transferring private debt into collective soverign debt has done.


 
What?  You're actively supporting the punishment of the poor.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2010)

kkkkkkkkkkku                                     l98888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l;-xz=========================----------------------------------------------------------------------------------zb22222222


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How on earth will "most voters" see this as "rebalancing fairness" when everything else is being cut to fuck?


 
Becuase current polling shows only about 33% of people are against taking steps "in current economic conditions" to reduce the government's deficit and debt. It is not being 'cut to fuck' either overall spending is being slowed down. The problems arise becuase we are spending the same amount of money on other things, namely servicing our debt repayments. 

If NHS spending and overseas aid were not ring-fenced then the cuts would not be felt as harsh in other areas. There are many quangos that could be cut without anyone even noticing any significant reduction in their living standards.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2010)

My cat writes more sense than moon.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What?  You're actively supporting the punishment of the poor.


 
Nope but that's what has happened when the government stepped into bail out the banks. Note how Labour stepped into bail-out Norther Rock and protect it's customers in it's heartlands but was happy to screw the Icelandic people over.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase current polling shows only about 33% of people are against taking steps "in current economic conditions" to reduce the government's deficit and debt. It is not being 'cut to fuck' either overall spending is being slowed down. The problems arise becuase we are spending the same amount of money on other things, namely servicing our debt repayments.
> 
> If NHS spending and overseas aid were not ring-fenced then the cuts would not be felt as harsh in other areas. There are many quangos that could be cut without anyone even noticing any significant reduction in their living standards.



You really don't want to use the polls on this do you? Do you?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Nope but that's what has happened when the government stepped into bail out the banks. Note how Labour stepped into bail-out Norther Rock and protect it's customers in it's heartlands but was happy to screw the Icelandic people over.


 
If the banks hadn't been bailed out, what do you think would have happened?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> If the banks hadn't been bailed out, what do you think would have happened?



Thinks?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> Thinks?


 
Good point.  He shows very little evidence of being able to.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Good point.  He shows very little evidence of being able to.



He has yet to respond to Minou's post.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 5, 2010)

Minou taps claws....


----------



## Dr. Furface (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many quangos that could be cut without anyone even noticing any significant reduction in their living standards.


Apart from the people who work for them. In any case, quangos are being chopped already and it's just the start.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> If the banks hadn't been bailed out, what do you think would have happened?


 
Investors would have lost their money, then another bank would take on it's liabilities. Business and individuals fail all the time, I don't see what is so special about the banks that they require the government to sign away all our money in massive bail-outs.

The market might have actually learnt something if it had to face the stark realities of it’s own reckless lending, instead you have a statist intervention to support a corporatist banking system that is now returning vast bonuses to itself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You really are quite the most idiotic person Ive come across.


 
Bar every time you look in the mirror, anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> what is baffling me is the anger from many people on the left/progressives, the unions, etc, when social cleansing may happen in London and maybe other big cities when the HB Caps come in...


 
Has the fact that it's not the actual CB amendment, but the fact that the amendment introduces a process for de-universalising benefits entirely passed you by?
Child Benefit now, what next?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> because of the attention yet again, benefit changes for the mainly wealthy have got in the MSM and on discussion lists, the poorest are about to be truly hammered into the 19th C, I'm more concerned about that


 
You miss the point. It's not about defending from one attack at the expense of another, it's about defending against all attacks, and about not allowing ourselves to be trapped in the claws of a pincer movement or encirclement by the government. If that means that the middle classes derive a short-term benefit from it, then that's a price we have to pay, and a reckoning to be made later.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Has the fact that it's not the actual CB amendment, but the fact that the amendment introduces a process for de-universalising benefits entirely passed you by?
> Child Benefit now, what next?


 
he's only able to hold one simple concept in his head at a time, give him a break.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't think it makes sense that people earning over £44k - so 50k 60k 100k 150k bankers on loads etc should receive child benefits.  Apart from anything else it means everybody has to pay higher taxes to enable payments to be made to people who are so well off they certainly don't need or deserve the benefit.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bar every time you look in the mirror, anyway.


 
ha ha you keep watching out for the attack on your benefits - that should keep you busy


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

That's not actually funny.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Investors would have lost their money, then another bank would take on it's liabilities. Business and individuals fail all the time, I don't see what is so special about the banks that they require the government to sign away all our money in massive bail-outs.
> 
> The market might have actually learnt something if it had to face the stark realities of it’s own reckless lending, instead you have a statist intervention to support a corporatist banking system that is now returning vast bonuses to itself.



You really are quite detached from reality y'know.  During the crisis in Oct 2008, banks were 24 hours away from not being able to fill cash machines.  What do you think would have happened?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 5, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I don't think it makes sense that people earning over £44k - so 50k 60k 100k 150k bankers on loads etc should receive child benefits.  Apart from anything else it means everybody has to pay higher taxes to enable payments to be made to people who are so well off they certainly don't need or deserve the benefit.


 
shut up and read the thread


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> 16% is a serious chunk of our economy


It's less than a sixth. It's two-thirds as much as our attenuated industrial sector brings in. Using phrases like "serious chunk" doesn't alter that. 


> and we are the largest financial exporter in the world.


Because we offshore for other states. 


> The City bring in Billions to our economy...


As do other sectors of the economy. The City is *not* anything special.
Oh, and by the by, the City *passes* hundreds of billions through our economy, and hides more billions abroad to avoid UK liabilities. It indulges in financial chicanery to defraud the govt on a far larger scale than any other sector of the economy.


> it's madness to start lambasting it unilaterally.


It would only be madness if there were no good reason(s) to lambast it. The City has made rods for its' own back.


> They won't have similar costs if some of the tax the banker mentality gets put into government policy.


Care to provide something other than your opinion to support this claim? 


> Thankfully most politicians realise this hence why the levy is relatively modest.


So, nothing to do with Parliament governing for business rather than the electorate, then?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha you keep watching out for the attack on your benefits - that should keep you busy


 
You parasite, fuck off you thieving tax dodging vermin. Go steal a charity box.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

It's pretty fucking low down.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> shut up and read the thread


 
No. 

I have to go to bed. 

Up at 6.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You parasite, fuck off you thieving tax dodging vermin. Go steal a charity box.



oops benefit man no. 2 is back


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You really don't want to use the polls on this do you? Do you?


 
Too late, he's already hoist himself by his own petard (which happens to be emblazoned with the words "non-representative sample size").


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> oops benefit man no. 2 is back


 
You are scum.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> oops benefit man no. 2 is back


 
For someone who supposedly earns more than 40k and keeps going on about how successful you are, you dont seem to have learnt very much in life


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You are scum.


 
well you started the name throwing - I have merely continued it for a bit of fun.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well you started the name throwing - I have merely continued it for a bit of fun.


 
Leech


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> For someone who supposedly earns more than 40k and keeps going on about how successful you are, you dont seem to have learnt very much in life


 
we can all throw childish words around 

I never said I was successful either.  For once I am in the fortunate position that a tax hike doesn't affect me - must be the first time ever.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Leech


 
scrounger


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Investors would have lost their money, then another bank would take on it's liabilities


Jesus arse-raping, monkey-bumming Christ. You really haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about, have you?
Why in the name of Satan's clagged-up arse hair would another bank assume the liabilities of a failed one? The remaining assets perhaps, but the liabilities? Get a fucking clue, for fucks' sake!


> Business and individuals fail all the time, I don't see what is so special about the banks that they require the government to sign away all our money in massive bail-outs.


Because, as history shows us, bank failures almost almost create "runs" on *all* banks, not just the affected ones. This in turn causes a *systemic* banking failure that can trigger economic depression rather than recession.
Bailing out a handful of banks is a lot more manageable and sensible than having to revive the entire sector after a systemic failure. 


> The market might have actually learnt something if it had to face the stark realities of it’s own reckless lending, instead you have a statist intervention to support a corporatist banking system that is now returning vast bonuses to itself.


Except that the banks and bankers wouldn't have learned, and instead of cuts, we'd have a siege economy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha you keep watching out for the attack on your benefits - that should keep you busy


It's not my benefits I'm worried about.
Not that a selfish, self-righteous person such as yourself could understand that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> That's not actually funny.


 
It's a good indicator of how he believes people think, though. He obviously thinks everyone is as self-concerned as he is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It's pretty fucking low down.


 
What, stealing a charity box?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> oops benefit man no. 2 is back


 
You know what "they" say about making assumptions?

Well "they're" wrong, it only makes an ass out of you.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2010)

Laughing about attacks on benefits I mean. Fuck, I shouldnt take it so seriously


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> scrounger


 
Doesn't work pal, I'm not in receipt of any benefits, nor tax credits, nothing.

I may be signing on in a couple of weeks though, and you know what, I sure as fuck won't be ashamed by that.

Now fuck off and steal milk from a baby you parasite.


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Doesn't work pal, I'm not in receipt of any benefits, nor tax credits, nothing.
> 
> I may be signing on in a couple of weeks though, and you know what, I sure as fuck won't be ashamed by that.
> 
> Now fuck off and steal milk from a baby you parasite.



Don't worry mate - I'll pay for ya!!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not my benefits I'm worried about.
> Not that a selfish, self-righteous person such as yourself could understand that.



I think that was such a shock to his system he has had to have a lie down


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Laughing about attacks on benefits I mean. Fuck, I shouldnt take it so seriously


 
lighten up; It was all done with a smile here anyway - in between cooking and ironing anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Don't worry mate - I'll pay for ya!!


 
No you won't, you'll fucking dodge your dues. You're alright Jack.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Don't worry mate - I'll pay for ya!!


 
Oh. Spoke too soon


----------



## gunneradt (Oct 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No you won't, you'll fucking dodge your dues. You're alright Jack.


 
there's plenty, promise


----------



## where to (Oct 6, 2010)

amazed how weak and vulnerable Cameron and co have looked today.  he was almost crying in some clips.  no lib dems in sight, but David Davis out criticising - already.  i'd thought he'd of laid low for a while still.

all interesting stuff imo.


----------



## elbows (Oct 6, 2010)

Little did we realise that the Tory cuts would include cutting the amount of time it takes for the Tories to show their ineptitude, and cutting the amount of time it takes for the press and the people to get sick of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

where to said:


> amazed how weak and vulnerable Cameron and co have looked today.  he was almost crying in some clips.  no lib dems in sight, but David Davis out criticising - already.  i'd thought he'd of laid low for a while still.
> 
> all interesting stuff imo.


 You think a gap is opening? I don't. Not at all


----------



## elbows (Oct 6, 2010)

I wouldnt expect to see many lib dems this week, gotta let the Tories have centre stage during their conference.


----------



## elbows (Oct 6, 2010)

Plu Ive got more faith in Tory backbenchers making a noise than Lib Dems.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

where to said:


> amazed how weak and vulnerable Cameron and co have looked today.  he was almost crying in some clips.  no lib dems in sight, but David Davis out criticising - already.  i'd thought he'd of laid low for a while still.
> 
> all interesting stuff imo.


 
Cameron and Osborne want lots of indignant middle-class people rumbling about it as it helps reinforce the idea they are being fair with their cuts. Blair used to do the same, baiting the left of the Labour party to make himself more populist amongst the masses. 

Many people will think it's unfair that people on £44K or more will also be getting state benefits when they are facing hardship on a much lower income. I doubt most people think much in terms of preserving a 'universal benefit'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Cameron and Osborne want lots of indignant middle-class people rumbling about it as it helps reinforce the idea they are being fair with their cuts. Blair used to do the same, baiting the left of the Labour party to make himself more populist amongst the masses.
> 
> Many people will think it's unfair that people on £44K or more will also be getting state benefits when they are facing hardship on a much lower income. I doubt most people think much in terms of preserving a 'universal benefit'


 
They're your cuts as well.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I don't think it makes sense that people earning over £44k - so 50k 60k 100k 150k bankers on loads etc should receive child benefits.  Apart from anything else it means everybody has to pay higher taxes to enable payments to be made to people who are so well off they certainly don't need or deserve the benefit.


 
One more time:

Because by giving it to everybody you guarantee that all those who need it get it.

Because by giving it to everybody you make it cheap to administer.

Because by giving it to everybody you protect it by creating a universal interest in it.

Because by giving it to everybody you send out a message that all children should be equally valued.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Cameron and Osborne want lots of indignant middle-class people rumbling about it as it helps reinforce the idea they are being fair with their cuts. Blair used to do the same, baiting the left of the Labour party to make himself more populist amongst the masses.
> 
> Many people will think it's unfair that people on £44K or more will also be getting state benefits when they are facing hardship on a much lower income. I doubt most people think much in terms of preserving a 'universal benefit'



I think you have a reasonable point here. Where I work there is generally a shrug of the shoulders and a response that there are more deserving people and the odd well we all have to give something up sort of approach. I ssupecyt may are hoping ( wrongly) that each cut made elsewhere may help spare themselves.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you've lost me there.


 
you suggested people on benefits don't pay tax.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> They're your cuts as well.


 
Some are needed to get the mountain of debt created by Labour under control.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some are needed to get the mountain of debt created by Labour under control.


 
This is the extent of your Hackery.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> One more time:
> 
> Because by giving it to everybody you guarantee that all those who need it get it.



They still have to apply for it, those who are eligible will still carry on applying for it and get it so it makes no differance. 



> Because by giving it to everybody you make it cheap to administer.



That depends how it's administered, e.g. means tested or based on threshold. Anyway the cost of giving everyone child benefit dwarfs any administrative cost of linking it to tax threshold, or even if you went down the more bureaucratic a means testing route.



> Because by giving it to everybody you protect it by creating a universal interest in it.



Society doesn't care about children becuase it gets paid to.



> Because by giving it to everybody you send out a message that all children should be equally valued.



Nope you send out a message that those in poorer families should have an additional taxation burden placed on them so some of their taxes can be redistributed to the top 10% of the population, and also that everyone should be reliant on support from the state.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is the extent of your Hackery.


 
I know the cold reality of us having to turn over an ever increasing amount of our expenditure seems to escape you, but meanwhile the rest of us have to do something to stop the country heading for economic ruin.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know the cold reality of us having to turn over an ever increasing amount of our expenditure seems to escape you, but meanwhile the rest of us have to do something to stop the country heading for economic ruin.


 
Untrue. There's no need to do anything you're doing. It's happening because you want to do it. Fuck you, clown - dance for your masters.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know the cold reality of us having to turn over an ever increasing amount of our expenditure seems to escape you, but meanwhile the rest of us have to do something to stop the country heading for economic ruin.



Why don't _you_ go and get Vodafone to pay their £6billion tax bill, or how about selling the stakes we have in the banks. That would go some way to stopping judgement day/economic ruin.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some are needed to get the mountain of debt created by Labour under control.


 
labour, labour, labour. who fucking cares. You're the one supporting this shit


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Untrue. There's no need to do anything you're doing. It's happening because you want to do it. Fuck you, clown - dance for your masters.


 
Only the economically retarded deny there is no need to do anything to reduce our defecit. Labour under Darling were planning cuts of around 12  even Labour now say they won't 'oppose every coalition cut' 
_
Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."_

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says cuts are going to be needed too. Only the most hairbrained fringe socalists thinks we can carry on spending.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They still have to apply for it, those who are eligible will still carry on applying for it and get it so it makes no differance.
> 
> _Having broken the universal commitment, it becomes an open door for more traditional forms of means testing which have historically proved to be a sgnificant disincentive for those in need._
> 
> ...



Your concern for poor families might be slightly more credible if you had bothered to respond to my query re. your support for moving from the RPI to the CPI for future benefits updates.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 6, 2010)

I wonder what the psychological motivation is for your marriage to the tories moon. It's not as if the alternative view is unfamiliar to you - you remain, for another reason I can't fathom, on these boards, and read perspectives and links that repeatedly inform you of it. And yet you choose to ignore it. Do you enjoy the deference? Do you doff your cap?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Nope you send out a message that those in poorer families should have an additional taxation burden placed on them so some of their taxes can be redistributed to the top 10% of the population, and also that everyone should be reliant on support from the state.



It's amazing, I listen to Today on Radio 4, then a couple of hours later I read the same thing on here, word for word. 

So you'd scrap the NHS – pay for your own health care. Scrap state schools – pay for your own schools. 

We are all reliant on help from the state. That's what the state's there for – to help us, and to enable us to help others. It's a nonsensical argument. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same if, for instance, it were decided to allow carers to transfer their tax allowance to their partner (look for this coming – the Tories will have to do something along these lines to mitigate the disaster that will be this policy). 

Yet there is no essential difference between a tax break and giving a cash benefit. You are making an entirely spurious and artificial distinction (well, the Tories are – you are clearly just their unthinking mouthpiece), and this line that 'the poor' are giving to the rich through child benefit is nonsense. Expect it to be trotted out when university tuition fees are set to sky-rocket, though. What next? The poor pay taxes towards the NHS too – why should the poor subisidise free treatment for the rich? (Clue: they don't. The state and state provision should be there for all who want it, not just those who can't afford to go private. The idea that we should all wean ourselves off the state is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the state is.)


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> labour, labour, labour. who fucking cares. You're the one supporting this shit


 
Yes the large defecit was created under Labour, and now the following administration has to clear up their financial mess. I support reducing the defecit as I don't want to see Britian getting caught in the debt trap it was heading towards, which would result in far more suffering and pain in the long-term.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

Christ did someone force-feed a copy of the orange book down your throat or something ??


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's amazing, I listen to Today on Radio 4, then a couple of hours later I read the same thing on here, word for word.
> 
> So you'd scrap the NHS –*pay for your own health care. Scrap state schools –*pay for your own schools.
> 
> ...


 
I was working late last night so didn't get up until after the Today program had finished, but someone is obviously making some good points on it. There is a huge difference between a tax break and having a state welfare system that takes with one hand and then gives it back with another. Namely that the later creates a huge number of bureaucratic non-jobs that wastes vast amounts of economic energy that could be going towards creating wealth and improving the material circumstances of people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I was working late last night so didn't get up until after the Today program had finished, but someone is obviously making some good points on it. There is a huge difference between a tax break and having a state welfare system that takes with one hand and then gives it back with another. Namely that the later creates a huge number of bureaucratic non-jobs that wastes vast amounts of economic energy that could be going towards creating wealth and improving the material circumstances of people.


 
The tax break bit is from me, not Today. On Today, they were just spouting word for word the crap you're coming out with. So, how much cheaper would it be to administer a tax-break system instead of a universal benefit system? Do you know?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> I wonder what the psychological motivation is for your marriage to the tories moon. It's not as if the alternative view is unfamiliar to you - you remain, for another reason I can't fathom, on these boards, and read perspectives and links that repeatedly inform you of it. And yet you choose to ignore it. Do you enjoy the deference? Do you doff your cap?


 
Do you not think it's sad it becomes questionable why anyone who holds an alternative view would stay on this board?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The tax break bit is from me, not Today. On Today, they were just spouting word for word the crap you're coming out with. So, how much cheaper would it be to administer a tax-break system instead of a universal benefit system? Do you know?



I agree, I’m all for tax-breaks to the poor for starters it encourages people to engage in useful economic activity rather than be reliant on a state bureaucracy. You only need a minimal amount of tax to look after those without any means to support themselves. The Tax credit system however is bonkers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

How can you agree with a question?

Problem of course with changing child benefit over entirely to the tax system is that you need to have a separate benefit for those who don't pay enough tax to benefit from the break.

Now I'm all for a rationalisation of the tax/benefit system that unifies the two. But I'd want such a system to recognise the cost of caring for dependants. It appears that you would not. Why is that?

(And please don't agree or disagree with this post – it is asking you a question that you need to answer.)


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How can you agree with a question?
> 
> Problem of course with changing child benefit over entirely to the tax system is that you need to have a separate benefit for those who don't pay enough tax to benefit from the break.



That's ok, you get benefits which are only available when you are on a low income allready. It makes more sense then giving it to everyone.



> Now I'm all for a rationalisation of the tax/benefit system that unifies the two. But I'd want such a system to recognise the cost of caring for dependants. It appears that you would not. Why is that?



I want a system that doesn't places a lower taxation burden on people with dependants, so that  be recognising this cost.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I want a system that doesn't places a lower taxation burden on people with dependants, so that  be recognising this cost.



Could you have another go at that sentence?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2010)

It all went a bit pirate


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's ok, you get benefits which are only available when you are on a low income allready. It makes more sense then giving it to everyone.



But you've previously said that means testing is expensive and bureaucratic (you do remember saying that don't you?), so how do propose to identify those on low incomes (are the incomes themselves to be offset against neccessary expenditure, regionally weighted, linked to family size, source of housing tenure...?) and subsequently keep track of them to make sure that they have the benefits withdrawn if and when their income increases?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. see my previous unanswered poata; there are a lot of other gaping holes in your arguments that need pasting over.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you not think it's sad it becomes questionable why anyone who holds an alternative view would stay on this board?



It's not so much the alternative view that you hold, but that you just repeat that same view in the face of any counter-argument. You're clearly not going to change any minds round here and no argument made by others seems to make even the slightest change to your own position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the large defecit was created under Labour, and now the following administration has to clear up their financial mess. I support reducing the defecit as I don't want to see Britian getting caught in the debt trap it was heading towards, which would result in far more suffering and pain in the long-term.


 so you think that the cuts will be reversed when the time is right. about as likely as the advent of cthulhu.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> It all went a bit pirate


 
Aye that be right..


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2010)

I's completely delusional to imagine that these changes will be reversed. Child benefit is the soft target of universalism, which is the key plank of the welfare state. That the thin end of the wedge is so thick indicates that the thick end will be very thick indeed - the complete dismantling of state welfare in the UK.

Support it if you must, but realise what it is that you're supporting.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the large defecit was created under Labour, and now the following administration has to clear up their financial mess. I support reducing the defecit as I don't want to see Britian getting caught in the debt trap it was heading towards, which would result in far more suffering and pain in the long-term.


The necessity of resuing the country from the pile of shit your heroes in the City dumped us in was what caused the huge deficit, and Labour's rescue package was supportecd by your party, a party which had also said *zero* about the need for tighter financial sector regulation in the 3 years between the 2005 GE and the crunch.
The deficit was unavoidable, it is NOT a 'mess'- we have easily dealt with a far bigger deficit successfully (if debt is expressed as a %age of GDP) without the pain your tory mates and you are inflicting on the country.
So please cut the lies and the bullshit.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you not think it's sad it becomes questionable why anyone who holds an alternative view would stay on this board?


That's NOT what Red cat was saying and you know it. It's that whilst others try reasoned debate, you simply and unthinkingly ;parrot the govt line. If I wanted to hear david cameron's views, I'd go to the organ grinder, not the monkey, thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Aye that be right..


 
Please have another go at that sentence. Do you want the state benefit/tax system to recognise the cost of providing for dependants or not?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But you've previously said that means testing is expensive and bureaucratic (you do remember saying that don't you?), so how do propose to identify those on low incomes (are the incomes themselves to be offset against neccessary expenditure, regionally weighted, linked to family size, source of housing tenure...?) and subsequently keep track of them to make sure that they have the benefits withdrawn if and when their income increases?
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. see my previous unanswered poata; there are a lot of other gaping holes in your arguments that need pasting over.



 You don't need to identify people on a low income; they will identify themselves through the necessary of having to claim for the benefit. You certainly don't take all the factors you mention, simply on taxable income.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Please have another go at that sentence. Do you want the state benefit/tax system to recognise the cost of providing for dependants or not?


 
Yes but through the reduction of any taxation burden rather than through state benefits. Any such change would require a complete overhaul of the system.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but through the reduction of any taxation burden rather than through state benefits. Any such change would require a complete overhaul of the system.


 
Do you understand that giving tax breaks to parents and giving parents money are effectively the same thing – the end result being that those who have children receive more from the tax/benefit system than those who do not?

In light of this, do you further understand how dishonest your 'the poor pay for benefits for the rich' line is?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> The necessity of resuing the country from the pile of shit your heroes in the City dumped us in was what caused the huge deficit, and Labour's rescue package was supportecd by your party, a party which had also said *zero* about the need for tighter financial sector regulation in the 3 years between the 2005 GE and the crunch.
> The deficit was unavoidable, it is NOT a 'mess'- we have easily dealt with a far bigger deficit successfully (if debt is expressed as a %age of GDP) without the pain your tory mates and you are inflicting on the country.
> So please cut the lies and the bullshit.


 
1) We don't know what the % of debt for GDP really is thanks to things like PFI pushing it off the books
2) Yes there are lot's of periods when we had higher debts as a % of GDP, non are historically comparable to this global problem.
3) Vince warned about the impending collapse of the real estate bubble and the collapse of Norther Rock.
4) The banking problems resulted from a massive investment bubble, yes some banks created overley complex products at the end of the bubble to hide the bad debts but is was a collective responsibilty. Many people in this country saw property as a quick and easy way to make money too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't need to identify people on a low income; they will identify themselves through the necessary of having to claim for the benefit. You certainly don't take all the factors you mention, simply on taxable income.



Ah, the ignorance shining through. You do know that one of the other arguments against means testing, besides the expense of administering it, is that many of those eligible do not claim?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't need to identify people on a low income; they will identify themselves through the necessary of having to claim for the benefit. You certainly don't take all the factors you mention, simply on taxable income.


 Have you any idea why the take up rate for means tested benefits drops so violently from the near universal take up rate of CB?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't need to identify people on a low income; they will identify themselves through the necessary of having to claim for the benefit. You certainly don't take all the factors you mention, simply on taxable income.


 
If you rely on self identification you will miss large numbers of those in need; this is historically proven. But perhaps you consider that a price worth paying (like the future further impoversihment of benefit claimants due to the switch to CPI).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you understand that giving tax breaks to parents and giving parents money are effectively the same thing – the end result being that those who have children receive more from the tax/benefit system than those who do not?
> 
> In light of this, do you further understand how dishonest your 'the poor pay for benefits for the rich' line is?



I accept that the end result is that those people with children receive some help over those who do not, however my point is that having a system that takes money from people only to then give it back to them is inefficent. It's not that I don't want there to be help for people brining up children, but rather I'd like to see them get more help which I think would be the case if money wasn't wasted on administering a universal benefits system.

I don't think the line is dishonest becuase currently the poor do contribute to taxation and some of that taxation is spent on giving benefits to the top 10% of earners, who frankly don't need it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

There is another important point about universal benefits. They are a right. They are a birthright. They are part of what indicates, ironically enough, that we are 'all in this together'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think the line is dishonest becuase currently the poor do contribute to taxation and some of that taxation is spent on giving benefits to the top 10% of earners, who frankly don't need it.



If you don't understand why this is dishonest, you are a fucking moron.

Goodnight.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you rely on self identification you will miss large numbers of those in need; this is historically proven. But perhaps you consider that a price worth paying (like the future further impoversihment of benefit claimants due to the switch to CPI).
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
You have allways had to apply for benefits, the joy of tax breaks is that they happen automatically and you don't miss out on people.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you don't understand why this is dishonest, you are a fucking moron.
> 
> Goodnight.


 
Well I also think you are a moron if you don't think that poor people contribute to the same taxation pot from which the top 10% claim child benefits.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is another important point about universal benefits. They are a right. They are a birthright. They are part of what indicates, ironically enough, that we are 'all in this together'.


 
I agree there is an element of state provison increasing a sense of tribal identity.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2010)

But I don't earn over the 44k threshold, but I still pay vastly more in tax than I could ever hope to receive in child benefit. So it is rather notional to suggest that poorer people pay for my child benefit, when my taxes already pay for it many times over.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have allways had to apply for benefits, the joy of tax breaks is that they happen automatically and you don't miss out on people.


 
What has your first point got to do with our discussion? The expensive and bureaucratic means test has always been resented and avoided.

There's not much joy in tax breaks for those who don't pay income tax.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. why so quiet on the CPI issue?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree there is an element of state provison increasing a sense of social cohesion, mutual identification and solidarity.



Your choice of language speaks volumes; as I said earlier in this thread you make an ugly noise.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

guys. 
if i ever show signs of becoming like moon, please tell me, i want to know before it's too late.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> guys.
> if i ever show signs of becoming like moon, please tell me, i want to know before it's too late.


 
I don't think you're in danger of that happening


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Only the economically retarded deny there is no need to do anything to reduce our defecit. Labour under Darling were planning cuts of around 12  even Labour now say they won't 'oppose every coalition cut'
> _
> Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."_
> 
> The Institute for Fiscal Studies says cuts are going to be needed too. Only the most hairbrained fringe socalists thinks we can carry on spending.


NO-ONE is arguing we need zero cuts you lying twat; just that cuts can be madde in a far more progressive way that ensures the wealthiest pay the most, as they can afford it most, that there are ways of increasing taxation (eg bankers' bonus tax, CGT) that limit the suffering of the poor, and cuts which would hurt no-one (Trident, afghanistan commitments, one of the aircraft carriers, the stake in Lloyds and RBS). Your cuts cause the most pain to those who can take it least.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

You keep saying this - it's wrong. *I'm* saying there should be no cuts. No cuts at all. There should be massively increased spending and taxation directed at the rich. Lots of others are too.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know the cold reality of us having to turn over an ever increasing amount of our expenditure seems to escape you, but meanwhile the rest of us have to do something to stop the country heading for economic ruin.


 
you are mental


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2010)

Yep, no cuts.

The absolute media consensus around the cuts is very revealing.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 6, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> I wonder what the psychological motivation is for your *marriage *to the tories moon. It's not as if the alternative view is unfamiliar to you - you remain, for another reason I can't fathom, on these boards, and read perspectives and links that repeatedly inform you of it. And yet you choose to ignore it. Do you enjoy the deference? Do you doff your cap?



I think we can take a wild guess, don't you?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You keep saying this - it's wrong. *I'm* saying there should be no cuts. No cuts at all. There should be massively increased spending and taxation directed at the rich. Lots of others are too.


 
Yep.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I think we can take a wild guess, don't you?


 
Blame the woman eh


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you not think it's sad it becomes questionable why anyone who holds an alternative view would stay on this board?


 
I think it's odd when you get beaten in arguments again and again, yet continue to spout the same mental "facts" again and again.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 6, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> The absolute media consensus around the cuts is very revealing.


 
Revealing of what exactly?  

I think the assumption of inevitability from the BBC is quite disappointing (not sure I should really be surprised though).


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree there is an element of state provison increasing a sense of tribal identity.


 
tribal identity?  what hippy crap is that?  lay off the drugs


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

8ball said:


> Revealing of what exactly?
> 
> I think the assumption of inevitability from the BBC is quite disappointing (not sure I should really be surprised though).


 
Their idiocy/complicity/the shared assumptions of class


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> 1) We don't know what the % of debt for GDP really is thanks to things like PFI pushing it off the books
> 2) Yes there are lot's of periods when we had higher debts as a % of GDP, non are historically comparable to this global problem.


 could you explain, in the light of 1), how you can say 2)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> tribal identity?  what hippy crap is that?  lay off the drugs


 
au contraire! moon23 should take more! fistfuls of pills, munching them down like candy! uppers, downers, pink pills, red pills, green pills - hell, even white pills!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

Take the brown acid moon. I repeat, take the brown acid.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> tribal identity?  what hippy crap is that?  lay off the drugs


 
I don't think it's hippy crap coming from moon; more barely concealed dislike/fear of the rest of humanity (especially the poor ones).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You keep saying this - it's wrong. *I'm* saying there should be no cuts. No cuts at all. There should be massively increased spending and taxation directed at the rich. Lots of others are too.


OK fair enough. I think that as there is zero chance - whoever is in power - of a truly _genuinely_ redistributive tax and spend policy, I'm prepared, pragmatically to put up with _some_ cuts, because I believe (see examples above) it can be done in a progressive way i.e. a way that protects the poor, and makes the wealthiest pay the most.
e2a: Yes, I also accept the deficit needs to be reduced, just by nowhere near as much, and nowhere as fast, as the condems are doing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Take the brown acid moon. I repeat, take the brown acid.


 
But watch out where the huskies go.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 6, 2010)

There is no way that cuts to public services can rescue the the UK from its current economic problems. There's also no way in which any of these cuts will genuinely target the wealthy - although as butchers points out if they did then they would provide pretty much the only means of short-term improvement in the country's finances.

In fact, there's no particular reason to believe that any of these cuts will have any kind of beneficial effect on the economy at all - so why support them?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

clegg is the borg, you will assimilate 

that is why


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think the line is dishonest becuase currently the poor do contribute to taxation and some of that taxation is spent on giving benefits to the top 10% of earners, who frankly don't need it.



Do you think the top 10% of earners benefit from the taxation paid from the poor in any other area of spending? _Most_ of the taxation paid by the poor goes to the benefit of the rich. People aren't taxed to look after the poor, they're taxed to support and defend the interests of the ruling class. Don't you know any history at all?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> 1) We don't know what the % of debt for GDP really is thanks to things like PFI pushing it off the books
> 2) Yes there are lot's of periods when we had higher debts as a % of GDP, non are historically comparable to this global problem.


HUH??? sorry, apart from the fact that -as P's M has already pointed out - 1) and 2) contradict each other, your last part of 2) is rank economics illiteracy



> 3) Vince warned about the impending collapse of the real estate bubble and the collapse of Norther Rock.


but your party still didn't put up a policy of tighter financial services regulation


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)

Are we on first names terms now ??


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.
> 
> ...


 
Will you be voting lib-dem/tory again next time then?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Are we on first names terms now ??



he'd love to be - p'raps that's the game plan...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 6, 2010)




----------



## Blagsta (Oct 6, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> he'd love to be - p'raps that's the game plan...



I'm sure it is, I said as much last year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some are needed to get the mountain of debt created by Labour under control.


 
I see my points about bank failures have entirely passed you by.
It's quite amazing how willing you are to set aside reasoned argument in order to recycle dogmatic cant. Political parties love members like you, who soak up every justification and excuse, however threadbare, rather than facing reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know the cold reality of us having to turn over an ever increasing amount of our expenditure seems to escape you...


Dolt.
The only reason the amount of expenditure would be "ever-increasing" would be if new debt were being raised alongside prior debt, or less than the interest was being repaid.
"Cold reality" my arse. Your fervid fantasy more like.


> but meanwhile the rest of us have to do something to stop the country heading for economic ruin.


Which would be cool if we were indeed heading for "economic ruin", but we've not been anywhere near that in the last 3 years. The only time we even *approached* such a position was in the lull before it was decided to bail out Northern Rock, because the possibility of Northern Rock's failure reminded the market that bank failures often have a "domino effect".
Perhaps you could try absorbing less hyperbole and fantasy, and more hard facts?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Only the economically retarded deny there is no need to do anything to reduce our defecit.


Fatuous argument (as are most of yours). No-one on this board has claimed that deficit reduction shouldn't take place.


> Labour under Darling were planning cuts of around 12  even Labour now say they won't 'oppose every coalition cut'
> _
> Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."_
> 
> The Institute for Fiscal Studies says cuts are going to be needed too. Only the most hairbrained fringe socalists thinks we can carry on spending.


There seem to be a fair amount of hare-brained ConDem shills who think that cuts to public services are the only way to fund deficit reduction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the large defecit was created under Labour...


How was the deficit created, and for what purpose?


> ...and now the following administration has to clear up their financial mess. I support reducing the defecit as I don't want to see Britian getting caught in the debt trap it was heading towards, which would result in far more suffering and pain in the long-term.


As Streathamite has already said, much of the deficit was incurred taking over the banks, and will be recovered when the banks are re-floated, so the severity of cuts being made isn't a necessity, it's a choice based on ideological predicates.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> There is no way that cuts to public services can rescue the the UK from its current economic problems. There's also no way in which any of these cuts will genuinely target the wealthy - although as butchers points out if they did then they would provide pretty much the only means of short-term improvement in the country's finances.
> 
> In fact, there's no particular reason to believe that any of these cuts will have any kind of beneficial effect on the economy at all - so why support them?


if that was directed at me, I don't. I want it (deficit reduction) done completely differently, as I've said 
if it was directed at our rersident Libservative, carry on please Mr/Ms Loop


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so you think that the cuts will be reversed when the time is right. about as likely as the advent of cthulhu.


 
_Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!!_

Less likely, for the Great One will surely rise!!!


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 6, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I'm sure it is, I said as much last year.


blimey! honestly - seriously?? 
they'd have to be really thin on PPC-standard talent


----------



## treelover (Oct 6, 2010)

Trashponyt

I am not defending the cut,  I defend universalism, 
i am pointing out the MSM covererage is disproportionate,

oh as for not being able to comprehend more than one concept at a time, 2.1 BA Hons, says otherwise!


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You keep saying this - it's wrong. *I'm* saying there should be no cuts. No cuts at all. There should be massively increased spending and taxation directed at the rich. Lots of others are too.


 
Trident
ECGD's support of the arms industry
The Navy's insistence on running frigates with no use.
Chris Moyles

Surely there are some cuts in national expenditure we can all agree on?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

What's that got to do with cuts?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with cuts?


 
You say there should be no cuts at all.  Well, that's either overly simplistic (i.e. you mean that national levels of spending should be increased, whilst still cutting unnecessary/unethical spending) or plain wrong (you believe there's not a single piece of government spending that is mistaken).

With regards to Child benefits, it'd be nice if this was as claimed just a straight up attempt to remove benefits from people who don't really need them.  We didn't, so we didn't claim it.  I'm guessing though it is a wedge, which frankly would be really shitty.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

It's _right_ - not _wrong_.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 6, 2010)

treelover said:


> Trashponyt
> 
> I am not defending the cut,  I defend universalism,
> i am pointing out the MSM covererage is disproportionate,
> ...



I can't remember what you said now and I can't be arsed to look. Having a degree doesn't mean anything you know. I've got the same one


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2010)

treelover said:


> oh as for not being able to comprehend more than one concept at a time, 2.1 BA Hons, says otherwise!



I had you down for a bit of a silly-billy treelover... 





how wrong I was... 





...turns out you are a complete prick!


----------



## moon23 (Oct 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dolt.
> The only reason the amount of expenditure would be "ever-increasing" would be if new debt were being raised alongside prior debt, or less than the interest was being repaid.
> "Cold reality" my arse. Your fervid fantasy more like.
> 
> ...



Gross expenditure increases all the time as the economy grow, a structural deficits arises when there is an imbalance between our receipts and our expenditure. That means ever year you are taking on more debt to cover expenditure.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

It's almost like a domestic household economy.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 6, 2010)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Trident
> ECGD's support of the arms industry
> The Navy's insistence on running frigates with no use.
> Chris Moyles
> ...


 
In the  sense that we should prioritise what is spent in national expenditure yes in the sense of reducing national expenditure no.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 6, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned yet that the FT is reporting that the government is looking at re-scheduling the cuts? (ie. delaying some) Probably as a result of the absolute economic catastrophe going on in Ireland, and the rising tide of economic opinion against radical cuts during a time of recession.
Really gives one confidence that the cuts aren't ideological, hey ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Gross expenditure increases all the time as the economy grow


So all of a sudden you're suggesting that you were talking about gross expenditure, which isn't actually relevant, either as a decent gauge of cost, or as a factor at all in a stagnant or near-stagnant economy?


> a structural deficits arises when there is an imbalance between our receipts and our expenditure. That means ever year you are taking on more debt to cover expenditure.


The point that a large chunk of the deficit wasn't incurred through borrowing to cover expenditure, but through a couple of big hits covering bank debt to lessen the distinct possibility of bank failures triggering a run (these are actions your sainted IMF praised by the way) that would have spread beyond these shores, has yet again passed you by, hasn't it?

Please at least *try* to include some accuracy in your pallid justifications of neo-liberal economic policy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2010)

Do you have a link tt?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 7, 2010)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d914844-d18a-11df-96d1-00144feabdc0.html

Subscription only I think. So here's the text ...

Move to delay UK spending cuts
By Chris Giles, Economics Editor
Published: October 6 2010 22:29 | Last updated: October 6 2010 22:29

The Treasury is working on plans to “reprofile” spending cuts next April, spreading the pain of deficit reduction more evenly over the next few years, senior Whitehall officials have told the Financial Times.

Confronted with the difficulties of quickly cutting spending – including financial penalties for breaking contracts and redundancy costs – ministers have been forced to consider delaying some of the big savings until later in this parliament.

Whitehall officials understand the presentational difficulties of delaying spending cuts given the coalition government’s tough rhetoric on reducing the deficit and maintaining the confidence of financial markets.

Labour politicians would surely accuse the government of backsliding and the political pain of the cuts would be pushed close to the next general election. But ministers are also weighing the dangers of cutting the wrong items if pushed to do so early and the risk that deep deficit reduction in 2011-12 could undermine the fragile recovery.

A decision on what is known in the Treasury as “reprofiling” the spending cuts has not yet been taken. An aide to George Osborne said on Wednesday that the spreadsheets underpinning the spending review did not factor in any reprofiling.

However, he added that he could not guarantee that the timing of the spending cuts would be exactly as laid out in June’s emergency Budget because the government needed to take a hard look at contracts and redundancy costs.

The Treasury insisted there was absolutely no change in the government’s economic strategy of eliminating the current structural deficit within a parliament, which David Cameron reiterated in his speech to the Conservative party conference on Wednesday.

But it would not confirm that the spending review on October 20 would maintain the £23bn spending cuts in 2011-12, rising to £83bn a year cuts by 2014-15. This week it has already become clear that many of the cuts will be difficult to start in 2011-12.

The withdrawal of child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers is set to be implemented only in 2013-14. The government cannot walk away from its existing defence contracts, such as the two new aircraft carriers, without penalties. The universal credit, to replace many existing benefits, will not start until late 2013 at the earliest. And plans to introduce higher tuition fees for students will not be ready until later in the parliament.

There is no doubt that most of the £32bn of spending cuts and tax rises set for 2011-12 will still be implemented, but the fiscal consolidation might be delayed without undermining the government’s ambition to eliminate the current structural deficit before the next election, scheduled in 2015.

Praising the “emergency Budget to balance the books in five years”, the prime minister acknowledged that cutting spending “will be difficult”, but sought to play down the damage stemming from cuts to departments of about 25 per cent.

Ben Broadbent of Goldman Sachs said that any move to delay spending cuts was unlikely to make “an enormous difference” to the economy or to Britain’s credit rating.

“If people were clear about the reasons for any delay [to spending cuts] rather than suspecting a political wobble ... I don’t think [investors] would change their mind about the risk premium on gilts,” he said.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

Cheers tt. That's great. 'reprofile'.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 7, 2010)

No probs  Rather telling that it's come out just after Cameron's speech ... I suspect it's more back-pedalling, to go along with the marriage tax breaks. Economically they are getting the shit kicked out of them at the moment.

Edit: 'because the government needed to take a hard look at contracts and redundancy costs' ... ie. Boy George has suddenly realised that it does actually cost money to shut things down 
Someone was telling me today that with some senior public sector and quasi-public sector employees, it would cost more to make them redundant (thus crystallising their pension fund deficit, and having to pay it off) than it does to just keep employing them for another decade til they retire. I suspect that's what this sentence is referring to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's almost like a domestic household economy.


 
If you've got a weird mutant motherfucker of a household, anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> No probs  Rather telling that it's come out just after Cameron's speech ... I suspect it's more back-pedalling, to go along with the marriage tax breaks. Economically they are getting the shit kicked out of them at the moment.
> 
> Edit: 'because the government needed to take a hard look at contracts and redundancy costs' ... ie. Boy George has suddenly realised that it does actually cost money to shut things down
> Someone was telling me today that with some senior public sector and quasi-public sector employees, it would cost more to make them redundant (thus crystallising their pension fund deficit, and having to pay it off) than it does to just keep employing them for another decade til they retire. I suspect that's what this sentence is referring to.


 
Great spot, i hadn't even began to think about all that as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you've got a weird mutant motherfucker of a household, anyway.


 
I have a greengrocver for a mother who also own half of white Rhodesia.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23;11124389]Gross expenditure increases all the time as the economy grow said:


> 1) We don't know what the % of debt for GDP really is thanks to things like PFI pushing it off the books
> 2) Yes there are lot's of periods when we had higher debts as a % of GDP, non are historically comparable to this global problem.


 could you explain, in the light of 1), how you can say 2)?[/quote]


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So all of a sudden you're suggesting that you were talking about gross expenditure, which isn't actually relevant, either as a decent gauge of cost, or as a factor at all in a stagnant or near-stagnant economy?



You said _"The only reason the amount of expenditure would be "ever-increasing" would be if new debt were being raised alongside prior debt, or less than the interest was being repaid."_. 

I'm pointing out that isn't true because gross expenditure almost always increases. It's you that needs to be more accurate with your terms.

Also I hate to point out the blinding obvious but new debt is still being raised, that's what a structural defecit means FFS! That we currently have expenditures that outstrip our receipts.  In August 2010 there was net public sector borrowing of £15.6 Billion.




> The point that a large chunk of the deficit wasn't incurred through borrowing to cover expenditure, but through a couple of big hits covering bank debt to lessen the distinct possibility of bank failures triggering a run (these are actions your sainted IMF praised by the way) that would have spread beyond these shores, has yet again passed you by, hasn't it?



Money spent on propping up failing banks is still government expenditure, you mean it isn’t public sector expenditure. Am I right in thinking you support the bank bail out as a fiscal policy for intervention with the free market?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

Where is this 'free market' of which you speak?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

that's what I was wondering too


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you could come back to this:



1)We don't accurately know what the % of debt as the GDP is as a large amount of public sector expenditure has been kicked into the future through the use of PFI schemes, that are a debt we now owe that does not show on the books. We do know it's going to be a higher figure than is shown however.

2) The margin of our error for what the current % of debt as GDP is far less then the obvious periods in history when we had a huge percentage of debt as GDP the most notable being during the Napoleonic wars and after the second world war. It doesn't compare because say after WWI or WWII when we had a huge percentage of debts as a GDP they debt was in a form of war bonds. Often with a very low fixed interest rate of 2%. This differs from our current flexible interests rates for our debt on the international bond markets.

There is a strand of rather naive thinking that looks historically at the stats and goes "oh look our debts as a % of GDP isn't as bad as it has been" The point is that the circumstances change.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where is this 'free market' of which you speak?


 
It's a concept, we currently have a corporatist system backed up by state intervention.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a concept, we currently have a corporatist system backed up by state intervention.


 
We currently have capitalism.  It's always been entwined with the state.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's a concept, we currently have a corporatist system backed up by state intervention.


 
So the answer is in your imagination, although the second clause does suggest that you think it might be possible in the real world; you don't really think that do you?

Oh and I won't let up on the CPI thing until you make some sort of attempt at an answer; why would you want to entench and widen income disparity at the bottom of the scale?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

An Interesting polling report suggests that 83% of people support the principle of limiting child benefit, but are less sure about the method of implementation. As this thread shows it really cuts to the heart of things. 

It’s played out as a dialect as:

Do you have a totally fair and equal system that is costly to administer or a system that has a few anomalies but is cheaper to administer. 

Personally I would question how fair the benefit system under Brown and Blair was with it’s overly complex nature, and I’d also look at the wider question of fairness in terms of opportunity and job growth rather than fairness in state benefits.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> We currently have capitalism.  It's always been entwined with the state.


 
We have a form of corporatist state supported capitalism, we don’t have anything like the small state free market capitalism I tend to support.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 7, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d914844-d18a-11df-96d1-00144feabdc0.html
> 
> Subscription only I think. So here's the text ...
> 
> ...



This is beginning to happen already.  I work in construction and we were heavily involved in the building schools for the future project.  All of a sudden contractors are being told that instead of just ditching the projects they are to look for cost savings, this has only started to happen in the last couple of weeks.

I understand that the major contractors (likes of Balfour Beatty, BAM, Skanska etc) were getting the legal advisors involved as they had already spent millions on preparing tendors which Osborne just chucked in the bin.

It seems to me that after all the sabre rattling from the tories some of the spending will carry on behind closed doors, get ready for some hiding of true expenditure off the balance sheet a la new labour, PFI anyone?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We have a form of corporatist state supported capitalism, we don’t have anything like the small state free market capitalism I tend to support.


 
What you "support" has never existed.  Capitalism has always been state supported.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So the answer is in your imagination, although the second clause does suggest that you think it might be possible in the real world; you don't really think that do you?
> 
> Oh and I won't let up on the CPI thing until you make some sort of attempt at an answer; why would you want to entench and widen income disparity at the bottom of the scale?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Of course most of the time criticisms towards capitalism are actually critics towards corporatist statist e.g. the protectionist relationship between the US government and the Oil companies and their involvement in foreign wars.  In the same way many criticisms of Socialism often fail because they are critics of Statist Corporatism, or state control.

The common enemy is the state.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What you "support" has never existed.


 
I know.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We have a form of corporatist state supported capitalism, we don’t have anything like the small state free market capitalism I tend to support.



Please go away you tory cunt.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I know.


 
Capitalism has only ever been supported by the state.  In fact, it's nonsense to talk of it existing in any other way.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 7, 2010)

He supports the destruction of the public sector, OUR public sector, in pursuit of a fantasy.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> Please go away you tory cunt.


 
Concise and to the point.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Of course most of the time criticisms towards capitalism are actually critics towards corporatist statist e.g. the protectionist relationship between the US government and the Oil companies and their involvement in foreign wars.  In the same way many criticisms of Socialism often fail because they are critics of Statist Corporatism, or state control.
> 
> The common enemy is the state.



Why do you persist in this rubbish?  Despite all the arguments to the contrary?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 7, 2010)

I wonder how many of the middle class stay-at-home mums who logged on to mumsnet to piss and whine about losing their child benefit voted lib dem or conservative...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> An Interesting polling report suggests that 83% of people support the principle of limiting child benefit, but are less sure about the method of implementation. As this thread shows it really cuts to the heart of things.
> 
> It’s played out as a dialect as:
> 
> ...



'Child benefit - do you support scrapping it for people with higher incomes?'

They could have added in the word paedos and got a full 100% response.

We already have a system of child benefit that is cheap to administer.

The savings on child benefit will be more than lost on the married couples' tax allowance.

The word you were groping for and using wrongly was dialectic.

Now let's hear your defence of the move to the Consumer Price Index for updating benefits.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Capitalism has only ever been supported by the state.  In fact, it's nonsense to talk of it existing in any other way.


 
It's far less nonsense then any anarchist visions of life without a state based on common ownership.

(Not that I’m saying you are an anarchist). Although incidentally where do you stand on the state these days?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Of course most of the time criticisms towards capitalism are actually critics towards corporatist statist e.g. the protectionist relationship between the US government and the Oil companies and their involvement in foreign wars.  In the same way many criticisms of Socialism often fail because they are critics of Statist Corporatism, or state control.
> 
> The common enemy is the state.



I'd criticise capitalism it's wastefulness, it's voracity and the alienation it produces.

Do you think a genuinely free market is realy possible?

Don't you understand about the shift to the CPI (or haven't you been able to google a credible defence of it yet?)

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

Depressing poll. The r/c is winning the argument about the 'financial crisis'.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 7, 2010)

The common enemy is the state


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> 1)We don't accurately know what the % of debt as the GDP is as a large amount of public sector expenditure has been kicked into the future through the use of PFI schemes, that are a debt we now owe that does not show on the books. We do know it's going to be a higher figure than is shown however.
> 
> 2) The margin of our error for what the current % of debt as GDP is far less then the obvious periods in history when we had a huge percentage of debt as GDP the most notable being during the Napoleonic wars and after the second world war. It doesn't compare because say after WWI or WWII when we had a huge percentage of debts as a GDP they debt was in a form of war bonds. Often with a very low fixed interest rate of 2%. This differs from our current flexible interests rates for our debt on the international bond markets.
> 
> There is a strand of rather naive thinking that looks historically at the stats and goes "oh look our debts as a % of GDP isn't as bad as it has been" The point is that the circumstances change.


1) what's the margin of error for the current % of debt as gdp;
2) what's your source?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 7, 2010)

Red Cat said:


> The common enemy is the state



Sorry, that was supposed to be spoken in caps in a deep doom laden tone


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I wonder how many of the middle class stay-at-home mums who logged on to mumsnet to piss and whine about losing their child benefit voted lib dem or conservative...


 
Doesn't matter what kind of people they are, whether they're cunts or how they voted.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d914844-d18a-11df-96d1-00144feabdc0.html
> 
> Subscription only I think. So here's the text ...
> 
> ...


 
I'm going to reprofile this post as it's massively important.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 'Child benefit - do you support scrapping it for people with higher incomes?'
> 
> They could have added in the word paedos and got a full 100% response.
> 
> We already have a system of child benefit that is cheap to administer.



Yes but it is only cheap to adminster becuase it inccurs huge expenses by paying it out to the top 10% of income earners.



> The savings on child benefit will be more than lost on the married couples' tax allowance.



What is your source for this? Anyway i'm not defending the married couple's tax allowance.



> The word you were groping for and using wrongly was dialectic.




As explained before I’m dyslexic so when I spell a word wrongly as another word or get them confused I can't actually read the difference. I think within the context of a rational debate it’s a fair use of the term to flag a thesis and anti-thesis or argument and counter argument. 

Why is it you seek to childishly point score on my disability rather than engage in the actual point at hand? It’s a pathetic attempt at ad hominine slur. As bad as those who can only swear or make insults.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

I think Louis was laughing at your use of the concept not your spelling.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

whats worse? swearing or fucking up everyones lives? these cuts are actually going to kill people you know.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> 1) what's the margin of error for the current % of debt as gdp;
> 2) what's your source?


 
It's impossible to have an accurate margin of error for the current % of debt as GDP without knowing fully the PFI committement. It's possible to estimate a rough range, certainly if you take into account PFI debt it will be higer.

Source for what? Historic debt of GDP, the 2% interest rate on War Bonds or something else?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's impossible to have an accurate margin of error for the current % of debt as GDP without knowing fully the PFI committement. It's possible to estimate a rough range, certainly if you take into account PFI debt it will be higer.
> 
> Source for what? Historic debt of GDP, the 2% interest rate on War Bonds or something else?


 no, what's your source for margin of error.

so if as you admit you don't know what the % debt is of gdp, how can you possibly have any notion of its size?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> whats worse? swearing or fucking up everyones lives? these cuts are actually going to kill people you know.


 
This is being done to help stop the economy going into meltdown that will mess up far more people's lifes.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I’d also look at the wider question of fairness in terms of opportunity and job growth rather than fairness in state benefits.



Why is that ?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 7, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> This is beginning to happen already.  I work in construction and we were heavily involved in the building schools for the future project.  All of a sudden contractors are being told that instead of just ditching the projects they are to look for cost savings, this has only started to happen in the last couple of weeks.
> 
> I understand that the major contractors (likes of Balfour Beatty, BAM, Skanska etc) were getting the legal advisors involved as they had already spent millions on preparing tendors which Osborne just chucked in the bin.
> 
> It seems to me that after all the sabre rattling from the tories some of the spending will carry on behind closed doors, get ready for some hiding of true expenditure off the balance sheet a la new labour, PFI anyone?


 

Interesting stuff, cheers  It is indeed the case that cancelling capital expenditure projects en masse would leave the government with a very considerable bill. Stupid idea from the start, really - they'd end up spending a large proportion of the money but without any concrete delivery to show for it. As any fule who knows anything about public-private contracting would kno.
And yeah, the anti-PFI noises have definitely quietened down substantially in the past few weeks.


Edit:



butchersapron said:


> I'm going to *reprofile *this post as it's massively important.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is being done to help stop the economy going into meltdown that will mess up far more people's lifes.


 No, it's not. It's been done to damage and harm the poorest to the benefit of the most powerful,. Any chance you could reply to the very patient Louis in between typing out these idiocies?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is being done to help stop the economy going into meltdown that will mess up far more people's lifes.


 
lol


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, what's your source for margin of error.
> 
> so if as you admit you don't know what the % debt is of gdp, how can you possibly have any notion of its size?


 
Don't be an idiot, GDP is officaly at 64.0 per cent at the end of August 2010. I'm talking about the addition of PFI debt that is currently off the books to this sum. You can have a perfectly good notion of it's size as being > than 64% of GDP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Don't be an idiot, GDP is officaly at 64.0 per cent at the end of August 2010.


 gdp is officially 64% of what? of debt? so our debt is, what, about 135% of gdp? that's a bit fucked, isn't it?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's not. It's been done to damage and harm the poorest to the benefit of the most powerful,. Any chance you could reply to the very patient Louis in between typing out these idiocies?


 
I have replied to Louis many times, but can only spend my time and energy on answering certain threads of the debate at any one time.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> gdp is officially 64% of what? of debt? so our debt is, what, about 135% of gdp? that's a bit fucked, isn't it?


 
Sorry, Debt is officially 64% of our GDP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Sorry, Debt is officially 64% of our GDP.


 
so plus an unspecified and growing amount for pfi: any idea how much that is?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman have you given up on this idiotic notion that we can’t have any notion of how large our debt is because there isn't an exact margin of error that considers something that hasn't yet been official considered?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Sorry, Debt is officially 64% of our GDP.


 
Assuming this figure to be correct, could you set it in some historical context for us – how much are repayments, what are interest levels, what were the levels of debt in the past and what were interest rates, who is the money owed to? That kind of thing.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so plus an unspecified and growing amount for pfi: any idea how much that is?


 
No because there isn't transparency in the governments accounts over PFI as it stems across many departmental budges and also at the local governmental level. That's the point, it's a known unknown, and obfisitcation of our levels of debt to hide the real level of public spending. It's saddeled us all with generations of repatments. 

Also another point is that we still don't know how many toxic assets exist within the UK's banking sector.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

Known unknowns. Hello Rumsfeld.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 7, 2010)

It would have been interesting if as part of his "your country needs you" sketch, he asked the middle classes to voluntarily stop claiming benefits they did not need.  I'd have been fascinated to see how many people would have dropped their claim.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Assuming this figure to be correct, could you set it in some historical context for us – how much are repayments, what are interest levels, what were the levels of debt in the past and what were interest rates, who is the money owed to? That kind of thing.


 
I made a quick start of doing this in an earlier point, drawing example to the WWII bonds to the US having a much lower interest rate. The current debt repayment interest rate is linked to our AAA Credit rating and international bond markets. The current climate has seen a large amount of panic over sovereign debt and a crisis in Greece, it's therefore important with a jittery market to show we are capable of handling our debt.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Known unknowns. Hello Rumsfeld.


 
For all Rumsfeld's faults I do think it's quite a useful phrase.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

To be honest this cut in child benefit is just a drop in the oceon as to what lies ahead.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

We aren't capable of handling 'our' debt though. Not in the slightest. The only thing that has buoyed us up so far is that there is so much of it that our creditors are reluctant to admit that it's not worth half what they expected to get back from it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> For all Rumsfeld's faults I do think it's quite a useful phrase.


 
I'm sure you do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I made a quick start of doing this in an earlier point, drawing example to the WWII bonds to the US having a much lower interest rate. The current debt repayment interest rate is linked to our AAA Credit rating and international bond markets. The current climate has seen a large amount of panic over sovereign debt and a crisis in Greece, *it's therefore important with a jittery market to show we are capable of handling our debt*.



Do you have a reference for this? Something showing what the concerns are of this 'jittery market'?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

This is the line they were using in the fist week of the coalition - it's since proved to be rubbish. moon hasn't yet updated his maps.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 7, 2010)

If anyone wants to plot debt v GDP chart, here's the data.. Yearly data from 1975 to 1993, then it turns into monthly data...


```
UKPSRUTO Index	
Date	PX_LAST
31/03/1975	52
31/03/1976	53.8
31/03/1977	52.3
31/03/1978	49.1
31/03/1979	47.2
31/03/1980	44
31/03/1981	46.1
31/03/1982	46.1
31/03/1983	44.8
31/03/1984	45.1
31/03/1985	45.1
31/03/1986	43.2
31/03/1987	40.9
31/03/1988	36.6
31/03/1989	30.4
31/03/1990	27.5
31/03/1991	26
31/03/1992	27.2
31/03/1993	31.4
30/04/1993	32.5
31/05/1993	33
30/06/1993	33
31/07/1993	33.5
31/08/1993	34
30/09/1993	34.6
31/10/1993	34.4
30/11/1993	34.4
31/12/1993	34.8
31/01/1994	34.6
28/02/1994	35
31/03/1994	36.5
30/04/1994	37
31/05/1994	37.6
30/06/1994	37.9
31/07/1994	38.1
31/08/1994	38.4
30/09/1994	38.9
31/10/1994	38.8
30/11/1994	39.1
31/12/1994	39
31/01/1995	38.4
28/02/1995	39
31/03/1995	40.1
30/04/1995	40.5
31/05/1995	40.8
30/06/1995	41.1
31/07/1995	41.1
31/08/1995	41.4
30/09/1995	41.8
31/10/1995	41.5
30/11/1995	41.7
31/12/1995	41.5
31/01/1996	40.6
29/02/1996	40.8
31/03/1996	41.9
30/04/1996	42
31/05/1996	42.4
30/06/1996	42.6
31/07/1996	42.1
31/08/1996	42.6
30/09/1996	42.8
31/10/1996	42.1
30/11/1996	42.4
31/12/1996	42.5
31/01/1997	41.4
28/02/1997	41.6
31/03/1997	42.5
30/04/1997	42.2
31/05/1997	42.5
30/06/1997	42.9
31/07/1997	42.3
31/08/1997	42.3
30/09/1997	42.3
31/10/1997	41.5
30/11/1997	41.8
31/12/1997	41.7
31/01/1998	40.3
28/02/1998	39.9
31/03/1998	40.6
30/04/1998	40.1
31/05/1998	40.3
30/06/1998	40.8
31/07/1998	40.1
31/08/1998	40
30/09/1998	40
31/10/1998	39.1
30/11/1998	39.1
31/12/1998	39.2
31/01/1999	37.8
28/02/1999	37.6
31/03/1999	38.4
30/04/1999	37.9
31/05/1999	37.9
30/06/1999	38.3
31/07/1999	37.6
31/08/1999	37.4
30/09/1999	37.3
31/10/1999	36.2
30/11/1999	36.2
31/12/1999	37.1
31/01/2000	35.2
29/02/2000	34.9
31/03/2000	35.6
30/04/2000	34.8
31/05/2000	33.3
30/06/2000	34
31/07/2000	33.2
31/08/2000	33
30/09/2000	32
31/10/2000	31.2
30/11/2000	31.2
31/12/2000	32
31/01/2001	30.4
28/02/2001	30.2
31/03/2001	30.7
30/04/2001	30.2
31/05/2001	30.4
30/06/2001	31.2
31/07/2001	30.3
31/08/2001	30.2
30/09/2001	30.3
31/10/2001	29.6
30/11/2001	30
31/12/2001	30.9
31/01/2002	29.6
28/02/2002	29.1
31/03/2002	29.7
30/04/2002	29.3
31/05/2002	29.4
30/06/2002	29.8
31/07/2002	29.2
31/08/2002	29.3
30/09/2002	29.7
31/10/2002	30.2
30/11/2002	30.6
31/12/2002	31.5
31/01/2003	30.2
28/02/2003	30
31/03/2003	30.8
30/04/2003	30.1
31/05/2003	30.4
30/06/2003	31.1
31/07/2003	30.4
31/08/2003	30.6
30/09/2003	31.1
31/10/2003	30.9
30/11/2003	31.3
31/12/2003	32.4
31/01/2004	31.1
29/02/2004	31
31/03/2004	32.1
30/04/2004	31.8
31/05/2004	32.1
30/06/2004	32.8
31/07/2004	32.2
31/08/2004	32.3
30/09/2004	33
31/10/2004	32.8
30/11/2004	33.4
31/12/2004	34.5
31/01/2005	33.1
28/02/2005	33
31/03/2005	34
30/04/2005	33.8
31/05/2005	34.1
30/06/2005	34.9
31/07/2005	34
31/08/2005	34.3
30/09/2005	34.9
31/10/2005	34.5
30/11/2005	35
31/12/2005	36.1
31/01/2006	34.2
28/02/2006	34.3
31/03/2006	35.3
30/04/2006	35
31/05/2006	35.4
30/06/2006	36.4
31/07/2006	35.2
31/08/2006	35.4
30/09/2006	36.1
31/10/2006	35.3
30/11/2006	35.8
31/12/2006	36.6
31/01/2007	34.9
28/02/2007	34.8
31/03/2007	35.9
30/04/2007	35.5
31/05/2007	35.9
30/06/2007	36.5
31/07/2007	35.4
31/08/2007	35.8
30/09/2007	36.2
31/10/2007	42.5
30/11/2007	43.1
31/12/2007	44.1
31/01/2008	42.2
29/02/2008	42.4
31/03/2008	43
30/04/2008	42.8
31/05/2008	43.5
30/06/2008	44.4
31/07/2008	43.5
31/08/2008	44
30/09/2008	48.5
31/10/2008	48.7
30/11/2008	49.8
31/12/2008	52
31/01/2009	50.3
28/02/2009	50.8
31/03/2009	53
30/04/2009	54
31/05/2009	55.5
30/06/2009	57.2
31/07/2009	57.2
31/08/2009	57.4
30/09/2009	58.6
31/10/2009	58.9
30/11/2009	59.7
31/12/2009	61
31/01/2010	60.1
28/02/2010	60.5
31/03/2010	62.1
30/04/2010	62.1
31/05/2010	62.7
30/06/2010	63.9
31/07/2010	63.8
31/08/2010	64
```


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Kanda said:


> If anyone wants to plot debt v GDP chart, here's the data.. Yearly data from 1975 to 1993, then it turns into monthly data...
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


 
Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

So since the credit crunch, it's gone from about 40% to 65%. Does anybody know how much of this increase can be accounted for by QE and the bank bailouts? I would have thought that these direct responses to the CC ought to be held apart as 'war economy'-style exceptions that need to be dealt with differently from 'normal' debt. After all, in theory at least, it means that the govt now part-owns the banking system.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This is being done to help stop the economy going into meltdown that will mess up far more people's lifes.


but the economy was NOT going into meltdown. Please, PLEASE,stop telling these horrendous fucking porkies!


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you have a reference for this? Something showing what the concerns are of this 'jittery market'?


 
Have you been living in a cave the past year?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.


 That's a good thing. It's not true either. Have a proper look. If you're going to be consistent you'll come back praising labour. But you're not going to are you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.


 
No it doesn't. It shows how it fell a little during the boom and grew dramatically after the bust.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Have you been living in a cave the past year?


 
If it's as obvious as you say it is, surely a quick google will give you a reference.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes but it is only cheap to adminster becuase it inccurs huge expenses by paying it out to the top 10% of income earners.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You can recover any lost CB to the top decile by through the income tax system, while retaining a commitment to universal provision. My point is the target is universalism not financial saving.

IFS is the source for the cost of the proposed tax allowance. You support the coalition. You disagree with some of their actions. The government has no means or desire to differentiate between your cheerleading and you timid disagreements; therefore you are objectively supporting.

I was laughing at your use of the concept not your spelling. 

Still silent on the long term attack on benefit recipents in the shift to the CPI; come on have the courage of your convictions...three cheers for the coalition!

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.


yes, but the big growth was the one-off hits from - for the umpteenth fucking time - the credit crunch and the bank bailout.
Do you accept they were necessary, or not?
e2a: OK, LBJ, and BA got there before me. shit.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If it's as obvious as you say it is, surely a quick google will give you a reference.


 
http://www.ocfunds.com.au/downloads/monthly_reviews/1004UpdateOC.pdf

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINSGE6180EP20100209

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/06/18/will-spain-face-a-debt-crisis/

http://www.euractiv.com/en/financia...under-fire-german-banks-hide-debt-news-496640

There are lots and lot's of reports on the the market being jittery over soverign debt, have you got any evidence to show this isn't the case? 
Come on where is your source that shows the bond markets are not jittery over soverign debt.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Have you been living in a cave the past year?


no he hasn't, and he's right. The market's "jitters" over Greece and Ireland bear fuck-all relevance to their confidence in Britain and the British economy,and that confidence is fundamentally firm and unshaken. Anybody who asserts anything to the contrary is talking balls, frankly. A scepticism towards the inability of the notoriously rickety Greek economy (And government!) to make good on their IOUs is no reflection on the far stronger British equivalent.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yes, but the big growth was the one-off hits from - for the umpteenth fucking time - the credit crunch and the bank bailout.
> Do you accept they were necessary, or not?
> e2a: OK, LBJ, and BA got there before me. shit.


 
Labour still managed to add about 10% over their time in office (before the CC), which is pretty impressive given it was a period of economic growth and not a recession. , as littlebabyjesus points out it rose from about 40% to 65% due to the credit crunch. 

So Labour managed a 10% increase in debt in a growth period and the CC added around 25%.....


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

I have to say I think a sovereign debt crisis is inevitable, and probably not too far in the future. These cuts are irrelevant though, they couldn't possibly make a difference one way or the other.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> http://www.ocfunds.com.au/downloads/monthly_reviews/1004UpdateOC.pdf
> 
> http://in.reuters.com/article/idINSGE6180EP20100209
> 
> ...


BUt they are talking about greece, portugal etc.
jesus wept.......for the gazillionth time: We are not GReece. We are not spain. we are not portugal. we are not Ireland. we are also not in the eurozone.
Can you honestly not see the difference?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No because there isn't transparency in the governments accounts over PFI as it stems across many departmental budges and also at the local governmental level. That's the point, it's a known unknown, and obfisitcation of our levels of debt to hide the real level of public spending. It's saddeled us all with generations of repatments.
> 
> Also another point is that we still don't know how many toxic assets exist within the UK's banking sector.


have you been going to the detective-boy school of spelling?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no he hasn't, and he's right. The market's "jitters" over Greece and Ireland bear fuck-all relevance to their confidence in Britain and the British economy,and that confidence is fundamentally firm and unshaken. Anybody who asserts anything to the contrary is talking balls, frankly. A scepticism towards the inability of the notoriously rickety Greek economy (And government!) to make good on their IOUs is no reflection on the far stronger British equivalent.


 
For starters that not what he said, he was asking me to prove that jitters existed not whether they were also relevant. 

Secondly the comparison of equivalence is a matter of market faith and opinion in our ability to repay the debt, reducing the deficit helps to acheive this and maintain our good credit rating.

Thirdly Ireland was held up as an example by many people on this thread of why you should try and reduce deficit, are you now saying it’s a non-comparable country?  It would seem you want to have your cake and eat it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> BUt they are talking about greece, portugal etc.
> jesus wept.......for the gazillionth time: We are not GReece. We are not spain. we are not portugal. we are not Ireland. we are also not in the eurozone.
> Can you honestly not see the difference?


 
That's a seperate argument you are putting forth, of course I can see there are differances between countries but that doesn't alter that fact that the international markets are jittery about soverign debt.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour still managed to add about 10% over their time in office (before the CC), which is pretty impressive given it was a period of economic growth and not a recession. , as littlebabyjesus points out it rose from about 40% to 65% due to the credit crunch.
> 
> So Labour managed a 10% increase in debt in a growth period and the CC added around 25%.....


 

HUH? Are you blind, or simply innumerate? debt in may 2007, 42.5% OF GDP, debt feb 2008 (When the shit was fully hitting the fan), 42.4%


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Come on Streathamite if you are reasoning that Ireland is a different country and in the Eurozone, do you agree it's stupid for the left to use it as an example of why defecit cuts don't work. Or do these differance between countries only become vast when it suites your line of reasoning?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour still managed to add about 10% over their time in office (before the CC), which is pretty impressive given it was a period of economic growth and not a recession. , as littlebabyjesus points out it rose from about 40% to 65% due to the credit crunch.
> 
> So Labour managed a 10% increase in debt in a growth period and the CC added around 25%.....



No. Look again at the figures. It was 42% when Labour came to power. It in fact decreased slightly during the boom.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Come on Streathamite if you are reasoning that Ireland is a different country and in the Eurozone, do you agree it's stupid for the left to use it as an example of why defecit cuts don't work. Or do these differance between countries only become vast when it suites your line of reasoning?


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

What do the other leftists think about whether the UK economy is fucked? I think it undoubtedly is totally screwed.

Has there been a poll?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's a seperate argument you are putting forth, of course I can see there are differances between countries but that doesn't alter that fact that the international markets are jittery about soverign debt.


yes, you thick twat but not OUR Sovereign debt! It is NOT a separate argument, simply because the key factor with any debt calculation isn't the size of it, but the wherewithal and ability of the debtor to pay. OUR wherewithal is in a different universe to those of greece etc, simply because our economy is so much stronger (Or rather, will be if you tories don't plunge us into a thatcherite recession); there is NO point talking about "the sovereign bond market" as a homogenous uniform whole because it _isn't_, and never has been. 
There is HUGE faith in the market for us to pay our debt, which is why UK govt bonds are a highly valued, stable anchor to investment portfolios.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

I don't think the economy is necessarily screwed. We're emerging from a deep recession is all. Capitalism will always go through periods of boom and bust. The last boom was spectacularly large, and so was the subsequent bust, but I see no inevitability to any immediate further crisis.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. Look again at the figures. It was 42% when Labour came to power. It in fact decreased slightly during the boom.


 
It decreased for a bit and then Labour mananged to add 10% back onto it during a decade of growth.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> What do the other leftists think about whether the UK economy is fucked? I think it undoubtedly is totally screwed.
> 
> Has there been a poll?


 
I was thinking of doing a sweepstake on which place will go up first. I'm thinking somewhere in dudley.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It decreased for a bit and then Labour mananged to add 10% back onto it during a decade of growth.


 
No. It decreased a bit then a recession happened. A deep recession. That's what happens during recessions – tax receipts go down and borrowing goes up. To do anything else than borrow more during a recession is madness.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yes, you thick twat but not OUR Sovereign debt! It is NOT a separate argument, simply because the key factor with any debt calculation isn't the size of it, but the wherewithal and ability of the debtor to pay. OUR wherewithal is in a different universe to those of greece etc, simply because our economy is so much stronger (Or rather, will be if you tories don't plunge us into a thatcherite recession); there is NO point talking about "the sovereign bond market" as a homogenous uniform whole because it _isn't_, and never has been.
> There is HUGE faith in the market for us to pay our debt, which is why UK govt bonds are a highly valued, stable anchor to investment portfolios.


 
The UK will not remain an anchor unless we tackle the defecit. Cutting child benefit to the top 10% of earners is a step towards doing this and 83% of people agree.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I was thinking of doing a sweepstake on which place will go up first. I'm thinking somewhere in dudley.



Put me down for a tenner on Crewe.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Come on Streathamite if you are reasoning that Ireland is a different country and in the Eurozone, do you agree it's stupid for the left to use it as an example of why defecit cuts don't work. Or do these differance between countries only become vast when it suites your line of reasoning?


 

are you actually mentally handicapped? Ireland as a country has an economy which obeys similar laws of keynesian and other economic reasoning as does ours (and, indeed, every other advanced industrialised nation): In terms of the markets' opinion of Ireland's creditworthiness, it's totally, totally different. As the most lowly canary wharf receptionist could tell you. 
Is this really that hard to understand, or are you a complete moron?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. It decreased a bit then a recession happened. A deep recession. That's what happens during recessions – tax receipts go down and borrowing goes up. To do anything else than borrow more during a recession is madness.


 
So are you saying we were in a recession from 2001-2007 when debt rose from around 30% of GDP to around 40% of GDP? Becuase forgive me but I thought we had economic growth throughout this period.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The UK will not remain an anchor unless we tackle the defecit. Cutting child benefit to the top 10% of earners is a step towards doing this and 83% of people agree.


 
We need to tackle far more than the so-called structural deficit. At least 83% of people no fuck-all about the economic shit we're in, so I wouldn't place too much faith in their opinions.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So are you saying we were in a recession from 2001-2007 when debt rose from around 30% of GDP to around 40% of GDP? Becuase forgive me but I thought we had economic growth throughout this period.


 
We had 'apparent' economic growth. The real, underlying economy was shrinking, albeit not at the rate it is now, or will be in a few months time.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> are you actually mentally handicapped? Ireland as a country has an economy which obeys similar laws of keynesian and other economic reasoning as does ours (and, indeed, every other advanced industrialised nation): In terms of the markets' opinion of Ireland's creditworthiness, it's totally, totally different. As the most lowly canary wharf receptionist could tell you.
> Is this really that hard to understand, or are you a complete moron?


 
Ah we are getting somewhere now, I agree it's different in terms of creditworthiness. There real-estate bubble collapse far outstrips our own problems.  Which is why it's utterly stupid for leftist economist to claim there is a coalition between their deficit reduction program and the re-evaluation of their debt, and our deficit reduction program.

You have just hoist yourself on your own petard  - Doh!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So are you saying we were in a recession from 2001-2007 when debt rose from around 30% of GDP to around 40% of GDP? Becuase forgive me but I thought we had economic growth throughout this period.


 
Labour should have raised taxes on the rich during that period. This was the period of Brown's idiotic 'no more boom and bust', and not taxing during a boom was one of the consequences of this particular folly. The point here isn't to pass judgement on Labour but to establish where we are now and the precise nature of the UK's current debt position.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> We had 'apparent' economic growth. The real, underlying economy was shrinking, albeit not at the rate it is now, or will be in a few months time.


 
Apparent growth spurnned on by increased public spending that resulted in a bubble.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Labour should have raised taxes on the rich during that period. This was the period of Brown's idiotic 'no more boom and bust', and not taxing during a boom was one of the consequences of this particular folly. The point here isn't to pass judgement on Labour but to establish where we are now and the precise nature of the UK's current debt position.


 
I agree to an extent, but we must also learn lessons about what has gone wrong so we don't repeat mistakes.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ah we are getting somewhere now, I agree it's different in terms of creditworthiness. There real-estate bubble collapse far outstrips our own problems.  Which is why it's utterly stupid for leftist economist to claim there is a coalition between their deficit reduction program and the re-evaluation of their debt, and our deficit reduction program.
> 
> You have just hoist yourself on your own petard  - Doh!


 
your post doesn't even make sense -A coalition between "the lefts" proposals and yours, have you really learnt nothing your whole life?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

lol


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ah we are getting somewhere now, I agree it's different in terms of creditworthiness. There real-estate bubble collapse far outstrips our own problems.  Which is why it's utterly stupid for leftist economist to claim there is a coalition between their deficit reduction program and the re-evaluation of their debt, and our deficit reduction program.
> 
> You have just hoist yourself on your own petard  - Doh!


nope - you're talking complete, economically-illiterate shite. as ever. Britain's creditworthiness has got FUCK ALL to do with deficit reduction, or the state of the housing market,  and all to do with the underlying, growth-friendly fundamentals of the economy, especially our continuing avoidance of double-dip. 
To which the bigest threat is...........massive public spending cuts. doh! You really don't 'get'economics', do you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree to an extent, but we must also learn lessons about what has gone wrong so we don't repeat mistakes.


 
Such as 'don't cut public spending when private credit is being squeezed', you mean? 'When the private sector will not borrow, the public sector must'? That sort of thing?

I'm all for moving away from a system that introduces new money into the system through debt, btw. But that's a separate point, really – you're arguing from within the existing paradigm, are you not?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

if everyone loses their jobs and if wages , benefits, etc etc etc are cut, then who will be able to afford to buy the products and start the economy growing again! It's common sense, it''s just logic isn't it? Jesus and to think that people as thick as you are in charge of our country!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 7, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if everyone loses their jobs and if wages , benefits, etc etc etc are cut, then who will be able to afford to buy the products and start the economy growing again! It's common sense, it''s just logic isn't it? Jesus and to think that people as thick as you are in charge of our country!


 
To be fair, this isn't just about Britain, this is a massive international economic argument which is ongoing between monetarists - including the Chicago School - and Keynsians. At the moment the economic data from the past couple of years increasingly supports the Keynsian analysis, but it's still very much a live argument. Osborne's argument that scaling back public spending will 'create room' for the private sector to revive is very clearly inspired by the Ricardian equivalence line of thinking, which Krugman has trashed merrily.

Edit: here you go:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/one-more-time/


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apparent growth spurnned on by increased public spending that resulted in a bubble.



No, apparent growth spurred on by debt-based consumption and inflated asset-prices.


----------



## Maidmarian (Oct 7, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if everyone loses their jobs and if wages , benefits, etc etc etc are cut, then who will be able to afford to buy the products and start the economy growing again! It's common sense, it''s just logic isn't it? Jesus and to think that people as thick as you are in charge of our country!



Yes, it explains a lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> To be fair, this isn't just about Britain, this is a massive international economic argument which is ongoing between monetarists - including the Austrian School - and Keynsians. At the moment the economic data from the past couple of years increasingly supports the Keynsian analysis, but it's still very much a live argument. Osborne's argument that scaling back public spending will 'create room' for the private sector to revive is very clearly inspired by the Ricardian equivalence line of thinking, which Krugman has trashed merrily.


 
fair dos, shoudnt have just made it about britain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

People are still monetarists? Even Thatcher abandoned monetarism.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People are still monetarists? Even Thatcher abandoned monetarism.


 
Maybe it's fairer to say that Keynsians such as Krugman have accused their opponents of monetarism, specifically (to quote Krugman), 'a desperate attempt to cut and stretch things into a quasi-monetarist framework, for no good reason' (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/procrustrean-economics-wonkish/).


----------



## treelover (Oct 7, 2010)

@liamo

she attacked my intellect, etc I just pointed out I had a degree, FWIW, wtf is wrong with that reponse?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if everyone loses their jobs and if wages , benefits, etc etc etc are cut, then who will be able to afford to buy the products and start the economy growing again! It's common sense, it''s just logic isn't it? Jesus and to think that people as thick as you are in charge of our country!


 
Not everyone is losing their jobs though, more ridiculous hyperbole from frogwoman.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> No, apparent growth spurred on by debt-based consumption and inflated asset-prices.


 
Yes that as well, and public spending or what Brown & Blair would call investment.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not everyone is losing their jobs though, more ridiculous hyperbole from frogwoman.


 
don't let Disco Dave hear you say that, all the effort he's putting in and you say that not ALL people are gonna lose their jobs?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yes, you thick twat but not OUR Sovereign debt! It is NOT a separate argument, simply because the key factor with any debt calculation isn't the size of it, but the wherewithal and ability of the debtor to pay. OUR wherewithal is in a different universe to those of greece etc, simply because our economy is so much stronger (Or rather, will be if you tories don't plunge us into a thatcherite recession); there is NO point talking about "the sovereign bond market" as a homogenous uniform whole because it _isn't_, and never has been.
> There is HUGE faith in the market for us to pay our debt, which is why UK govt bonds are a highly valued, stable anchor to investment portfolios.


 
There is not huge faith from the market that we can pay our debt otherwise Fitch wouldn't be calling the country’s fiscal challenges “formidable” and warning that our debt reduction plan wasn’t aggressive enough. Fitch could cut the U.K.’s AAA debt rating, unless action was taken.

In what world do you live, where you imagine this huge faith in British soverign debt?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> don't let Disco Dave hear you say that, all the effort he's putting in and you say that not ALL people are gonna lose their jobs?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

frogwoman said:


>


 
People in prison may soon gain jobs


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People in prison may soon gain jobs


 
with your lot in power it wouldn't surprise me if they transferred council admin to prisoners


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> with your lot in power it wouldn't surprise me if they transferred council admin to prisoners


 
Your lot? No, your lot.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Your lot? No, your lot.


 
my lot? do you mean cos i voted Lib Dem to protest against my local warmonger MP who is guaranteed to get in anyway?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

treelover said:


> @liamo
> 
> she attacked my intellect, etc I just pointed out I had a degree, FWIW, wtf is wrong with that reponse?



No my tree-loving amigo... you did not just point out you had a degree... you, somewhat pretentiously,  posted this conceited nonsense...



treelover said:


> Oh as for not being able to comprehend more than one concept at a time, *2.1 BA Hons*, says otherwise!



You proudly wielded your 2:1 BA Hons (in an unspecified subject) as some kind of universally accepted sword of incisive intellect - whereas some would argue it is anything but. 

Many of the most stupid, dullest people I know have good degrees. Besides to follow the logic of your boast, anything you post would automatically be trumped by someone - who might well be thick as fuck - claiming an MA or phD.

Your contribution on here is surely judged on what you post - rather than what cub-scout badges you hold.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Many of the most stupid, dullest people I know have good degrees. Besides to follow the logic of your boast, anything you post would automatically be trumped by someone - who might well be thick as fuck - claiming an MA or phD.



Easy there Liam.

Dr Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> my lot? do you mean cos i voted Lib Dem to protest against my local warmonger MP who is guaranteed to get in anyway?


 
Yes. You voted for them. Now you want to call them 'his lot'. Nobody put a gun to your head.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 7, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Easy there Liam.
> 
> Dr Louis MacNeice



 Quite 

and gawd bless ya doctor Louis... you're a toff and no mistake... poxy bleedin' Bachelors of Arts finking they can mess wiv the good doctor... want me ter give 'im a slap, Guv?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 7, 2010)

LiamO said:


> Quite
> 
> and gawd bless ya doctor Louis... you're a toff and no mistake... poxy bleedin' Bachelors of Arts finking they can mess wiv the good doctor... want me ter give 'im a slap, Guv?


 
Excuse me while I vomit.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is not huge faith from the market that we can pay our debt otherwise Fitch wouldn't be calling the country’s fiscal challenges “formidable” and warning that our debt reduction plan wasn’t aggressive enough. Fitch could cut the U.K.’s AAA debt rating, unless action was taken.
> 
> In what world do you live, where you imagine this huge faith in British soverign debt?


A world where we a) have a good vantage point on and access to financial markets opinion and b) are financially-literate. Both of which put you as far from it, as we both are from Mars right now.
There was never, is never any chance of Fitch downgrading our rating because for the ratings to work, and for firms like Fitch to sell products based on them, they have to be credible. If Fitch downgraded UK sov debt, they'd never be taken seriously again. That isn't just me saying that, btw, it's a senior JP analyst who thinks that, and his view was echoed by others. 
Words like 'formidable' are just that; words. They need context.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Excuse me while I vomit.


 
Bucket quick! There's probably a market for that somewhere.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. Now about the shift to CPI and the attack on the poor...any thoghts yet...any at all?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> my lot? do you mean cos i voted Lib Dem to protest against my local warmonger MP who is guaranteed to get in anyway?


doesn't matter - you still voted for Satan's beeyatch - the govt we have now is down to you far more than it is to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Bucket quick! There's probably a market for that somewhere.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. Now about the shift to CPI and the attack on the poor...any thoghts yet...any at all?



If you lend me £20 at 1% i can hire the bucket back to you at 3%. I may also sell this on. Have we an agreement?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> doesn't matter - you still voted for Satan's beeyatch - the govt we have now is down to you far more than it is to me.


 
 would that be my MP who is New labour ? What part does He play in the Govt?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If you lend me £20 at 1% i can hire the bucket back to you at 3%. I may also sell this on. Have we an agreement?


 
Why would I want to pay to borrow a bucket of your vomit when I can read your posts for free. Now that shift to the CPI...still playing dumb moon?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

text sent :X


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> would that be my MP who is New labour ? What part does He play in the Govt?



nope, the libservative who you voted for, who is doubtless now busy cheerleading for the condems as they inflict hell on the most impoverished, marginalised and put-upon people in the country.
FFS, grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> nope, the libservative who you voted for, who is doubtless now busy cheerleading for the condems as they inflict hell on the most impoverished, marginalised and put-upon people in the country.
> FFS, grow a pair and take responsibility for your actions


 
i'll try to explain it in simple terms.

1) Our MP is safe New Labour
2) He is a warmonger and pro ID cards
3) I voted Lib Dem to register disatisfaction at that. They could never ever get in where i live
4) The New Labour man as expected, won. 
5) No harm done, although it woulda been a different matter if it was a marginal. I wouldn't have voted at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

6) You mug
7) Why this _woulda_ stuff?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 6) You mug
> 7) Why this _woulda_ stuff?


 
just keep my post above and refer to it every time you come out with bollocks


----------



## tarannau (Oct 7, 2010)

What principles you have eh Trev. You supported this shower of pseudo-tory cunts whether you like it or not.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i'll try to explain it in simple terms.
> 
> 1) Our MP is safe New Labour
> 2) He is a warmonger and pro ID cards
> ...


 And I'll answer even more simply. You voted, by way of a hissy fit, an impotent juvenile "pwotest" that will not bring back to life one victim of that war, to people who will consign us, if they and their tory mates have their way, to something far worse than thatcher ever tried. 
Quite simply, you are a Scab, a Class Traitor, and incapable of exercising your vote responsibly; by contrast those who feel the system is ruined beyond redemption, and refuse to legitimise it by voting, or who spoil their ballot papers, are acting very responsibly.
Quite simply, you are not fit to vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

The libdems did oppose the war. That isn't nothing. And Labour's worst civil liberties excesses were horrible. The libdems opposed some of them. 

I wouldn't condemn someone for voting libdem.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The libdems did oppose the war. That isn't nothing.


 
No they didn't


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 7, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The libdems did oppose the war. That isn't nothing. And Labour's worst civil liberties excesses were horrible. The libdems opposed some of them.
> 
> I wouldn't condemn someone for voting libdem.


didn't the libdems wobble more than a tad once the war started and they got worried about being painted the UnPatriot Party? 
Or is that just my memory playing tricks, with age?
On the civil liberties thing - sure, agreed. So let's now see a bonfire of them from the condems.
I Won't hold my breath (Except for ID cards, for which I grudgingly applaud them).


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 7, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> just keep my post above and refer to it every time you come out with bollocks


 
Speaking of bollocks, why didn't you just stick a pic of Linda Lusardi to the ballot slip, do what you had to do and then hand that to the counters?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 7, 2010)

They adopted a position I did not agree with – calling for action through the UN. So they opposed the war as it was started. They did march against it. 

They did not oppose invading Iraq under any circumstances, that is true.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2010)

They _supported_ the war - don't let them paint it otherwise. They wanted it to be done on a better legal grounding though and carried out more efficiently. Afghanistan was offered as their model. Don't let their lies go unopposed.

They didn't march against or for fuck all. Kennedy (the nice lib-dem) offered unqualified support in the commons and gave a pro-war speech from the stage of a national STWC demo.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> As bad as those who can only swear or make insults.



I learned a long time ago there's no point in arguing with Tories. Their interests are not mine. They are opposed to mine and they know it. The policies that you support are opposed to my well-being and those of my family and community. 

I had a go at Blagsta a couple of weeks ago for being too hard on you eek because I thought you couldn't possibly be so supportive of such destruction, but it seems, sadly, and utterly bizarrely, that you are. If you don't understand why people, why I, may swear at you, you clearly have no idea of the anger you provoke with your stream of posts, each one ignoring all the well-written, well-sourced replies that seek to inform you of the harm that will be done, instead propagating the misanthropic right-wing ideology of the born-to-rule. I'm truly shocked by your views.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You said _"The only reason the amount of expenditure would be "ever-increasing" would be if new debt were being raised alongside prior debt, or less than the interest was being repaid."_.
> I'm pointing out that isn't true because gross expenditure almost always increases.
> 
> It's you that needs to be more accurate with your terms.


I'm an idiot.
Anyone who argues with an idiot is an idiot! 


> Also I hate to point out the blinding obvious but new debt is still being raised, that's what a structural defecit means FFS!


Structural deficit does not mean "new debt is still being raised", it refers to the fact that even economies in equilibrium have a certain amount of inherent debt, regardless of whether that debt is being increased or decreased. It's a description of a state.
So, far from pointing out the blindingly obvious, you've shown that you're (again) using language you're not really _au fait_ with.


> That we currently have expenditures that outstrip our receipts.  In August 2010 there was net public sector borrowing of £15.6 Billion.


Wow, I'd never have known that! 
Most economies, from developed world to developing world, spend about half their time with expenditures that outstrip receipts. it's a fact of state-economic life. What matters (if you believe a century of economic consensus) is balance over the economic cycle. Arbitrarily reduce your deficit to the detriment of the public sector and you risk inducing national issues of employment and recession, as well as affecting any trading partners. Ask yourself why (if you actually bother to read beyond the abstracts of such reports) people like the IMF were far more guardedly praising of Brown's "softly, softly, catchee monkey" approach to reduction, over Osborne's: Nothing to do with wanting to avoid an economic domino effect, I suppose?



> Money spent on propping up failing banks is still government expenditure, you mean it isn’t public sector expenditure.


No, I mean it is investment rather than expenditure. The money wasn't gifted to the banks, the money bought an interest in the banks 


> Am I right in thinking you support the bank bail out as a fiscal policy for intervention with the free market?


I support any intervention that helps prevent a severe recession, let alone an investment decision that, much as I hate to give New Labour credit for anything, helped prevent a bank run (and we had the start of a run, even with Northern Rock) that could have crashed the entire global economy and killed millions of people. Think I'm exaggerating? Read some 20th-century economic history.

As to the "free market", there is no "free market". It's a chimeric myth believed by idiots and the economically-illiterate. Everything that functions within the economy is tied or value-laden in such a way that the market cannot be "free". It can't exist as anything except an abstract concept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I made a quick start of doing this in an earlier point, drawing example to the WWII bonds to the US having a much lower interest rate. The current debt repayment interest rate is linked to our AAA Credit rating and international bond markets. The current climate has seen a large amount of panic over sovereign debt and a crisis in Greece, it's therefore important with a jittery market to show we are capable of handling our debt.


 
No, it's not, because no-one outside of the media ever had cause to think that UK debt would be downgraded, "jittery market" or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.


 
Yes, let's note how it reached a low of 29.1% under new labour, and only went into overdrive *after* the _finanzkrise_ hit. I wonder why that was?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Come on Streathamite if you are reasoning that Ireland is a different country and in the Eurozone, do you agree it's stupid for the left to use it as an example of why defecit cuts don't work. Or do these differance between countries only become vast when it suites your line of reasoning?


 
The Republic's economic mode of operation has far more similarities than differences to the UK's economic mode of operation. Therefore, it's a reasonable (from an economic point of view) comparator.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So are you saying we were in a recession from 2001-2007 when debt rose from around 30% of GDP to around 40% of GDP? Becuase forgive me but I thought we had economic growth throughout this period.


 
Go read up on economic cycles, Norbert.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> And I'll answer even more simply. You voted, by way of a hissy fit, an impotent juvenile "pwotest" that will not bring back to life one victim of that war, to people who will consign us, if they and their tory mates have their way, to something far worse than thatcher ever tried.
> Quite simply, you are a Scab, a Class Traitor, and incapable of exercising your vote responsibly; by contrast those who feel the system is ruined beyond redemption, and refuse to legitimise it by voting, or who spoil their ballot papers, are acting very responsibly.
> Quite simply, you are not fit to vote.


 
all this by voting as a protest against a warmonger!!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They _supported_ the war - don't let them paint it otherwise. They wanted it to be done on a better legal grounding though and carried out more efficiently. Afghanistan was offered as their model. Don't let their lies go unopposed.
> 
> They didn't march against or for fuck all. Kennedy (the nice lib-dem) offered unqualified support in the commons and gave a pro-war speech from the stage of a national STWC demo.


 
Butchers, do you have a transcript of this speech (or does anyone else?) it's something i heard last night, that they were actually pro war, but i couldn't remember it at the time. I thought they opposed (or seemed to oppose) the Iraq war when it was going on

Seems pretty appalling that the STWC would let them have a platform, if that's true


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> And I'll answer even more simply. You voted, by way of a hissy fit, an impotent juvenile "pwotest" that will not bring back to life one victim of that war, to people who will consign us, if they and their tory mates have their way, to something far worse than thatcher ever tried.
> Quite simply, you are a Scab, a Class Traitor, and incapable of exercising your vote responsibly; by contrast those who feel the system is ruined beyond redemption, and refuse to legitimise it by voting, or who spoil their ballot papers, are acting very responsibly.
> Quite simply, you are not fit to vote.


 
if i am a class traitor scab etc for voting against a warmonger and big brother obsessive, what would it have made me if i voted FOR him?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's not, because no-one outside of the media ever had cause to think that UK debt would be downgraded, "jittery market" or not.


tbh, the financial meejah (I spent a long time working for financial magazines, and still have those contacts either) didn't believe it either, it just made for a good story, and suited their wealthy overlordes interests to whip up a shitstorm over SFA.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> if i am a class traitor scab etc for voting against a warmonger and big brother obsessive, what would it have made me if i voted FOR him?


 
You didn't have to vote for him though. You didn't have to vote at all. 

I wouldn't go as far as calling you scab etc, LOADS of people voted lib dem, but you appear to be implying that you wouldn't have a choice and that you'd have to do so again


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> if i am a class traitor scab etc for voting against a warmonger and big brother obsessive, what would it have made me if i voted FOR him?


someone who was grown up about their voting intentions? Someone who realised that they were responsible for their vote, and had to use it to do more than stamp ttheir feet? Someone who realised such a protest was pointless? You could've voted green, or even WESPECK (If they stood in your manor) or for an independent candidate. Or you could have honourably refused to vote.
You didn't. Scab.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> You didn't have to vote for him though. You didn't have to vote at all.
> 
> I wouldn't go as far as calling you scab etc, LOADS of people voted lib dem, but you appear to be implying that you wouldn't have a choice and that you'd have to do so again


 
i nearly didn't vote at all . I just bore in mind the Anti heros song "Election Day" - "the only way it all makes sense is vote vote vote against".

even so i wouldn't have done it if i'd known they would so easily roll over and be buttfucked by the Tories, even if it had no effect on the result


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> someone who was grown up about their voting intentions? Someone who realised that they were responsible for their vote, and had to use it to do more than stamp ttheir feet? Someone who realised such a protest was pointless? You could've voted green, or even WESPECK (If they stood in your manor) or for an independent candidate. Or you could have honourably refused to vote.
> You didn't. Scab.


 
if another few thousand voted Lib Dem in my area maybe the New Labour MP woulda started to get some form of message. ie they can't treat people like cunts and still rely on their vote


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> someone who was grown up about their voting intentions? Someone who realised that they were responsible for their vote, and had to use it to do more than stamp ttheir feet? Someone who realised such a protest was pointless? You could've voted green, or even WESPECK (If they stood in your manor) or for an independent candidate. Or you could have honourably refused to vote.
> You didn't. Scab.


 
how is it grown up to call someone who is 100% pro union a scab?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> how is it grown up to call someone who is 100% pro union a scab?


 
Your not 100% pure and righteous now in the eyes of Streathamite, you must repent and follow his every commanded voting intention.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your not 100% pure and righteous now in the eyes of Streathamite, you must repent and follow his every commanded voting intention.


 
if i don't spoil my vote at the next election i will be forced to be bussed into the council offices when the strikes start


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i nearly didn't vote at all . I just bore in mind the Anti heros song "Election Day" - "the only way it all makes sense is vote vote vote against".



And look where that got us. A vote for any of the main three is giving capitalism your mandate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> how is it grown up to call someone who is 100% pro union a scab?


 
you don't like children, do you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 8, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *moon23 *
> Usefull thanks, notice how it growed under Labour despite an entire decade of economic growth.



I think you'll find that the word is 'grew'. There is no such word as "growed".


----------



## moon23 (Oct 8, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I think you'll find that the word is 'grew'. There is no such word as "growed".


 
Thanks for pointing that out, i'm dyslexic so make mistakes like this.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> how is it grown up to call someone who is 100% pro union a scab?


very; you betrayed your fellow TUers with your vote.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Your not 100% pure and righteous now in the eyes of Streathamite, you must repent and follow his every commanded voting intention.


spoken like a true Tory!


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> very; you betrayed your fellow TUers with your vote.


 
Whereas voting labour would have made everything ok????


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Whereas voting labour would have made everything ok????


 
bad but in a different way


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Whereas voting labour would have made everything ok????


I'm not saying that - *not at all*. In fact, you'll find I laid out more honourable alternatives in my post #934. But to vote LD (despite them not really being 'anti war', as already pointed out by BA), as a protest that would not have meant one less corpse in Iraq, and for a party who are about to inflict this economic shitstorm on us - and who indicated they were quite likely to align with the tories before the election - is a shameful abdication of the responsibility that voting entails


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't like children, do you?


 
not in a Garry Glitter way


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I'm not saying that - *not at all*. In fact, you'll find I laid out more honourable alternatives in my post #934. But to vote LD (despite them not really being 'anti war', as already pointed out by BA), as a protest that would not have meant one less corpse in Iraq, and for a party who are about to inflict this economic shitstorm on us - and who indicated they were quite likely to align with the tories before the election - is a shameful abdication of the responsibility that voting entails


 
so all is forgotten that new Labour caused the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Whereas voting labour would have made everything ok????


 
they ended up against everything Labour once stood for, a brutal Hitlerite destruction of our benefits system, war crimes and wanting to spy on us all. I am not gonna turn a blind eye to this just because the Tories are worse.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> ie they can't treat people like cunts and still rely on their vote


and how are the coalition "treating people", pray tell? Because that's what you voted for instead.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and how are the coalition "treating people", pray tell? Because that's what you voted for instead.


 
round in circles, i voted AGAINST a warmonger/stassiist


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 8, 2010)

stop whining trev


----------



## dennisr (Oct 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> stop whining trev



lighten up trev. read the latest daily mash expose:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/middle-class-to-sell-their-children-201010043135/
*Middle Class to Sell Their Children*

_"Julian Cook, of Donnelly-McPartlin, said: "Fifteen years ago a decent British child was delivering four to four and a half per cent a year. But inflation has steadily eaten away at it and now this move by the government has turned them into the sentient mammal version of junk bonds."_


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> so all is forgotten that new Labour caused the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?


How can you possibly - under *any* circumstances - infer that I think that? FWIW, I left the LP in 2000 in utter disgust at them. Sorry, you're just being braindead - I gave you the other alternatives in this very thread.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> lighten up trev. read the latest daily mash expose:
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/middle-class-to-sell-their-children-201010043135/
> *Middle Class to Sell Their Children*
> 
> _"Julian Cook, of Donnelly-McPartlin, said: "Fifteen years ago a decent British child was delivering four to four and a half per cent a year. But inflation has steadily eaten away at it and now this move by the government has turned them into the sentient mammal version of junk bonds."_


 
that's great that site


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Hoe casn you possibly - under *any* circumstances - infer that I think that? FWIW, I left the LP in 2000 in utter disgust at them. Sorry, you're just being braindead - I gave you the other alternatives in this very thread.


 
you seemed to be implying it's all in the past, because my vote wouldn't save any more children


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> round in circles, i voted AGAINST a warmonger/stassiist


no you did not - that is NOT how it works. You voted _for_ someone, who benefited from _your_ vote, however infinitesimally. ffs, grow uip and learn to deal with that responsibility.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no you did not - that is NOT how it works. You voted _for_ someone, who benefited from _your_ vote, however infinitesimally. ffs, grow uip and learn to deal with that responsibility.


 
who did YOU vote for out of curiosity?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> you seemed to be implying it's all in the past, because my vote wouldn't save any more children


only for those with an IQ of a beetroot.I'm saying that that _sort_ of protest vote, cast the way you did, was wrong. It's not hard to grasp this.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> who did YOU vote for out of curiosity?


I voted Labour, not least because we had an excellent Campaign Group candidate who consistently rebelled against the govt (not least over Iraq) when in the Commons before (1997-2005) and who has an excellent record in fighting for the workers, and a brilliant constituency record.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I voted Labour, not least because we had an excellent Campaign Group candidate who consistently rebelled against the govt (not least over Iraq) when in the Commons before (1997-2005) and who has an excellent record in fighting for the workers, and a brilliant constituency record.


 
fair point in that situation but if i used your election logic i would be screaming "you voted for warmongers! Yes you voted , i don't care what you say, you have murdered innocents in Iraq!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I voted Labour, not least because we had an excellent Campaign Group candidate who consistently rebelled against the govt (not least over Iraq) when in the Commons before (1997-2005) and who has an excellent record in fighting for the workers, and a brilliant constituency record.


 
so not diane abbott then


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> if another few thousand voted Lib Dem in my area maybe the New Labour MP woulda started to get some form of message. ie they can't treat people like cunts and still rely on their vote


 
Amazing tactical nous trev - supporting _both_ the lib-dems and labour (and effectively, the tories as well) 

Maybe the first lot could take you on as an electoral strategist?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> fair point in that situation but if i used your election logic i would be screaming "you voted for warmongers! Yes you voted , i don't care what you say, you have murdered innocents in Iraq!"


 

Spot on.. I think it's possible that you can have a candidate that is so good that it's worth voting for them regardless of the party.  That doesn’t make you a ‘scab’ or a ‘warmonger’


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so not diane abbott then


nope - John Cryer. mind, I had a real go at him when he canvassed me!


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> fair point in that situation but if i used your election logic i would be screaming "you voted for warmongers! Yes you voted , i don't care what you say, you have murdered innocents in Iraq!"


er no, that ISN'T the same, he did everything he could as an MP - incurring the leadership's displeasure along the way - to stop the war.
And the Lib Dems were NOT against the war _per se_ - as BA has pointed it out, they would have been quite happy to support it, if it had been done differently (2nd UN resolution etc).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Spot on.. I think it's possible that you can have a candidate that is so good that it's worth voting for them regardless of the party.  That doesn’t make you a ‘scab’ or a ‘warmonger’


 
could you point to one member of the bnp of whom that would be true?


----------



## treelover (Oct 8, 2010)

Ed's Milli's come out against the CB cuts, but what about the HB cap which will see many people homeless? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/07/ed-miliband-child-benefit


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 8, 2010)

treelover said:


> Ed's Milli's come out against the CB cuts, but what about the HB cap which will see many people homeless?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/07/ed-miliband-child-benefit



Ed's also come out against strike action over pensions on the grounds that it would detract from Ed's 'fight' aginst the cuts


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> if another few thousand voted Lib Dem in my area maybe the New Labour MP woulda started to get some form of message. ie they can't treat people like cunts and still rely on their vote


 
Absolutely, after all it's not like the Lib Dems have treated anyone like cunts or totally ignored what they ssaid previou.... Oh hang on a minute...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Ed's also come out against strike action over pensions on the grounds that it would detract from Ed's 'fight' aginst the cuts


 
this would presumably be much the same as the labour fight against the poll tax.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> this would presumably be much the same as the labour fight against the poll tax.



Nowhere near as spirited.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Spot on.. I think it's possible that you can have a candidate that is so good that it's worth voting for them regardless of the party.  That doesn’t make you a ‘scab’ or a ‘warmonger’


except that all candidates stand on their party's slate, and therefore their manifesto - that's how it _works_.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> except that all candidates stand on their party's slate, and therefore their manifesto - that's how it _works_.


 
exactly, you can't stand as a party candidate and be like "I don't support any of what the party does". Well, you can, but only if you're actually DOING something rather than just saying it to get people to vote for you (as in a few honourable anti-war labour MPs for instance) but I don't see any signs of such action with the Lib Dems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> all this by voting as a protest against a warmonger!!


 
Thing is, you could have made as much of a protest against your safe Labour MP by not voting at all, as by voting for a lib-dem. The problem is that when the different parties tot up the full amount of votes each *party* (through its' candidates) garnered, the lib-dems will have been looking at tens of thousands (perhaps more) of votes, and will have seen those votes as an endorsement of their politics and policies, and perhaps even as a mandate, rather than as a protest against Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, the financial meejah (I spent a long time working for financial magazines, and still have those contacts either) didn't believe it either, it just made for a good story, and suited their wealthy overlordes interests to whip up a shitstorm over SFA.


 
I argued similar (the "interests" angle) a while back. After all, who would be *able* to generate profit from sowing such a seed of doubt? Any one of a number of speculators who cared to cause ripples in the market.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I argued similar (the "interests" angle) a while back. After all, who would be *able* to generate profit from sowing such a seed of doubt? Any one of a number of speculators who cared to cause ripples in the market.


yup, remember you doing that, and you were right, the wealthy have a huge vested interest in massive deficit cuts, which is why the tory press are screaming on the cuts. I'd bet a tenner to a penny that one came straight from the executive dining room and the door marked 'chief executive'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> they ended up against everything Labour once stood for, a brutal Hitlerite destruction of our benefits system...


If it were "Hitlerite", it'd all have been over and done with in the course of about a year, which is how long he took to re-structure German welfare.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, you could have made as much of a protest against your safe Labour MP by not voting at all, as by voting for a lib-dem. The problem is that when the different parties tot up the full amount of votes each *party* (through its' candidates) garnered, the lib-dems will have been looking at tens of thousands (perhaps more) of votes, and will have seen those votes as an endorsement of their politics and policies, and perhaps even as a mandate, rather than as a protest against Labour.


 
i actually thought about not voting at all but i just thought it would have more effect if pissed off voters voted for someone else, for example during the vote for the Iraq war Tony Blair would've hated those who voted against rather than those who just abstained.

all of which is pointless as the New Labour man was parachuted into a safe seat


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If it were "Hitlerite", it'd all have been over and done with in the course of about a year, which is how long he took to re-structure German welfare.


 
same level of contempt for the poor, and if someone with serious disability finds themselves without money, unable to afford food i doubt they care if someone is gassing jews or appearing on telly in a respectable suit

they will simply think "how could anyone in power be such a heartless CUNT"


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> except that all candidates stand on their party's slate, and therefore their manifesto - that's how it _works_.


 
i thought you voted for your MP because he was AGAINST the party line of mass murder?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2010)

Have you set up your _punx for the cuts!_ facebook group yet trev?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Have you set up your _punx for the cuts!_ facebook group yet trev?


 
i think there was one in the 80's called Class War if you mean cuts hitting people on 44k

well not on Facebook obviously


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i thought you voted for your MP because he was AGAINST the party line of mass murder?


oh jesus wept. 
Trev, it really _isn't_ as simple, as black-and-white, as that. His record of honourably placing principle before party on Iraq _and_ many other issues (he rebelled 47 times in the 2001-2005 parliament) was instrumental in persuading me that my vote was _more_ responsibly used keeping the libtories out and sending one of the more tolerable MPs in, rather than expressing my disgust at Labour by voting Green, or abstaining.
Put simply, a Campaign group rebel, guaranteed to push for some half-decent policies and to stand up to the leadership, is a good thing to support.
A meaningless, unproductive protest vote given to an even worse bunch of wankers is exactly the opposite of that.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> same level of contempt for the poor, and if someone with serious disability finds themselves without money, unable to afford food i doubt they care if someone is gassing jews or appearing on telly in a respectable suit
> 
> they will simply think "how could anyone in power be such a heartless CUNT"


Comapring labour's benefits policy with the 3rd reich really does make you look idiotic. It also weakens your credibility. There's plenty of ways you could criticise them without being that ridiculous about it.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 8, 2010)

Has anyone seen anything yet about possible further cuts to child benefit in the spending review?

Heard speculation that it might be stopped for all over 13 year olds.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Comapring labour's benefits policy with the 3rd reich really does make you look idiotic. It also weakens your credibility. There's plenty of ways you could criticise them without being that ridiculous about it.


 
when you've seen seriously ill people - like a bloke with one leg and cancer - hounded by their policies to me they ARE on the same level as the 3rd Reich , they may not gas jews but then neither does that fascist Berlusconi (another of Tory Blairs mates)


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so not diane abbott then


no, but I possibly would vote for her


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 8, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> when you've seen seriously ill people - like a bloke with one leg and cancer - hounded by their policies to me they ARE on the same level as the 3rd Reich , they may not gas jews but then neither does that fascist Berlusconi (another of Tory Blairs mates)


i'm sorry trev, but they really,* really* are not, and neither was thatcher, and for god's sake remind me never to take you campaigning with me cos if you start talking like that on the stump, you'll lose votes every time you open your mouth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> same level of contempt for the poor...


Hitler didn't have contempt for the poor. He spent a lot of time and money trying to get them "on board". he didn't succeed with the urban poor, but he certainly got the majority of the rural poor (mostly peasant farmers) behind him. 


> and if someone with serious disability finds themselves without money, unable to afford food...


Been there. Had my DLA stopped for about 18 months. I survived because you have to... 


> i doubt they care if someone is gassing jews or appearing on telly in a respectable suit...


You don't give people enough credit. Most people won't sell their principles for a full belly, in my experience, although I suspect most party politicians would or have.


> they will simply think "how could anyone in power be such a heartless CUNT"


Unless they're a tory, in which case they'll be too busy wanking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i think there was one in the 80's called Class War if you mean cuts hitting people on 44k
> 
> well not on Facebook obviously


 
Some of whom turned out to be chancers who would have been happy to earn 44k themselves.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i think there was one in the 80's called Class War if you mean cuts hitting people on 44k
> 
> well not on Facebook obviously


 
I can see the rallying cry go up now

"Beatrice, Lucinda, Elizabeth too middle-class benefits for me and you."


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some of whom turned out to be chancers who would have been happy to earn 44k themselves.



Class War championed the actions of this fella in Manchester.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1345146_who_is_paul_massey


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

One of the issues with this tax rise according to income is that people face very different costs depending on where they live. Housing costs in central London for example are massive compared to the Welsh Valleys. Someone on 44k in central London may not in fact be very well off, wheras someone in Tonypandy earning 44k may be relatively very well off.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> One of the issues with this tax rise according to income is that people face very different costs depending on where they live. Housing costs in central London for example are massive compared to the Welsh Valleys. Someone on 44k in central London may not in fact be very well off, wheras someone in Tonypandy earning 44k may be relatively very well off.


 
yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> One of the issues with this tax rise according to income is that people face very different costs depending on where they live. Housing costs in central London for example are massive compared to the Welsh Valleys. Someone on 44k in central London may not in fact be very well off, wheras someone in Tonypandy earning 44k may be relatively very well off.


 
There's a lot of "someone on £44k" going on, but it needs to be borne in mind that it doesn't just depend where you live, but how far that money has to go, i.e. how many people.what size family it provides for.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

exactly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a lot of "someone on £44k" going on, but it needs to be borne in mind that it doesn't just depend where you live, but how far that money has to go, i.e. how many people.what size family it provides for.


 
also whether it's a good year or it's the normal state of affairs. someone might pull a load of overtime on several projects in the course of one year, bumping them well over their usual salary, which makes them temporarily higher tax, but which might mask debts.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a lot of "someone on £44k" going on, but it needs to be borne in mind that it doesn't just depend where you live, but how far that money has to go, i.e. how many people.what size family it provides for.


 
But it is a choice how many children you have. 

I know a roman catholic family with 8 kids. 

I have one kid - which I can afford. Why should I pay towards the costs of the family with 8? 

Seems very unfair to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> i think there was one in the 80's called Class War if you mean cuts hitting people on 44k
> 
> well not on Facebook obviously


 
how does someone earning 44k necessarily make someone middle class? class is, as we should all by now know, more about someone's relationship to the means of production, and the power they can exert, than their wages.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

I have no kids. Why should I pay towards your one? 

That's a stupid argument. It's the wrong way round – if I have dependants, why should I pay income tax on the money I spend on my dependants' basic needs? is a better question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But it is a choice how many children you have.
> 
> I know a roman catholic family with 8 kids.
> 
> ...


because at some point in the future they'll be paying for you?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But it is a choice how many children you have.
> 
> I know a roman catholic family with 8 kids.
> 
> ...


 
Because Kids aren't property they're people, and they're worth investing in.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But it is a choice how many children you have.
> 
> I know a roman catholic family with 8 kids.
> 
> ...


 
What about the kids, though? Why should a kid suffer? Now that seems unfair.

What if those 6 kids from that family of 8 all end up being doctors, public servants, volunteers, soldiers? Would it be a good investment then?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how does someone earning 44k necessarily make someone middle class? class is, as we should all by now know, more about someone's relationship to the means of production, and the power they can exert, than their wages.


 
in that case you could be a dropout in a mansion and still not be middle class


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> in that case you could be a dropout in a mansion and still not be middle class


how's that then?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how does someone earning 44k necessarily make someone middle class? class is, as we should all by now know, more about someone's relationship to the means of production, and the power they can exert, than their wages.


 
bingo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

If you can't call someone on £44k middle class, the term is useless. Most people have a 'working class' relationship to the means of production and exert fuck all power.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no kids. Why should I pay towards your one?



Well, that is a question as I think my ex wife does get child benefit. AND our combined income (though we live apart) is more than 44k.



littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a stupid argument. It's the wrong way round – if I have dependants, why should I pay income tax on the money I spend on my dependants' basic needs? is a better question.



That is an interesting angle. 



Pickman's model said:


> because at some point in the future they'll be paying for you?



Just because the pension system is fcucked.. that is the only reason.. 

But we do pay for their education already, so I can see a parrelel in what you are saying.



Belushi said:


> Because Kids aren't property they're people, and they're worth investing in.



I would like to have 8 kids, I would love it, especially if I had a benefit of possibly 8kpa to help me pay their costs. You lot would of course be paying that for me. Thanks  



Proper Tidy said:


> What about the kids, though? Why should a kid suffer? Now that seems unfair.
> 
> What if those 6 kids from that family of 8 all end up being doctors, public servants, volunteers, soldiers? Would it be a good investment then?



I am not sure it makes any difference what they go on to become.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Well, that is a question as I think my ex wife does get child benefit. AND our combined income (though we live apart) is more than 44k.



I have no problem with contributing a small amount towards your kid, no matter what you and your ex earn. I think the tax/benefit system should recognise when people have dependants.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure it makes any difference what they go on to become.


 
Why? Will they not grow up to be tax payers?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

> I would like to have 8 kids, I would love it, especially if I had a benefit of possibly 8kpa to help me pay their costs. You lot would of course be paying that for me. Thanks



When the kids are older, they'll be paying for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you can't call someone on £44k middle class, the term is useless. Most people have a 'working class' relationship to the means of production and exert fuck all power.


 
that could be because most people are working class. but it's not about wages, is it? most people would consider academics middle class, but they frequently earn less than people doing things like plastering.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

It's also about power, education, a whole host of factors.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I would like to have 8 kids, I would love it, especially if I had a benefit of possibly 8kpa to help me pay their costs. You lot would of course be paying that for me. Thanks


 
It's fine, I would be benefiting from it to. It's called 'Society'.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no problem with contributing a small amount towards your kid, no matter what you and your ex earn. I think the tax/benefit system should recognise when people have dependants.


 
Are you saying that the tax system should take into account people's costs? in a more general way, if dependents why not housing?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why? Will they not grow up to be tax payers?


 
I am still not sure it makes any difference. 

By your argument it could be said that if they were unlikely to become taxpayers they should possibly not receive benefits or not be so deserving of them. That can't be right.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> When the kids are older, they'll be paying for you.


 
But a constantly growing population is also unsustainable.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

Our population is NOT constantly growing though, it's actually below replacement level IIRC.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Belushi said:


> It's fine, I would be benefiting from it to. It's called 'Society'.


 
The RC family I mentioned at the top of the page, the man is a hospital consultant, he is probably on £100k. I do resent subsidising his family of 8, he can afford the costs of his and his wife's choices. 

I however am already swamped by my costs of living, and my tax bill to pay for his kids.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I am still not sure it makes any difference.
> 
> By your argument it could be said that if they were unlikely to become taxpayers they should possibly not receive benefits or not be so deserving of them. That can't be right.


 
the only adults i can immediately think of who pay no tax are prisoners.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I am still not sure it makes any difference.
> 
> By your argument it could be said that if they were unlikely to become taxpayers they should possibly not receive benefits or not be so deserving of them. That can't be right.


 
Everybody becomes a tax payer. My point is that these children who are _such a tax burden_ are the tax payers of the future.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I however am already swamped by my costs of living


 
Really?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Everybody becomes a tax payer. My point is that these children who are _such a tax burden_ are the tax payers of the future.


 
let's all stop paying any taxes which may in the future go towards weltweit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> let's all stop paying any taxes which may in the future go towards weltweit.


 
I'm in


----------



## Belushi (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> The RC family I mentioned at the top of the page, the man is a hospital consultant, he is probably on £100k. I do resent subsidising his family of 8, he can afford the costs of his and his wife's choices.
> 
> I however am already swamped by my costs of living, and my tax bill to pay for his kids.


 
Again children arent property - we all have a stake in their future. And there's far more wasteful things that your tax is being spent on than investing in young people.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Really?


 
Yes. Why not?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Yes. Why not?


 
You've mentioned before you are a high earner.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> let's all stop paying any taxes which may in the future go towards weltweit.


 


Proper Tidy said:


> I'm in


 
You swine


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You've mentioned before you are a high earner.


 
Are you sure? I earn 30k and my costs at the moment are very high.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how's that then?


 
because they have no relationship to the power of production or whatever it was ya said


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Are you sure? I earn 30k and my costs at the moment are very high.


 
Perhaps not, mind you 30k is better than most.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> because they have no relationship to the power of production or whatever it was ya said


 
but do they need to sell their labour?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> also whether it's a good year or it's the normal state of affairs. someone might pull a load of overtime on several projects in the course of one year, bumping them well over their usual salary, which makes them temporarily higher tax, but which might mask debts.


 
Another very good point.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

trevhagl said:


> because they have no relationship to the power of production or whatever it was ya said


 
Apart from the mansion they own.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

If I have mentioned that I am a high earner, it is because "relatively" I earn more than many people, not that I am in the 40% tax bracket or higher.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Are you sure? I earn 30k and my costs at the moment are very high.


 
In which case you should be able to appreciate that the same may be true (for the reasons given by myself and others on this thread) for some people on £44k _per annum_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> but do they need to sell their labour?


 
Most of us need to sell our labour. It is true that there is a cultural aspect in that, for instance, I do a job that is largely done by graduates and would no doubt be called middle class by most. I earn less than a tube driver, however, who would probably be called working class by most. In reality, not only do I earn less than a tube driver, but I have less protection through the unions. Really, I'm in a lower class category due to my higher job insecurity. 

In short, I don't think class analysis is very useful really. There are the super-rich (less than 10% of the population) and the rest of us.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case you should be able to appreciate that the same may be true (for the reasons given by myself and others on this thread) for some people on £44k _per annum_.


 
you could say that about people on £100,000 though - if the person concerned is a clever dick show off keep up with the jones type


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case you should be able to appreciate that the same may be true (for the reasons given by myself and others on this thread) for some people on £44k _per annum_.


 
Yes some people on 44k may have high costs. Someone on 100k may have high costs. But there has to be some kind of cut off point where the state says sorry but with that kind of income you can (or should be able to) cope with your own costs. 

In effect universal child benefit when paid to upper rate tax payers is a tax break because they have children, I am not sure that is fair. People with higher incomes are better able to fund their own lifestyle choices. Why does having children qualify them for a tax break and perhaps leading a lower cost lifestyle which might be considered to be "being responsible" not qualify someone in the same tax break, for a tax break?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Yes some people on 44k may have high costs. Someone on 100k may have high costs. But there has to be some kind of cut off point where the state says sorry but with that kind of income you can (or should be able to) cope with your own costs.
> 
> In effect universal child benefit when paid to upper rate tax payers is a tax break because they have children, I am not sure that is fair. People with higher incomes are better able to fund their own lifestyle choices. Why does having children qualify them for a tax break and perhaps leading a lower cost lifestyle which might be considered to be "being responsible" not qualify someone in the same tax break, for a tax break?


 
Surely you provide as many benefits universally as you can - to ensue every single person can obtain them and the administrative costs are lower - then claw back the costs from the wealthier through income taxation?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Surely you *provide as many benefits universally as you can* - to ensue every single person can obtain them and the administrative costs are lower - then claw back the costs from the wealthier through income taxation?


 
Perhaps, if you believe in big government and the state always knowing better what to do with your life than people do themselves. 

I see taking with one hand and giving back with the other a stuipid exercise only entered into by a government that wants total control socially - I think it stinks. 

Leave people with more of their own money where possible and let them decide what they want to spend their own money on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps, if you believe in big government and the state always knowing better what to do with your life than people do themselves.
> 
> I see taking with one hand and giving back with the other a stuipid exercise only entered into by a government that wants total control socially - I think it stinks.
> 
> Leave people with more of their own money where possible and let them decide what they want to spend their own money on.


 
It is about what delivers better, not your ideological tory obsessions.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is about what delivers better, not your ideological tory obsessions.


 
Child benefit is perhaps an incentive to have kids. 
Small perhaps but something. 
Do we need an incentive to have kids? 
I don't think so. 

There are some countries that are suffering decline in their population and they are encouraging women to have children via the tax and benefits system. I think some scandinavian countries are doing this as their birth rates a very down. 

Personally I am a fan of a reducing population, I think it would reduce the constant pressures on housing, transport and the like. I don't see the need for an incentive to have children in Great Britain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2010)

Your information is wrong, welt. The birth rate in England/Wales is currently 1.95. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ngland-for-first-time-in-almost-a-decade.html are the latest figures.  

That's below the replacement rate – about 2.1. Incentives for people to have more children make sense even in your narrow utilitarian view.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

Spend a year in Moldova (or even some places closer to home, in this country) and then you'll see an incentive to have children and an incentive to reward people for having children.


----------



## arthurgriffith (Oct 9, 2010)

People who earn over 44K should pay to use the motorways and the Health Service


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Most of us need to sell our labour. It is true that there is a cultural aspect in that, for instance, I do a job that is largely done by graduates and would no doubt be called middle class by most. I earn less than a tube driver, however, who would probably be called working class by most. In reality, not only do I earn less than a tube driver, but I have less protection through the unions. Really, I'm in a lower class category due to my higher job insecurity.
> 
> In short, I don't think class analysis is very useful really. There are the super-rich (less than 10% of the population) and the rest of us.


 
That doesn't mean class analysis is useless, it means that the definition of class etc adopted by many left wing orgs has massive flaws in it.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your information is wrong, welt. The birth rate in England/Wales is currently 1.95. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ngland-for-first-time-in-almost-a-decade.html are the latest figures.
> 
> That's below the replacement rate – about 2.1. Incentives for people to have more children make sense even in your narrow utilitarian view.



I accept that my point was narrow and utilitarian  and that birth rates in Britain may be below replacement but I just don't think we need an incentive to have kids. 

If there was a population drop (including immigration) yes there would be fewer taxpayers to pay for the old people but it may be a pain we have to endure, we could not have a constantly growing population because that would create other problems. 

Anyhow I don't see any overall reduction because of immigration. (I may be wrong)


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Spend a year in Moldova (or even some places closer to home, in this country) and then you'll see an incentive to have children and an incentive to reward people for having children.


 
What sorts of things do they do in Moldova frogwoman?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

Apart from 1/4 of the population having left you mean?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Apart from 1/4 of the population having left you mean?


 
What, you mean a 1/4 of the people of Moldovia left? 

aha 

I know that when Germany unified there was a rush of Ossies trying to get jobs in the west, then the former East Germany pumped investment into the east like there was no tommorow and well all these years later I think the situation is different now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

The situation in the east of germany is still pretty bad. There have been eastern german women who've been victims of sex trafficking in fact.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> The situation in the east of germany is still pretty bad. There have been eastern german women who've been victims of sex trafficking in fact.


 
Yes, aha, I accept it is probably not yet "like" the west but I do know of a lot of western companies that have set up factories in the east to bring jobs to them, and I think the unification tax is still being paid. It was a massive project. Still is probably.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 9, 2010)

£20 a baby, let's pop them out. You think people think like this?


----------



## LiamO (Oct 9, 2010)

Means testing my arse. Bloody politicians  should keep their fuckin noses out, shouldn't they? Me and the missus I have four kids and loads of grandkids. We raised them all on universal state handouts and I can proudly say that none of them have ever done any work - bar a day here and there. I myself have never done a days work. I don't need to cos you mugs keep paying us - thank you very much. We are perfectly happy to sponge off the British taxpayer. Mind you they should not let too many foreigners in - specially them little slanty-eyed fuckers.The state pays to keep us, feed us and house us. It is our birthright as british citizens (well the mrs is one anyway - I'm Greek myself)

regards
Phil 

*This post was inspired by weltweit and I would like to publicly acknowledge him for the inspiration. Do feel free to pass him/her your thanks too.*


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> £20 a baby, let's pop them out. You think people think like this?


 
it's quite incredible, isn't it?


----------



## greencheese (Oct 9, 2010)

it seems to me that some of the main points are being missed here....

Child benefit is paid for children - it's a universal benefit for a specific reason. Historically it was to ensure that regardless of income, that the main carer (ususally the mother) had some sort of income independent of her partner. Also - it was originally designed to be a much higher payment than it is now. the move to make it means tested isn't just stupid in terms of how it will be calculated (based on individual rather than household income - not very clever for a benefit designed to benefit children, where household income is what's important) but also in terms of what it was and is designed to do - give the main carer (usually a woman) some sort of financial independence. It's just totally stupid that some households will be albe to earn collectively almost twice the higher rate tax threshold, and still receive the benefit, whilst households where there is only one parent working will lose it - and also have the double whammy of only having one personal allowance to offset against their income (which will hit both single earner households with a stay at home parent, and single parent households).

And yes - meanwhile the really big earners are fine - and the rest of us fight over the crumbs from the table.

Oh...and falling birth rate, ageing population...falling tax receipts and increasing cost of looking after that ageing population....well let's not even go there shall we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2010)

weltweit said:


> What, you mean a 1/4 of the people of Moldovia left?
> 
> aha
> 
> I know that when Germany unified there was a rush of Ossies trying to get jobs in the west, then the former East Germany pumped investment into the east like there was no tommorow and well all these years later I think the situation is different now.


 
Parts of the former GDR have benefited from tourism, and industrial reconstruction, but a lot of the big industrial towns like Cottbus are dying, and the lignite-mining industry has pretty much tanked. It didn't help that even well-run concerns in the GDR were closed down on reunification (and their assets sold, usually to the benefit of large West German corporations), often on fairly spurious grounds.


----------



## treelover (Oct 10, 2010)

One of the papers is claiming a new poll shows massive public support for the benefit cuts and tells of 'billions more to come...

btw, NL or the condems are not of course nazis, but plenty of disabled people on blogs, etc are saying we might as well be dead and that they are seen as 'useless mouths's, etc and of course IDS did say 'Work sets you free'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 10, 2010)

Of course, but it *really* doesn't help to make hysterical and hyperbolic Nazi comparisons when we're trying to convince people of the rightness of our cause, a lot of people are still swayed slightly to thinking the cuts are encessary and calling the government nazis etc isn't going to help. Let's not make it like this


----------



## ymu (Oct 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour still managed to add about 10% over their time in office (before the CC), which is pretty impressive given it was a period of economic growth and not a recession. , as littlebabyjesus points out it rose from about 40% to 65% due to the credit crunch.
> 
> So Labour managed a 10% increase in debt in a growth period and the CC added around 25%.....


 
I've just caught up with this thread and spotted that noone had plotted the data Kanda posted up, so I thought I'd do it to assist any discussion about what happened when, and perhaps why.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 10, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Has anyone seen anything yet about possible further cuts to child benefit in the spending review?
> 
> Heard speculation that it might be stopped for all over 13 year olds.


 


Losing £80 a month would be quite a big deal to me.......................i have struggled with this, being on a low income £44,000 seems like a fortune to me but as far as i can see it's the thin end of the wedge.....more money goes unclaimed than goes out so the idea that we need to grab it all back from 'undeserving' people is bollocks imo.....

the propoganda is working so well, people are so busy pointing the finger at each other and screaming about scroungers and the like instead of realising they could stand together and do something about it..........some of the attitudes and opinions i hear day to day make me very angry and sad.....Thatcher must be feeling very satisfied as her dreams of breaking the working class as a force to be reckoned with has worked.......


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Of course, but it *really* doesn't help to make hysterical and hyperbolic Nazi comparisons when we're trying to convince people of the rightness of our cause, a lot of people are still swayed slightly to thinking the cuts are encessary and calling the government nazis etc isn't going to help. Let's not make it like this


 
Well, there are people being driven to suicide and if the system is going to be so deliberately callous, it's hardly surprising people will say this when they are not being listened to.

ETA: Not talking about child benefit cuts here btw


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 10, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Well, there are people being driven to suicide and if the system is going to be so deliberately callous, it's hardly surprising people will say this when they are not being listened to.
> 
> ETA: Not talking about child benefit cuts here btw


 
i've tried to explain to them that if you are totally fucked and unable to work and a government minister decides to take away your money, you don't really care whether he's a respectable suit or diehard fascist - look at Italy - they have similar policies to what New Labour and the Tories come out with and they really do have fascists in govt!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 10, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Well, there are people being driven to suicide and if the system is going to be so deliberately callous, it's hardly surprising people will say this when they are not being listened to.
> 
> ETA: Not talking about child benefit cuts here btw


 
Oh, I know. I'm not blaming people for making those comparisons, and i do think that some of the policies could be regarded as far right in fact, but it's not a good idea to make them on the street/talking to people/in meetings etc
besides, the tories are as bad as they are anyway!!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Oh, I know. I'm not blaming people for making those comparisons, and i do think that some of the policies could be regarded as far right in fact, but it's not a good idea to make them on the street/talking to people/in meetings etc
> besides, the tories are as bad as they are anyway!!


 
i don't think the man in the stareet even realise how right wing they've become - there was certainly nowhere near as much hatred and petty jealousy of the poorest in society back then - everyone hated Thatcher instead


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> One of the papers is claiming a new poll shows massive public support for the benefit cuts...


Note though, how the media emphatically *don't* inform their readers that they're extrapolating that "massive support" from the results of phone and street polls conducted on tiny (1,000 or thereabouts) samples.


> and tells of 'billions more to come...
> 
> btw, NL or the condems are not of course nazis, but plenty of disabled people on blogs, etc are saying we might as well be dead and that they are seen as 'useless mouths's, etc and of course IDS did say 'Work sets you free'


Fuck being dead. Go down fighting. The ConDems don't appear to have borne in mind that desperate people may do desperate things.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> One of the papers is claiming a new poll shows massive public support for the benefit cuts and tells of 'billions more to come...
> 
> btw, NL or the condems are not of course nazis, but plenty of disabled people on blogs, etc are saying we might as well be dead and that they are seen as 'useless mouths's, etc and of course IDS did say 'Work sets you free'


 
53% you mean? And that's before the issues yet to be digested. See how many people chnage their minds about the cuts in general as time goes by and they and theirs start to get hit. Happening already.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)

General overview of the attacks on universal benefits and the softening up process it's a part of here, including the likely next targets.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 10, 2010)

mentalchik said:


>



Didn't mean to scare. It's something we've had through email at work but I can't find anything recent about it online tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2010)

Exactly as predicted, further cuts to child benefit to be announced net week under cover of this one talked about on this thread.

(Is Iain Duncan Smith still employing Nick Griffin's dad btw?)


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 53% you mean? And that's before the issues yet to be digested. See how many people chnage their minds about the cuts in general as time goes by and they and theirs start to get hit. Happening already.


 
I don't see much support for it, as it happens, but the media have been very careful to make sure they can always point to someone to say they agree with it.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly as predicted, further cuts to child benefit to be announced net week under cover of this one talked about on this thread.
> 
> (Is Iain Duncan Smith still employing Nick Griffin's dad btw?)


 
are you joking on this? Surely not that after using a nazi concentration camp slogan for the unemployed?


----------



## Neutron (Oct 17, 2010)

bemused said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
> 
> So the Tories are going to scrap the £20 a week they give me, because I earn more than £44k a year. I sit in that horrible grey zone where I'm not fabulously well off but I earn enough not to qualify for an sort of tax benefit. They even tax my pension.
> 
> ...



Fuck people who earn over £44k per year.

The only reason I believe in universal benefits is so those who need them most don't have to undergo means testing and possibly miss out.

Rich scum should be taxed through income tax and inheritance tax.


----------

