View Full Version : The Budget
# Chancellor George Osborne is delivering his first Budget
# VAT to rise from 17.5% to 20% from 4 January next year
# Income tax allowance to rise by £1,000
# No rise in alcohol, tobacco or fuel duties
# Child benefits frozen for three years; medical examination for new disabilities living allowance claimants
# Link between basic state pension and earnings to be restored
# Capital gains tax for higher rate tax payers to rise to 28%
# Two-year pay freeze for public sector workers earning more than £21,000
# Levy imposed on banks
Wish they'd stop messing with VAT - makes my notes a nightmare :p
Liking the medical assessment for new and current DLA claimants.
More blurb...I mean key points:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10374475.stm
Still skim reading it atm
Liking the medical assessment for new and current DLA claimants.
I'm not.
While it would get rid of a lot of the fakers, you also have to deal with dipstick doctors rather than consultants who are more likely to know about the condition. The medical assessment will be outsourced to a generic "know all" who won't have a clue (ticksheet of doom). I know this as I work for the company that does it all at present for other arms of the gov't ;D
Not claiming at the moment but in the future I will be entitled to.
I'm not.
While it would get rid of a lot of the fakers, you also have to deal with dipstick doctors rather than consultants who are more likely to know about the condition. The medical assessment will be outsourced to a generic "know all" who won't have a clue (ticksheet of doom). I know this as I work for the company that does it all at present for other arms of the gov't ;D
Not claiming at the moment but in the future I will be entitled to.
That's my concern too :/
I think it looks fairly drastic but probably necessary. 20% VAT will generate over 13bn alone which isn't a bad thing and won't really affect me in a horrendous way. Liking the captial gains tax increase. Shame about the freeze on public sector workers, but at least they are keeping their jobs, so it's not disastrous, they could have made actual cuts and render people redundant.
It was always going to be a tough one to devise, but I think it's harsh, but necessary. It's going to be a tough couple of years, but we're still so so weak after the recession that we're hardly out of at the moment. It might stifle growth a little, but conversely it *should* help the economy stabilise a little.
I'm not.
While it would get rid of a lot of the fakers, you also have to deal with dipstick doctors rather than consultants who are more likely to know about the condition. The medical assessment will be outsourced to a generic "know all" who won't have a clue (ticksheet of doom). I know this as I work for the company that does it all at present for other arms of the gov't ;D
Not claiming at the moment but in the future I will be entitled to.
Well, yes, it will be more effective if not dealt with by dipsticks!
Well the cuts have to go somewhere old bean, the country's ****ed. They need stability in the economy and whilst drastic I think it's not overly bad. Once they have stability they can start to rebuild some growth - but at the moment there's no flow it's so hap-hazard. In 2 years time we'll see, if there's no growth and GDP hasn't recovered then we'll know they didn't do the right thing.
Rather this than Labour benefits to all and sundry whilst taxing the middle/high earners.
I heard there was some implication of 10% change in the price of cider. this is the only part which concerns me. I hope its a 10% cut.
I don't think much else effects me in any major way.
it's a reversal of the duty that Labour put on it in the last budget, so yes, it has been 'cut'.
Umm, I'm looking at the links, does this mean my kids' child benefit will be frozen?
Yes.
I spotted a corker the pundits seem to have missed. Unemployed? Got mortgage? You'll get 28% less housing benefit come October then (6.08% to 4.37%). That's £100 pcm on a £70k mortgage. And that's before the cap, too.
Me, I got away lightly, for now. Looks like about £11 worse off from VAT and 2% p.a. from the personal allowances, and that's it. Unless I lose my job, anyway. Counting my lucky stars right now and feeling for those who've been shafted.
Still, if that "golden rule" figure of £485bn holds up to scrutiny, then it just goes to show how wrecked the finances really were. Pain now or more pain later. :(
Ah, no increase sounds better than what I originally thought- frozen as in not being paid at all.
Public sector always gets screwed no one gives a toss apart from the people who work in the public sector.
And the private sector have been losing jobs and had pay freezes way before the public sector. I took a pay cut 18-24 months ago as have many other people. I can't see why the public sector can't join us.
And the private sector have been losing jobs and had pay freezes way before the public sector. I took a pay cut 18-24 months ago as have many other people. I can't see why the public sector can't join us.
Indeed. I had a pay freeze AND a pay cut, and was put through a redundancy matrix (fortunately scored highly). However a lot of people I know lost their jobs. A lot of my friends and Sam work in public sector areas, but they;'re not being raped at all... a pay freeze for a couple of years really isn't that bad is it? It's not as if the economy can afford to increase your pay as it stands now anyway - so what difference does it make?
Rather this than Labour benefits to all and sundry whilst taxing the middle/high earners.
I agree with you completely up until this bit.. The high earners don't get taxed.
They do ostensibly, I mean the taxes are right there, but it's a myth that they actually get taxed because most of them are smart enough to work the system, or pay for accountants to help them work it. Taxes were sold to the population on the basis that the rich would be taking the main load off the poor and middle class for war expenses.
The reality is the rich pay little of the taxes they're 'supposed' to pay and the poor and middle class are the ones that make up the bulk of the tax income. It makes me laugh when I hear people talking about raising the taxes on the rich, because it really won't net as much as the general population would believe, and you can pretty much guarantee any attempt to deal with loopholes in the tax system will only result in the rich / smart folks finding other ways through it.
The UK never used to have an income tax it didn't come in until only 1842 (by the Tories), and only as a temporary measure. 168 years of that temporary measure and counting... even then that was to fund a war.
But yes, the economy and the country is screwed, and harsh steps need to be taken.
Oh don't get me started on the high earners - that pisses me right off as they evade all the tax changes (well not all.... but get away with murder), and will continue to do so.
Similar to Will. Two-year pay freeze so far (and no news about this year yet), and I was placed at risk but scored highly with senior management.
My immediate manager got stung by the 10% CGT rise. Selling SAYE share options. I had some of the same options but not enough to go over the threshold and I sold them ages ago (for a lot less than what they would have been worth now).
seems reasonably fair given the circumstances though with the size of the deficit I am not sure it is enough
Knipples
22-06-2010, 20:02
I'll happily take a pay freeze if it means I get to keep my job, that said I don't earn enough (they said 21k and over) in a year for that to affect me.
I am also in the camp that if you earn over a certain amount in your household (lets say 50k) that you shouldn't be able to claim things like child benefit and tax credit, because lets face it, earning that kind of money, you aren't really going to have your lifestyle changed by receiving an extra 15 quid a week, however it would mean a whole lot more to someones household who is only earning 20k a year.
I agree, which is why I also have no problem (other than natural disappointment) at higher rate taxpayers not benefiting from the personal allowance increase. Actually, it's a real-terms cut.
Briggykins
22-06-2010, 20:13
I am also in the camp that if you earn over a certain amount in your household (lets say 50k) that you shouldn't be able to claim things like child benefit and tax credit, because lets face it, earning that kind of money, you aren't really going to have your lifestyle changed by receiving an extra 15 quid a week, however it would mean a whole lot more to someones household who is only earning 20k a year.
Completely agree. Osborne said with some pride that 'We've managed to avoid means-testing the child benefit'. Well why not? Save some money that way rather than raising the rate of VAT, which always hits the poorest hardest.
Matblack
22-06-2010, 20:17
Completely agree. Osborne said with some pride that 'We've managed to avoid means-testing the child benefit'. Well why not? Save some money that way rather than raising the rate of VAT, which always hits the poorest hardest.
The system for means testing such a small amount would cost more than just letting people have the money
MB
VAT is obviously the easiest way to increase tax collection that much is clear, and if they're really serious about increasing revenues then income tax should go up too (I can't believe I'm saying this!!!) Clearly I'd prefer not to pay more tax! Unfortunately that may be a pain we may have to go through to help get the country back on a proper footing.
There may be a case for increasing corporate tax too, but then again the tax take from corporate tax is actually quite small vs income tax and NIC. There are arguments not to raise it to help small businesses which could be incorporated if they are clever - these in turn hopefully will employ more people who will pay income tax. So ultimately they may well leave corporate tax rates where they are - unless they can do a means tested one. i.e. help small businesses like Desmo by not changing corporation tax, and bigger companies can? Is that an idea?
What may happen is some relief funds for businesses will be withdrawn (understandably) so whilst the headline tax rates stay the same or doesn't go up much, extra tax will be collected owing to the withdrawal of those relief funds.
No doubt some strong words on tax avoidance too, but all they ever do is target specific schemes they know about, and in fact Labour actually did quite well in demonising the tax avoidance industry, which is a good thing IMO.
I think its debatable whether cutting or continuing to spend will add or subtract growth in the long run. However I am certain that continuing to borrow increases risk that the entire country will get downgraded. Labour never got the fact that there is a limit to borrowing - what investors are willing to lend ...
seems reasonably fair given the circumstances though with the size of the deficit I am not sure it is enough
Indeed - too little too late? I don't know what else they could do... Other than some rather drastic things which would not be popular at all.
I'll happily take a pay freeze if it means I get to keep my job, that said I don't earn enough (they said 21k and over) in a year for that to affect me.
I am also in the camp that if you earn over a certain amount in your household (lets say 50k) that you shouldn't be able to claim things like child benefit and tax credit, because lets face it, earning that kind of money, you aren't really going to have your lifestyle changed by receiving an extra 15 quid a week, however it would mean a whole lot more to someones household who is only earning 20k a year.
Agreed on all counts. :)
I agree, which is why I also have no problem (other than natural disappointment) at higher rate taxpayers not benefiting from the personal allowance increase. Actually, it's a real-terms cut.
Indeed.
seems pretty good especially corporate tax, although things haven't gone far enough, but I suppose governments can't do to much at once due to public opinion.
unfortunately I fear that public spending cuts will be left down to managers and will be cut in totally the wrong areas, without the massive reorg it needs.
Unions breed incompetency, standard pay rises and the likes reinforce that. A lot of if your face fits you get promoted regardless how rubbish you are, or promoted and sidelined so you can't interfere.
Ugh, Unions... :(
The thing is there's so much bloat and waste in the PS, it's either get rid of the assistant, to the secretary's assistant, advisor, photocopier's assistant. Or freeze their pay. The PS play a vital role, and are required, but it's always the wrong people that get targeted in these things. If they got rid of the assistant, to the secretary's assistant, advisor, photocopier's assistant, and had good management and efficient workers and no bloat, then I doubt there would be much of a problem.
Personally I'd like a huge LEAN over view of the PS and do process improvement and efficiency reviews and I reckon a lot of efficiencies could be found, more profitability but unfortunately a lot of waste and low hanging fruit.
Matblack
22-06-2010, 20:49
Ugh, Unions... :(
The thing is there's so much bloat and waste in the PS, it's either get rid of the assistant, to the secretary's assistant, advisor, photocopier's assistant. Or freeze their pay. The PS play a vital role, and are required, but it's always the wrong people that get targeted in these things. If they got rid of the assistant, to the secretary's assistant, advisor, photocopier's assistant, and had good management and efficient workers and no bloat, then I doubt there would be much of a problem.
Personally I'd like a huge LEAN over view of the PS and do process improvement and efficiency reviews and I reckon a lot of efficiencies could be found, more profitability but unfortunately a lot of waste and low hanging fruit.
I must be blind because what you describe is not what I see when I go to work everyday. Education is going to be cut and I honestly can't see where to cut it, there are very few people in our organisation who aren't vital and I certainly don't see a lot of assistants running around wasting resources. Maybe I am the waste of resources :confused:
MB
You know there's more to the PS that just education yeah? :)
Matblack
22-06-2010, 20:52
You know there's more to the PS that just education yeah? :)
Yes but I suspect that people in the NHS are saying the same thing about the NHS. What I do know is the there is going to be less of education, less by 25% :(
MB
I must be blind because what you describe is not what I see when I go to work everyday. Education is going to be cut and I honestly can't see where to cut it, there are very few people in our organisation who aren't vital and I certainly don't see a lot of assistants running around wasting resources. Maybe I am the waste of resources :confused:
MB
There's far to much red tape and paper work in education. Thing is like all Public sectors, the way things are done needs to change. then they can be more efficient and spend less. In private sector this happens gradually and progressively as Private sector seeks for more profit. Unfortunately no such mechanism exists for public sector and budget cuts does not lead to these efficiency increases. which is why reviews are need and back to the floor work experience for this body of reviewers, who then need the balls, to say x,y,z is wrong.
It also says could be upto 25% over 4 years. Not that it will be 25%.
Here's something that made me double take.
First up Labour had a group at the treasury working on getting UK into the Euro.
I'm not sure who they thought they were kidding. The UK is a long way from ever going Euro. I doubt more than a quarter of the population would be seriously in favour of it, and last I recall it was something that was going to come to a referendum anyway. So why waste tax payers money on such?
The second thing about that was that the staff have been transferred to other departments, which is what is precisely wrong with the civil service. It's all too much a job for life. To quote "The Bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". If one department decides to slim down a bit to balance its books, staff all too often get transferred to other departments who have a budget surplus rather than let go.
The way the government handles budgets is drastically flawed in the first place. Since when do you reward people for spending all their budget? Commercial sectors rarely operate on that basis. There being thrifty is encouraged. In Government you see them wasting money as the budget year draws to a close to ensure that they've spent all their money so they get the same amount or a raise, rather than face a budget cut next year.
There's far to much red tape and paper work in education. Thing is like all Public sectors, the way things are done needs to change. then they can be more efficient and spend less. In private sector this happens gradually and progressively as Private sector seeks for more profit. Unfortunately no such mechanism exists for public sector and budget cuts does not lead to these efficiency increases. which is why reviews are need and back to the floor work experience for this body of reviewers, who then need the balls, to say x,y,z is wrong.
Same goes for every section of PS. Governments are focussed on getting metrics out so that they can show how well they're managing the PS by making them spend ages producing facts and figures.
Matblack
22-06-2010, 20:59
There's far to much red tape and paper work in education.
I tend to use Selotape and try to run a paperless office, but I bow to your superior knowledge of my industry [bows]
MB
Education cuts are not what this nation needs!
dads been a teacher for years and has seen a massive increase in red tape and paper work over his career.
And the private sector have been losing jobs and had pay freezes way before the public sector. I took a pay cut 18-24 months ago as have many other people. I can't see why the public sector can't join us.
I've been working in the private sector for around 8 years in this current industry. Year one I went from 11k (1 yr temp contract) to 12k because I was made permanent. We then had a 3 year pay freeze, and despite going from answering the phone to managing the office, I got NOTHING. When I handed my notice in, I was given a 3k adjustment, and after leaving a year later, I started at my current company on a better wage. 3 years later, I've had a £500 pay rise in that whole time although I now do a job that used to be a management role (the role doesn't exist any more) so it's not a promotion and there's no adjustment. Yet we work in the same building as public sector workers who get 4 extra days off a year, and who are always on strike because they're being threatened with being forced to live with conditions that we've suffered for 5+ years.
Welcome to the party.
I tend to use Selotape and try to run a paperless office, but I bow to your superior knowledge of my industry [bows]
MB
Sarcasm. That's always useful in getting your point across, and great at earning sympathy.
I've been your side of the fence not all that long ago. We saw new funding initiatives come through from the government for things like high-achievers. The principal looked at the paperwork involved and how convoluted it was and figured that we'd actually make less money applying for the funding. That was far from the only piece of red-tape encrusted funding. Pretty much every initiative I saw come out of government during the time I was in education resulted in more paperwork and more admin time for very little gain. The government would have done better to cut all it's silly little programs and fenced off funding and just bolstered the general amount given to education.
If you're not dealing with government red-tape on a regular basis, you're either lucky, or someone is handling it for you.
And the private sector have been losing jobs and had pay freezes way before the public sector. I took a pay cut 18-24 months ago as have many other people. I can't see why the public sector can't join us.
I have to agree, my pay has been frozen for 2 years now and we have closed 1 centre completely, and until very recently, over 35% of our CS staff who had left/transferred/been promoted/been sacked were not being replaced, meaning a gradual but eventually massive increase in work for everyone else.
Matblack
22-06-2010, 22:36
I have no interest in sympathy I sorry if it came across as if I did but really, no thanks.
Angry, upset, concerned about my own future and the financial implications for my family yes, seeking sympathy, no.
That's all from me I'm afraid
MB
Don't blame you at all for any of that. You've every right to be all of those things. I sincerely hope you (and everyone else here) don't suffer as a result of all this but also can see that the line has to be drawn somewhere.
The fact that despite all these cuts Government spending is still predicted to rise by £74bn over the next five years speaks volumes. Most of that is simply debt interest payments.
Just imagine the results of not making the cuts. Not only would that have been substantially higher, but the market would likely have taken fright and demanded higher interest payments on the increased debt. That's exactly what happened to Greece.
Pay freeze, like we didn't see that coming. Freeze on child benefit, ok. The disability thing will also affect us. Not sh*t, but less than ideal.
I have no interest in sympathy I sorry if it came across as if I did but really, no thanks.
Angry, upset, concerned about my own future and the financial implications for my family yes, seeking sympathy, no.
That's all from me I'm afraid
MB
It's just the public sector always get shafted and no-one cares stuff. That's patently not true, the private sector usually suffers first and hardest before anyone touches the public sector (staff I'm talking here, not cuts to services)...so it rankles when all of a sudden a 2 year payfreeze hits and it's all doom and gloom. It's absolutely terrifying to think that your job might be at risk due to these cuts and god knows how they're going to make them with regards to public services, but I can certainly sympathise - we've had most of our work frozen and have lost 25% of our (100+) workforce in the last month alone due to this. Everyone's in the same boat, it's just frustration and distress talking, so don't take it personally.
Davey_Pitch
23-06-2010, 09:15
My only concern is whether I keep my job or not. The increase in VAT and things like that can be worked around by just being more frugal (and I highly suspect a supermarket price war will see prices not increase that much), but losing my job is a worry. If my workplace can guarantee (as much as they can, anyway) my job, then I'll put up with the budget and just work around it as best we can.
Del Lardo
23-06-2010, 14:01
I think the emergency budget was great, it'll keep BP out of the main headlines and front pages for a few days and make everyone forget how evil all the bankers are as all the hatred will be refocussed on the public sector and their wicked wasteful ways :rolleyes:
Would you be suggesting that everyone has a one track mind? ;D
I think the emergency budget was great, it'll keep BP out of the main headlines and front pages for a few days and make everyone forget how evil all the bankers are as all the hatred will be refocussed on the public sector and their wicked wasteful ways :rolleyes:
The press love rallying the great unwashed against civil servants, they can't help themselves. It's blatant jealously in my opinion. Makes me sick. We'd look pretty stupid without them though; after all, who'd be there to bale Dean the dodgy builder with the shaved head, tattoos and thick neck out of a foreign prison after he'd been out getting tanked up fighting the locals? Lets just let Cyprus fight as well, no need to pacify them. Thinktanks? Pffft, what would educated people know about anything and what's going on now is more important than the future. I've got my kids to think about.
Rant over ;D
Admiral Huddy
25-06-2010, 17:08
About time they cracked down on bloody benefits. Too many handouts in this country and too many people taking the piss out of the taxpayer.
Would have liked to see more tax on Alcohol and Cigarettes.
VAT isn't too much of a problem. People might shy away at first but in all it could have been worse. Most European countries have done a similar exercise. The banks have taken to it so we just sit back and wait now, see how things go. the price of good living and an overspending Labour government.
I'd have liked to see child benefit reduced for better off families, or limited the first 2 children. Having children should be seen as a privilege and not a right & people might think twice about having huge families if they aren't working or earning enough to provide for them all. Having kids is a choice after allnand a large number of people in a certain wage bracket can claim it because it's their right, not because they need it. That's what benefits are supposed to be about, need, not greed.
Flibster
25-06-2010, 20:32
Meh...
Got made redundant 18 months ago...
Still no sign of a job for me *lots of interviews though - but they're all for management posts...*
Get nothing from the government as I live with the girlfriend and she earns too much... although I still have to travel and park to sign on at the job centre... :rolleyes:
No real change for me.
Although the possibility of setting up my own company is slowly starting to become a reality *oh ****! :shocked:*
I do have lots of thoughts on the public sector, but it's probably best if I keep them to myself.
Admiral Huddy
29-06-2010, 16:42
fingers crossed for you Fibster
Admiral Huddy
29-06-2010, 16:48
That's what benefits are supposed to be about, need, not greed.
Yes people on benefits need their obligatory cigarettes, the latest mobile phone and a weekly visit to the nail bar.
Well, no, I was thinking more of the people who need money to pay for food to eat and a roof over their head. People who want to work but can't, due to illness, or other issues. Not everyone on benefits is a dole scrounger living the life of Riley, despite what you may believe. Unfortunately it's impossible at the moment (in my opinion) to ensure those that need get what they need and those that don't, don't. That's why I said, need not greed.
Do you honestly believe that people who make £50k+ [fixed to clarify] & have an annual household income of over £100k should be taking tax handouts to bring up the kids that they chose to have? I see people taking kids off on expensive foreign holidays (someone I work with just took their 2 kids to Dubai for a fortnight, they earn well over £150k combined, but are still entitled to and claim child benefits - fair? I don't think so). Shouldn't that money be paying for essentials? If you can afford Dubai holidays do you need the money you're given for essentials?
Do you honestly believe that people who make £50k+ or have an annual household income of over £100k should be taking tax handouts to bring up the kids that they chose to have?
With respect, my household income is somewhere in the order of £60K but I'm damn sure I CAN'T afford to have kids. Sure we're comfortable at the moment but drop one income out of that and all of a sudden the bills aren't covered.
So that's two well educated people who would bring up some good clever kids who aren't going to have children. I'll let the scumbag drug dealer across the way have the kids and he can bring up a selection of runts instead. I don't mind working hard and subsidising that :)
I said joint household of £100k (and have clarified original post). The figures were fairly arbitary, anyway I haven't done a full Impact Assessment or anything.
In your situation, if you dropped one income, then you'd be entitled to child benefits, clearly.
The problem here is you (and pretty much everyone else) are comparing scumbag dossers with people who do work and make a living but who still don't need the handouts. So the workers are always going to come up on the side of 'yes I deserve them more than them and they're getting them so I'm going to too'. Well it's not about deserving, or at least it shouldn't be, it should be about who NEEDS it. Why should I subsidise people who earn a lot more than me because they have kids? I will probably never have kids, but I do have a dog - can I have it for her instead?
So a good comparison shouldn't be 'drug dealer v hard working person', it should be 'single mum (or dad) struggling to make ends meet working part time earning 7k a year and trying to keep a roof over their heads v hard working person earning £50k. We've got one handout. Who gets it?
Not quite the same picture now, is it?
*Of course, I do understand that you can't say anything at all about parents/family tax credits/family allowance, because that's not allowed unless you've got kids yourself or are happy to be called a child-eating baby hater.
I understand what your saying Kitten and agree... what I don't understand is how some one who has never had a single or joint income of more than £30K and that's pushing to say that figure, can't get any working tax credit even when there is only one income coming in of less than £23k (at it's high point) yet people who earn like you have said can still get it.
What I found out is these are the people who work so damn hard to make so much money that they have to put their kids in child care from 3 months old so they can go back to work, and the kids are in childcare from 8am (if not earlier) to 6pm... hardly ever seeing these kids they so badly wanted!
the tax credits they get are to help pay for the child care... but lets face it you don't go back to work unless it's worth your while, so you have to be earning big bucks!
I'm in a very similar situation right now... My work want me there full time, but I would want my mum to look after the little one... she currently does with me working part time for no money.. But I'd want to pay her if she was doing it more often. As she is not a registered childcare person, I'm penalised because I want family to look after the little one rather than a stranger, as such I get no help with child care costs.
On my current wage... paying my mum minimum wage, I'd be working a 40 hour week as opposed to a 16 hour week for a whopping £3 a month extra.
Time with my child is worth far more than an extra £3 a month!
I absolutely agree Lozza. You're the type of person who should be being helped by the system, and as it is, clearly isn't. The people earning those big bucks generally don't do the same working hours and can work from home in many cases, so they don't even need to pay for childcare on the same scale - yet take the money anyway - wheras you're scuppered and don't get the help you need to pay your Mum because she's supposed to do it out of some sense of duty.
To me that's just as unfair and wrong as the person sat at home counting their dole money, laughing at all the tax-payers.
So much I could write..... but I'll save my energy lol
Admiral Huddy
30-06-2010, 09:06
Do you honestly believe that people who make £50k+ [fixed to clarify] & have an annual household income of over £100k should be taking tax handouts to bring up the kids that they chose to have?
Yeah why not.. Considering higher rate payer contribute more to the tax system yes. Otherwise someone on low income could better off net than those who are just over to higher rate tax payer.
My Mrs gets a thumping from the tax office because of what I earn. She works blooody hard looking after kids full time so why should her tax be assessed on what we bring in as a family. That's not fair. Personal tax system - B*******s
someone I work with just took their 2 kids to Dubai for a fortnight, they earn well over £150k combined, but are still entitled to and claim child benefits - fair? I don't think so).
Totally fair to be honest. Equal rights for all. Higher earners pay higher tax. Not being funny, but these people made the choice to succeed by hard work. Why should they be penalised for it. We all have choices on how we live. Some choice to sit ion their fat arses and expect handouts at the expense of "people how can afford it"
The % tax system is fair.. the more you earn the more tax you pay.. end of.
and now your argument to 'need not greed' also looks quite different... You might get hammered by tax, but you get money back for being a family, no?
It's about making people understand NEED. You don't need a handout originally meant to help people buy essentials it if you earn that much money (from my example) or can afford expensive holidays, you just don't. And if you don't need it, you shouldn't be taking it. It's not about right or fairness (maybe it should be in some respects but it isn't). It's about giving people help to survive. Not making sure your kids have got the latest mobile phone or the newest trainers.
People bang on about the jobless and workshy people, and yeah that's horrible and annoying and it makes it seem ridiculous that some of us go out and work bloody hard to subsidise them. But I pay my tax, I'm perfectly entitled to not want it to go to well off families that really don't need it. And your equal rights for all - then where's the tax credit for me if I don't have kids? We pay (what I consider to be) a lot into the tax system, but I'm entitled to nothing, because if you don't have children, then you're not a family. If we're all entitled to a certain level because of earnings, then can I have an allowance that equals child benefit for 1 or 2 kids and have it paid into my pension fund? Please? Pretty please? After all, I've earned it, no?
That's why not.
Admiral Huddy
30-06-2010, 10:23
Strange how my wifes family live on housing benefits, family tax credits, Child allowances, etc etc etc yet have shinny new iPhones. The kids even get free bloody laptops and internet!! Yet they all smoke, they all drink.. Needy my ****.
How do you propose means testing those that really need it and those that don't? You either provide the allowances to all or not at all.
You sound like the Daily Mail! :p
If you're going to ignore everything I've said about not comparing it with people who clearly don't need it (like your wifes family) and try to compare it with need rather than right, then it's not going to work and I honestly don't think you're going to be able to see past that. I'm sorry that your experience with your wifes family has made you feel this way about everyone on benefits (or at least that's how it seems to me?), but I can't help that, nor I can I make you see it any differently, no matter what I say. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I guess we can consider all options except absolutely anything to do with children or families then. Because they ALL need ALL the credit and benefits they get. Including the Prime Minister & all the Bankers clearing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Yep, seems fair to me.
Btw, did we sort out where mine went?
Admiral Huddy
30-06-2010, 10:51
You sound like the Daily Mail! :p
That obvious :D
Hey look I do understand were you are coming from but my feeling is that there are those claiming they need it yet still live quite comfortable lifestyles to a point there's no incentive for them to move on and out of benefits which is why I asked how do you means test tjose that clearly need it and those that don't. Clearly, higher rate tax earners don't "need" the benefits but then neither do some lower income families.
I'm not arguing with that at all Paul, nor do I have any idea how or if it could be implemented. I just think that it needs to be recognised that the benefit system is flawed at both ends of the scale, so that the people who really do need it (like Lozza's example) miss out. It needs a total overhaul, but in reality, it's not going to happen because it's probably not feasible to do it.
TinkerBell
30-06-2010, 13:54
I agree with kitten on this one. We need to cut down the amount of people who are receiving money when they don't NEED it. If we can do that then the taxes which we pay can go on something that is needed to help with the economy or improve NHS/schools.
Just because some people don't need the money and just can't be bothered to
work so they claim benefits doesn't mean it is acceptable for people who earn alot an don't NEED it to claim as well as that just puts the country in an even worse state of debt.
I know that there are people out there who need money for example my mom when I was a child. My mom is a single parent and has been for all my life. She has ALWAYS worked, has saved every penny she can. Didn't go on holidays all the time and she claimed child benefits which made her just manage to keep us going. Also when times were really hard she would work another job at the weekend to try and help keep us afloat. This in my opinion is when help is needed. Not when they are sitting on there arse doing nothing.
I don't see why people can't see the difference between NEED and GREED.
It's something I've always thought and said as well. My brother and sister both have children and I always wondered why they could claim money just for having children when the family income should have been sufficient. Don't get me wrong, they're not on silly money but to me, they should have had enough.
Admiral Huddy
30-06-2010, 14:53
what are they claiming for? Tax credits?
I don't see why people can't see the difference between NEED and GREED.
The problem is it isn't always black and white like you've described. There are always variant situations or borderline cases which is why I ask how does one quantify and qualify "NEED"? Is "Need" just food and shelter or does it extent to a reasonable living standard. The two are very much different.
Dispite what you think, child and personal tax allowances are the only benefits we have access too so it's really a void subject. Personally I don't care that I receive noting but I care when I see it squandered in situations already mentioned. As I don't qualify for these benefits then i have as much right to voice where my tax money goes just as much as the person who pays BRT and none at all.
You have to bear in mind too that we've also become this nation of ENVY where people mistake luxury for necessity and therefore NEED. People have to start understanding not everyone can have everything and not everyone can have what the next person standing next to them has.
Anyway, I think we are barking up the same tree maybe just different sides.. All I will say is that personal tax and benefits are anything but.
I think the system should be changed to vouchers rather than physical money.
Vouchers that can only be spent on stuff that is needed.. not new trainers, new mobiles, mobile credit, fags, alcohol etc..... and when people are assessed for benefits don't accept mobile costs and fags (and such like) in the budget.
The school dinner system is vouchers...
There's a milk vouchers
It would work far better and certain people wouldn't be able to sit in the pub all day and drink their benefits.
Another thing I've always suggested as well, but many people thinks that it creates a them and us situation and that people using vouchers would get looked down upon. Oh well ::/:
Knipples
30-06-2010, 17:56
A lot of the parents/families we work with also claim the free fruit and veg vouchers, which is great cos that's all they cant be spent on, meaning the kids have a partially decent diet.
I also feel that in certain parts of society absent fathers need to be punished more for having all these kids and then not supporting them. One of the MP's today talked about taking away their benefits if they weren't supporting their children. So much damage is done to children who don't have some sort of male role model (whether it be a father or not) and we need to try and stop this thing from happening.
Another thing I've always suggested as well, but many people thinks that it creates a them and us situation and that people using vouchers would get looked down upon. Oh well ::/:
Solved very simply by giving them a debit card instead, but a debit card that will only authorise payments for essential foods and things from Asda, Tesco or Morrison etc.
They don't stand out, no huge stigma over getting out a voucher book (though maybe there should be tbh?), sorted :p
Vouchers seem like such a sensible way to go. They give gas tokens for gas metered homes, why not do the same for food?
Solved very simply by giving them a debit card instead
That seems a better way to go about it. Would also stop the vouchers being traded for cash. Only problem is that it would probably cost a bomb to operate the system whilst not really saving an awful lot of cash.
I don't see why people can't see the difference between NEED and GREED.
May I reserve the right to take umbrage at that statement? :)
I have a bus pass. Do I need it? Absolutely not. I can afford the buses, and did so up to the point where I got the pass. Does that make me greedy?
Way I see that is (a) I'm paying about 20x the cost of that pass in taxes every year, so why not claim some of it back, and (b) the bus company benefit from me having and using that pass because I've used the buses much more as a result of having it.
That doesn't mean I don't see Kitten's point. Would I complain if I had to give up that pass to benefit the lady earning £7k? Probably, but I would accept it because it's clearly the right decision.
However, because of my situation it would seem to be incredibly hypocritical of me to bemoan the bankers getting child benefit, or my colleagues getting cycle to work vouchers.
PS - instead of vouchers, how about Tesco clubcard points? Every little helps. OK, that wasn't entirely serious but haven't vouchers been abandoned on some schemes because they were getting traded for cash to fund drug habits? Debit card is an interesting idea in theory but also very difficult to enforce (cashback at Tesco, anyone?)
Admiral Huddy
01-07-2010, 09:40
Desmo for MP :)
Debit card is an interesting idea in theory but also very difficult to enforce (cashback at Tesco, anyone?)
It clearly wouldn't be a standard debit card though. It would have to be solely for the purpose of buying certain items from certain places. No cashback available. But to administrate something like that would be pretty epic.
Solved very simply by giving them a debit card instead, but a debit card that will only authorise payments for essential foods and things from Asda, Tesco or Morrison etc.
They don't stand out, no huge stigma over getting out a voucher book (though maybe there should be tbh?), sorted :p
This partly exists already in the form of the PAYG debit card. I can't see any reason why it couldn't extend to benefit. Then it would be easy to police and restrict what can be bought on it.
So no, you can't use it in Nike Town and no you can't use it in Threshers or to buy booze or fags in Tesco. And no cashback, it's benefit to put food in your mouth and keep you warm. Pretty simple.
I think the people with all the shiney new gadgets living the life of reilly are subsidising their money somehow. In all honesty benefits really aren't much at all and I'd challenge anyone to live for a prolonged period on them and maintain a decent diet/put fuel in a car/clothe growing children.
You can't make judgements, it's just not fair. Do you know hand on heart why that woman or man is sat at home claiming benefits? Do you know the background? Does the woman with 3 kids who's husband has run off deserve benefits as much as the dad who's never worked cause he can't afford childcare? Or the 18 year old who's got kids by different dads, do you decide she gets sod all based on what you see or do you take into account the fact she grew up in a hellhole of a kids home and didn't go to school etc? Where do you start and more importantly where do you stop? Who decides who is deserving?
I'd say the majority of us here have ok jobs, can afford food every month etc. Yeah there's a lot of wasters, a lot of people taking advantage, playing the system. But we haven't got a beggar every 5 yards like in the US, if you get sick you'll be treated etc. There but for the grace of god.......let's hope none of us find ourselves in a situation where we need the help and have to face judgement.
And imvho, dictating what people can and can't spend money on is stepping into Animal Farm territory.
Admiral Huddy
01-07-2010, 17:11
All I ask for return for not having the benefits and being a higher rate tax payer is that those that play the system are stopped and are forced to pay back in.
It's certainly a bloody big can of worms and there's certainly no easy answer to it. The problem is there are a LOT of people out there who ARE just playing the system. How do you stop that?
All I ask for return for not having the benefits and being a higher rate tax payer is that those that play the system are stopped and are forced to pay back in.
Well as I am in that situation already (i.e. with no benefits or credits at all yet paying a fair whack into the tax system) can I ask how you suggest we do that?
Stan_Lite
05-07-2010, 07:25
Having been a recipient of unemployment benefit in the late eighties - thanks to the nice Mrs Thatcher and the last Tory government :rolleyes: (I can assure you, I didn't struggle for six months on the paltry amount given to me out of choice), I have absolutely no issue helping provide for people who find themselves in a similar position now that I'm earning good money (and paying a not inconsiderable amount of income tax).
I don't think there's a single person who pays income tax who wouldn't like to see the cheats and layabouts stopped and benefits only go to those who genuinely need them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dishonest and/or lazy people around and the cost of policing the system properly would be prohibitively high.
I don't have the solution so I'm not going to whinge about it. I'll just quietly hope that someone finds a way to make the system fairer and applaud them if they do. I won't criticise the government or the benefits agency - the problem isn't of their making, the blame lies with the people who take advantage.
Von Smallhausen
07-07-2010, 09:10
Public sector workers have to take a thrashing just as the private sector have and a public sector pay freeze is not unreasonable.
My issue is that while funding is going to be cut, and here I make reference to the police, we have been cutting the budget for the last 5 years to the tune of 10 million and just been told to trim another 1.4 million off the budget. There is not a lot left to cut.
We are over 200 officers down since 3 years ago, support staff are being cut to the bone and there is a point where front line policing is affected.
In my humble opinion were are top heavy with Chief Superintendents and Superintendents but they seem to be a protected rank.
Management always gets protected, our IT team is being moved offshore and I haven't seen any sign of the Directors moving, at least one of the lower minions - probably the best technical person they have is out though.
When we where due to lose about 10 people, out of say 60, none were management. (And about 10 were management!)
Public sector workers have to take a thrashing just as the private sector have and a public sector pay freeze is not unreasonable.
My issue is that while funding is going to be cut, and here I make reference to the police, we have been cutting the budget for the last 5 years to the tune of 10 million and just been told to trim another 1.4 million off the budget. There is not a lot left to cut.
We are over 200 officers down since 3 years ago, support staff are being cut to the bone and there is a point where front line policing is affected.
In my humble opinion were are top heavy with Chief Superintendents and Superintendents but they seem to be a protected rank.
Too many chiefs not enough indians. It's a common problem in corporations these days :/
Now I know this is the daily fail, but this is the kind of situation I was referring to in terms of Working Tax Credit and other 'family' benefits. And this is by no means an exception, as far as I understand (from people I work with who do very similar things, which are all legal, such as pay themseves lowest wage then claim MASSIVE dividends). This is NOT the people who need extra funding, but who can claim for it and inho, this should be stopped.
clickety click (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317014/Bentley-driving-estate-agent-gets-tax-credits-poor--means-ex-wife-pay-child-support.html)
The Public Sector cuts... is getting my goat. Okay if there has to be cuts then so be it but where are they taking them from!?!?!?!
How many screwballs do they need with their own private parking spot and expensive travel costs and lunches to discuss matters such as seating plan lay outs and who next to chop out of the game... take one of them out and we might be able to fund some of the critical units and keep on the DC's we need. We NEED the frontline staff. It's driving me insane seeing it fall apart all under the feet of incapable morons.
You know what really got me going? When one of these muppets called in two members of staff, sat them down, and told them that they're making job cuts. No **** Sherlock. They then say "We're going to have to lose one of you... and we've decided to put it down to both of you who would prefer to leave and stay".
My blood boiled. Here chaps, this is the position, we don't have the balls to chose, go fight it out yourselves. Both of them have refused to make a decision to the tea drinking biscuit dunking moron who has been on countless holidays to the Caribbean and other exotic locations for the past few months. All this person does is run about chasing after statistics, which is a stupid STUPID task to do with our unit - we're not a standard district unit - we cannot be statistically focused - we need focus on what we're actually doing. We mightn't get anything for months but hell, look at the work that's put in to it and the outcome. THAT'S what's important. Not how many fricken detections we've got.
MORONS. MOOOOOOROOONS.
FFS.
It's ridiculous. Absolutely ludicrous. As for HR - they need to get a grip of themselves and stop dishing out jobs to people and then a day before they start say "Oooh... sorry it's being reviewed" when they were aware of this weeks back. Absolute morons, stop messing with peoples lives.
WHY do they need managers to manage more managers and above?! It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. They also have a whole unit of muppets who analyse figures from a system which, in essence, is the biggest pile of **** in the world. Whatever stats get pulled off them are unnecessary, unreliable and do bugger nothing to reflect any of the good work that's being done. WHY DO WE NEED THIS TEAM!?! Throw them - bosh those out the windows - don't take away DC's and PC's roles. They aren't reducing crime, they're not providing support to the public, they're just boshing out unreliable statistics.
I know I'm talking about people here and about "boshing" them out of a job but to put things in perspective I don't have one come November. I'm bottom rung in my Office and although I process so much of the rubbish they have to do and alleviate worries and stress for DC's... I know I'm not worth staying. I would cut me if I had to cut people. It makes sense. Yeh it means I'm royally screwed but hey, that's life, I'll find something.
Bah.
Makes me angry. Can you tell?!
/rant
Very interesting article from the independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-colder-crueller-country-ndash-for-no-gain-2112069.html
Knipples
21-10-2010, 11:48
How the f***ing hell can George bloody "I want to slap his face into next week" Osbourne just cancel a 6 billion tax bill! :angry: (this smiley doesnt even do my face justice right now)
Cheers for that Kitten - interesting read.
LeperousDust
21-10-2010, 15:08
That does read for something grim and bitter indeed. But there are always several sides to a story and although i nor everyone here knows the whole picture we rely on the very biased (in either direction) media to keep us informed. I'm more inclined to have an open mind about it myself, i'm not sure how that helps right now, but i just don't trust that one article or what Mr Osbourne says himself, or anyone really! Everyone has their own agenda in the long run...
Justsomebloke
21-10-2010, 15:30
Very interesting article from the independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-colder-crueller-country-ndash-for-no-gain-2112069.html
Jesus christ. :(
How do Vodafone get away with not paying all that tax, How can the word fair be used by these people. :(
Cheers for sharing Kitty.
I don't know, but I do know where their HQ is. Fortunately (for them), it's not somewhere easy to walk to from here.
Having read that, I wish I hadn't. Just hope we all make it out the other side.
Briggykins
21-10-2010, 22:54
Right next to the train line though isn't it? Convenient.
That's why they lock the doors on the way past.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.