...........what do we think of the budget?
Thoughts anyone?
D.
Thoughts anyone?
D.
Not meaning to start a political war but...
- Thread starter DavidF
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 0
Bit of a non- event. Although I think the labour policy of going after non domiciles and abolishing taper relief (on capital gains) is a bit negative. What I mean is it could have a negatvie effect on entrepreneurs being based in the UK.
Of course for people like Russian oligarchs, 30K is nothing so maybe its just a token tax to keep the prols happy
Of course for people like Russian oligarchs, 30K is nothing so maybe its just a token tax to keep the prols happy
Judging from a newspaper artical, as a single male, low earner, I loose a couple of hundred pounds a year.
This seems very unfair (imo I work quite hard) and is most unwelcome.
If I was a single Mum I would be about £650 better off.
Seems I got some thingwrong soemwhere.
This seems very unfair (imo I work quite hard) and is most unwelcome.
If I was a single Mum I would be about £650 better off.
Seems I got some thingwrong soemwhere.
mr cat
Member of the month
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3,375
- Reaction score
- 5
I know - real shit...
have a read of this -
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/37875
and the quote -
"What Mr Darling did not mention was scrapping the 10p income tax starting band announced last year by Gordon Brown, which will come into force from April. This will leave millions of Labour's core voters ââ'¬â€œ the lower paid and pensioners ââ'¬â€œ worse off."
All taxation is "unfair", but getting the right balance between efficient and politically acceptable is the problem. As an example, the London congestion charge costs as much to collect as it raises. It only makes money because of the fines. A politically motivated, inefficient tax. Petrol duty, inescapable, cheap to collect, directly related to usage and carbon dioxide creation is an example of an efficient tax that is (relatively) politically acceptable. Evidence of that is how high it is!
This is a good thing. The single mum raising a child getting more money, versus a single man having to pay more tax.
Why do you think this is wrong?
mr cat
Member of the month
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3,375
- Reaction score
- 5
I know what you're saying - but it just encourages young women just to breed babies and look at the chav culture we already have
Maybe 'cos I am working (full time) and the single mum prob is not. (certainly not doing 4x 12 hour shifts bck to back night /day)
I would therefroe suggest I am putting more in than the young MUm.
Don't misunderstand me I don't wish anyone any misfortune.....I just dislike being penalised for getting up at 5.30 am to put in a hard days work. (or night as the case maybe)
Is that unreasonable?
mr cat
Member of the month
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 3,375
- Reaction score
- 5
no - what your'e saying is indeed fine - the system makes it far to easy for lazy scum to claim and have an easy life on benefits - whilst the hard workers who don't earn a great deal get constantly screwed over - now they can't even afford to have a tab, a pint, drive or even buy a house - and this is even affecting people like my lady and I who earn over 40k between us
thats the concern
now they can't even afford to have a tab, a pint, drive or even buy a house - and this is even affecting people like my lady and I who earn over 40k between us
I don't make anything lke that.
When I joined the factory fourish years ago the money was ok.....it worked better than the gardening before, and there was a bit left over each week.
Various price rises have eroded that and its now pretty tight.
So, no, I'm not happy with this.
BUT, if you're a "noodle" (someone used the term not unkindly....and in many ways its quite apt) .....theres fa you can do!!!
Look I know on the face of it my questions appear to be coming from a looney limp wristed lefty.....let me state that is not my political leaning.
Single mums are almost always demonised to the point of "they get pregnant so they can get a house" - I dont think this is fair.
Firstly, providing the country with another child brings many benefits to society, financially and socially. We need more population to keep the cogs going so to speak. Women are pretty good at this
.Second, Of course not all single mums are spongers. Can someone give these people the opportunity to have a child? Single mums also tend to go back to work.
Third, many single mums are also supported by immediate family.
The 'single mum' image that reeks of daily mailism is one of total sponger, pregnant for the free house, uncaring dirty feral teens with no hopes or aspirations.
For the record, I am not a single mum
last note: Does anyone consider the welfare of the children when they spout disgust at single mothers? (thats not aimed at you David, just an observation of mine)
So, my question to you David....are you sure you are 'putting more in' than a single mum?
"(thats not aimed at you David, just an observation of mine)"
ok,
"Single mums are almost always demonised to the point of "they get pregnant so they can get a house" - I dont think this is fair."
....but some times it IS!!!!!
Lamboy, I applaud your support for single Mums.....
"Firstly, providing the country with another child brings many benefits to society"
....also makes many problems (not the least of which is costing the state (ie ME
) lots oif DOSH!!
....especailly in this topical scenario.
just an aside...
yes we can all make mistake......but one would not wish to encourage it......I'll stop at that
ok,
"Single mums are almost always demonised to the point of "they get pregnant so they can get a house" - I dont think this is fair."
....but some times it IS!!!!!
Lamboy, I applaud your support for single Mums.....
"Firstly, providing the country with another child brings many benefits to society"
....also makes many problems (not the least of which is costing the state (ie ME
) lots oif DOSH!!....especailly in this topical scenario.
just an aside...
yes we can all make mistake......but one would not wish to encourage it......I'll stop at that
la toilette
Downright stupid
I also think single mum's get a bad press, probably unfairly overall, although obviously there are some.....
Anyway, as the gap between rich and poor is expanding year on year, bloody labour should start shafting the fat cats a bit, and they should begin with people who own more than one property -big tax due here I think, that could also conceivably help the housing situation in certain areas (mind you, with so many MP's having 2nd homes....).
A few pence on fags and booze is so bloody predictable, and generally pointless and inaffective as a deterrent. I'm actually completely in favour of taxing the arse of motorists (yes, I'm one), as long as they could make public transport a viable and CHEAPER option, which it isn't anywhere outside a handful of big cities.
So there :Quad:
Anyway, as the gap between rich and poor is expanding year on year, bloody labour should start shafting the fat cats a bit, and they should begin with people who own more than one property -big tax due here I think, that could also conceivably help the housing situation in certain areas (mind you, with so many MP's having 2nd homes....).
A few pence on fags and booze is so bloody predictable, and generally pointless and inaffective as a deterrent. I'm actually completely in favour of taxing the arse of motorists (yes, I'm one), as long as they could make public transport a viable and CHEAPER option, which it isn't anywhere outside a handful of big cities.
So there :Quad:
I also think single mum's get a bad press, probably unfairly overall, although obviously there are some.....
:
...maybe they do.
The single Mum thing wan't so much of an issue 50 years ago. you just didn't DO that.
So, is that a progression in our lives or not??
FWIW the MPs expenses farce makes me sick to the stomach.
Ref your 'single mum thing 50 years ago' comment....can anyone say 'backstreet abortion'.
Plus of course marriage was held in much wider regard then, I also presume it was cheaper to get married (pro rate versus today) - but thats just a guess. Also, maybe the welfare state didn't support single mothers as well 50 yrs ago - to be seen to support such a taboo lifestyle would have been touchy to say the least.
Ref your 'single mum thing 50 years ago' comment....can anyone say 'backstreet abortion'.
Plus of course marriage was held in much wider regard then, I also presume it was cheaper to get married (pro rate versus today) - but thats just a guess. Also, maybe the welfare state didn't support single mothers as well 50 yrs ago - to be seen to support such a taboo lifestyle would have been touchy to say the least.
well that opens up a can of worms....
I grew up in the 70s /80s......
"Plus of course marriage was held in much wider regard then"
....yes it was indeed.
I remember during the late 70s seeing a wedding pretty much every w/e in that period (anyone comfirm or deny?) ...How often do you see them now?
I saw one at my local Lilleshal a week or so ago, first one for probably years.
"can anyone say 'backstreet abortion'."
...maybe.
"I also presume it was cheaper to get married (pro rate versus today) - but thats just a guess."
...no, its easier just to live together now. I'm not necesarily saying thats a bad thing......it maybe a lot better in some ways.
"Also, maybe the welfare state didn't support single mothers as well 50 yrs ago"
.....er ,no.
"to be seen to support such a taboo lifestyle would have been touchy to say the least"
....this is perhapts the million dollar question.