|
|
George Osborne just doesn't have a clue what he's doing 
|
|
|
Quote
ohms12 :
What are you on about, Barnaby? A fantastic change? If I was earning around £44,000 and my wife was not working, i'd lose my benefit. But lets say I was earning £40,000 and my wife also on £40,000, a collective household income of £80,000, we'd keep our benefit.
I'm sorry, but that's not a 'fantastic change', it's another ill-thought out policy put in place by our fantastic Conservative government. Huzzah.
£44,000 pa is well above average in the U.K.
The majority of people in the United Kingdom, that's lower and middle classes are in the £13,000 - £30,000 pa bracket after tax, these are the people who need the help most. If you are earning £44,000 that is a whole lot more money, why would you need child support on top of that, perhaps it is the fault of the higher earners that they do not spend their money as wisely (again living beyond their means), people can always earn money at home if not working for a company, my neighbour does it.
I agree it seems a bit silly that joint earners even if just below the limit will not lose benefit when their total earning together equates to more than the limit, but rarely do couples share all income... 99% of the time they still have separate personal bank accounts as well as a shared account for the family living and are treated as separate earners, this is common practice to protect your assets with regards to your blood family, who would be taken care of by personal assets in a will.
Its quite logical actually and a smart move.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
I don't think it matters if you do it by separate accounts or whatever, household income is what the title suggests- the total money coming into the house, from all sources. I know my wage counts toward my household income, and I don't use mummy and daddy's bank account.
And yes, £44,000 is quite a high income. However, you can be pretty sure that one person earning £44k a year is going to be out of the house quite a lot, and whether it's one child or two (or more), that ~£1,000 is going to be a significant loss.
From Cameron:
' ...but added that it was "quite difficult" to justify spending £1bn on child benefit for the better off that could be spent in other areas.'
I thought this was a spending cut, rather than a realignment of funds?
' Osborne announced a cap on welfare payments, limiting the benefits paid to jobless households to the £26,000 average income of a family in work. The cap would restrict benefits to £500 a week from 2013, costing 50,000 households £93 a week on average.
'A small number of families would lose as much as £300 a week, but the limit would not apply to recipients of disability living allowance, war widows' pensions and working tax credit.'
Real good move that. What happens to families that can't live off £26,000 a year? You can't cap benefits. That's putting a plaster over a fucking gunshot wound.
If the Tories were really serious about benefit reform, they'd have dismantled the existing system completely, and rebuilt a new one that is properly means tested. Instead they're just changing some numbers here and putting caps there.
Laughable. But then, that's all this government has been since they got in.
Edit: I saw your picture, you should've just left it :P
|
|
|
The withdrawal of child benefit from families where at least one parent is a high earner and is in the 40% tax bracket will create strong incentives for people to increase pension contributions.
The idea is to get people saving again and not borrowing and thus to eliminate the need for "free money" as Labour liked to hand it out like hot cakes with melty butter, the reason our deficit is so high.
I didn't know too much about it initially but, as a leading financial consultant Towers Watson said on Breakfast this morning...
"Paying more into a pension scheme can be used to push household income below the threshold for the higher rate of tax and actually preserve the benefit through a different way, without having to rely on surplus money".
"Proposals announced by Chancellor George Osborne at the Conservative Party conference yesterday would see child benefit scrapped from 2013 for those earning more than £43, 875 per year. Increasing household pension contribution rate from a salary could take many people out this tax bracket - preserving the receipt of child benefit, currently rated at £20.30 per week for the first child and £13.40 a week for each subsequent child. From 2013, some families could find that the money they have put aside for retirement will have increased the cash in their pocket as well as their pension fund".
"The costs of raising children can prevent parents paying as much into their pensions as they feel they should. For some, it may now be a question of whether they can afford not to save more. For a family with three children, child benefit can be worth nearly £2,500 a year, tax-free."
"Other arrangements, such as sacrificing part of a salary and instead receiving higher employer pension contributions which do not count towards taxable income, may also be able to preserve an individual's eligibility for the benefit".
After listening to this I felt that it was actually a very sensible thing to do. But hey, why try and sort the problem when we can just borrow ourselves out of debt.... oh wait... we can't.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Seeing George Osbourne and Vince Cable's weak attempts at economic plans gives me newfound respect for Alistair Darling.
13/11/09
11/09/10
last.fm
|
|
|
Quote
barnabyfox :
The withdrawal of child benefit from families where at least one parent is a high earner and is in the 40% tax bracket will create strong incentives for people to increase pension contributions.
Ew, I hate it when people directly quote the party line. It sounds so tacky :P
And let's not have any delusions about why our deficit is so high. You seem to say it's Labour's fault, and are quick to blame them at every opportunity... now, as I've said many a time, I feel New Labour was a disaster, just the same as you do. They weren't Labour, they were Tories in disguise. Blair's laissez-faire attitude to the banking industry obviously didn't help... but was Blair the only one on the planet doing it? No! Every G8, G20 in fact, leader was doing it for years because it was profitable for their country and their own little circle! It's called a boom, that's what happens. Blair was not unique.
So let's be clear- no one government or leader or bank caused our deficit by themselves. Every country is suffering, for the same reason... global financial meltdown.
I watched this, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECi6WJpbzE
|
|
|
Lol, says to me I find any opportunity to blame Labour and then once again proves that he finds any opportunity to blame the Conservatives.
When you have finished being hypocritical, come back to me with something substantial.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Where did I blame the Tories? When I said 'Tories in disguise'?
That was in relation to New Labour's economic policy, and how it was very right-leaning. Less regulation typically means more risk, which we know all too well now. So I was blaming the conservative approach to economics, rather than the Conservative party themselves. You'd need to be pretty ignorant to not realise that deregulation was what got the worldwide economy into such a state.
I think I explained pretty well why I think we're in such a mess, without resorting to party arguments.
|
|
|
I am just amazed at how stupid democrats are. The republicans are always good at getting their message out to the electorate even it it is stupid and not in the public's best interest, they make it appear like it is. More private sector jobs have been created in 2010 under the Obama administration than under the entire 8 year Bush administration. If the democrats just went around with that message they wouldn't be at risk of losing the majority in the house (they are going to lose it) and it looks like they are just barely going to keep the majority in the senate. The dems just need to get on message and push, election day is less than 2 weeks away.
|
|
|
I have to vote on my absentee ballot.... The Democrat senator in Illinois is corrupt and the republican lied about his military service.
One of the guys running for governor is a pawn shop owner. Because he's so pissed off at both democrats and republicans. I don't know if he could actually run anything, but i might just vote for him at one useless bur satisfying "this is how frustrated i am."
EDIT: I just tore up my absentee ballot and threw it into the trash. I was very frustrated over something else atm, but trying to think about and research illinois politics just pushed me over the edge. It's so intensely corrupt.
MUSE: March 12th, 2010 United Center, Chicago
PSN name : Str1ker22
|
|
|
Quote
bighead00129 :
I am just amazed at how stupid democrats are. The republicans are always good at getting their message out to the electorate even it it is stupid and not in the public's best interest, they make it appear like it is. More private sector jobs have been created in 2010 under the Obama administration than under the entire 8 year Bush administration. If the democrats just went around with that message they wouldn't be at risk of losing the majority in the house (they are going to lose it) and it looks like they are just barely going to keep the majority in the senate. The dems just need to get on message and push, election day is less than 2 weeks away.
Yeah they seem pretty clumsy.
I am scared of this Tea Party movement in USA and also the apparantly increasing islamophobia.
Hodor, hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor? - Hodor
|
|
|
So Yemen is next then it seems, they only have 9 years of oil left but cruicially would give access to the Gulf of Aden and the Suez.
|
|
|
Get Out and Vote my fellow Americans!
Based on what they expect of Democratic and youth turnout, the Dems are expected to lose 55-70 seats in the house. They are expected to hold onto the majority in the Senate though, which is somewhat hopeful I guess.
|
|
|
Well... at least the sane ones kept the Senate. Otherwise, a disaster for liberal America, and pretty much the end of Barack Obama, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Quote
no-name :
Well... at least the sane ones kept the Senate. Otherwise, a disaster for liberal America, and pretty much the end of Barack Obama, if you ask me.
Goodo Obama's a numpty anyway. Guess its time for change alright for him, a change of address.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
It's going to be sooo funny when you end up with Rand Paul as your president.
|
|
|
Isn't Ronald Paul the most likely next president, not his son according to some polls in the U.S?
He's bloody old though, lets hope he can weather the next few winters to make it for 2012!
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Probably for 2012, Rand for 2016, they are both as bad as each other to be fair.
Just depends on which one the crazies get most carried away with at the time.
|
|
|
I like that different parties hold the House and Senate. Shit's about to get interesting.
|
|
|
Ron Paul is never likely to be President. He has run several times and never receives more than a tiny fraction of the popular vote.
The US promptly lost its shit and declared war on the very notion of terrorism, entering into an armed conflict against an abstract concept like only America can.
And after we beat Terrorism, were gonna beat Drugs! Then were going to take on Sadness!
|
|
|
According to the republican forums he is the most likely to win if he decides to run for 2012 and received the most support from the party and apparently... he is considering it.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Quote
barnabyfox :
Quote
no-name :
Well... at least the sane ones kept the Senate. Otherwise, a disaster for liberal America, and pretty much the end of Barack Obama, if you ask me.
Goodo Obama's a numpty anyway. Guess its time for change alright for him, a change of address.
For once I agree with you. Obama has not managed to do what he promised - whether that is down to Democratic party incompetence, lack of Republican co-operation on good reform (healthcare etc.), or his own personal failings is not really relevant - and the American voters will punish him for that.
But the thing is, if he gets patched out the White House in two years' time, who will replace him? Sarah Palin? One of the Pauls? No, no thank you. At least with John McCain you would have had a President with the credentials to get the job done, though I obviously wouldn't have agreed with most of his policies. But throwing one of these Tea Party cretins into the Oval Office is suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't give a shit who is chosen to be honest, it has nothing to do with me.
All I know is that Obama is an epic president fail, but hey he served his purpose, America needed an ego rescue after voting in Bush Jnr that many times on the bounce.
You got some nerve, coming here.
I hate to agree with Barnaby, but the fact is, hes right.
|
|
|
Barnaby, are you talking about Ron or Rand? And what Republican forums?
The US promptly lost its shit and declared war on the very notion of terrorism, entering into an armed conflict against an abstract concept like only America can.
And after we beat Terrorism, were gonna beat Drugs! Then were going to take on Sadness!
|
