Cutting the budget

[Saintandy666]

On the assumption that the above post is what you are referring to... that isn't what I said. Doing better than another economy isn't actually that great if that economy is totally in the sh1t (and round the u-bend). You may as well tell Rickie that his loss of form isn't really that much of a problem because he's still better up front that me.

 

I wasn't replying to you. Just saying in general.

[Fuengirola Saint]

The way I see it is we all need to repay about £1500 each to repay the national debt caused by the banks.

we have two choices, the painfull way and the excruciatinly painfull way.

the painfull way, increase income tax and vat by a couple of percent and decrease benifits by 10% till it is paid.

the excruciating painfull way: sack a load of teachers, police fire, ect reduce every government budget by 15-25% increase all the leasure center prices, issue more fines and penalties. Give the bankers and top civil servents loads of bonuses.

 

Guess which we have chosen

 

What he said!

[trousers]

When are Labour due to announce the cuts they were planning for this parliament had they won?

 

Genuine question.

[Whitey Grandad]

When are Labour due to announce the cuts they were planning for this parliament had they won?

 

Genuine question.

 

Don't be silly. Even they are not that stupid.

[benjii]

Yippee! That is all that some people want to hear I fear, just so long as it doesn't make me a victim of the changes eh? If we tolerate this then are children will be next. Oh.

 

What makes you think this won't affect me?

 

Simply, the idea of giving people a cash handout for having a kid is mental IMO. I would support some sort of credit system for children's essentials for poor people (clothes, food etc.). I am happy to help pay for that as, in the long run, it might help to stop those kids becoming scrotes. What I'm not happy to pay is a subsidy to people with plenty of disposable income, purely because they managed to procreate.

 

The current plans introduce an anomaly, clearly. Hopefully, over time this can be resolved. There are loads of anomalies in the law, but better to do some good than none.

Edited 5 October, 2010 by benjii

[bridge too far]

What makes you think this won't affect me?

 

Simply, the idea of giving people a cash handout for having a kid is mental IMO. I would support some sort of credit system for children's essentials for poor people (clothes, food etc.). I am happy to help pay for that as, in the long run, it might help to stop those kids becoming scrotes. What I'm not happy to pay is a subsidy to people with plenty of disposable income, purely because they managed to procreate.

 

The current plans introduce an anomaly, clearly. Hopefully, over time this can be resolved. There are loads of anomalies in the law, but better to do some good than none.

 

It seems it will be. By reintroducing the married tax allowance. Which if applied to higher rate tax payers, as is being mooted, will cost more than would have been saved!

 

Flip flop flip flop

[Verbal]

When are Labour due to announce the cuts they were planning for this parliament had they won?

 

Genuine question.

 

Which tense is this question in, trousers?! Anyway, the answer to your question, as heard in R4 tonight, is that the biggest block to Labour facing reality was Gordo himself. If they'd won, he'd have clung on, but they didn't and he's gone - so totally different situation. I'm not sure your hypothetical works.

[benjii]

It seems it will be. By reintroducing the married tax allowance. Which if applied to higher rate tax payers, as is being mooted, will cost more than would have been saved!

 

Flip flop flip flop

 

I also think giving people a tax break for getting married is mental!

 

Mind you, how much does a Register Office cost nowadays anyway...?

[bridge too far]

I also think giving people a tax break for getting married is mental!

 

Mind you, how much does a Register Office cost nowadays anyway...?

 

Far more than the paltry amount from any tax relief gained from being married I should think

[Whitey Grandad]

I also think giving people a tax break for getting married is mental!

 

Because the costs to 'society' are a lot lower if everybody lives in nice family units.

[ecuk268]

Recently had a get-together with some old mates that I've known since school. We've all just passed the big 60 and we're all still earning decent money including one bloke who sold his business and retired at 57.

 

We all get £250 Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes as well as Senior ticket rates at SMS.

 

Why??

 

I might appreciate it in 5 years time when the pension kicks in so why don't these things start at 65?

[bridge too far]

Because the costs to 'society' are a lot lower if everybody lives in nice family units.

 

In a 'cornflake' family, you mean? How is that necessarily a lower cost than the cost of a long-established couple with children who simply don't feel the need to be stereotyped or to buy a bit of paper?

 

The nuclear family is a fairly modern institution.

[Whitey Grandad]

Recently had a get-together with some old mates that I've known since school. We've all just passed the big 60 and we're all still earning decent money including one bloke who sold his business and retired at 57.

 

We all get £250 Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes as well as Senior ticket rates at SMS.

 

Why??

I might appreciate it in 5 years time when the pension kicks in so why don't these things start at 65?

Because we are all equal. The tax system already takes account of the differences in earnings. To take away these other 'benefits' amounts to yet another marginal tax. Where is the incentive to save for old age? Anyone with any sense would buy gold and keep it under the bed.

[Whitey Grandad]

In a 'cornflake' family, you mean? How is that necessarily a lower cost than the cost of a long-established couple with children who simply don't feel the need to be stereotyped or to buy a bit of paper?

 

The nuclear family is a fairly modern institution.

It's a life-long contract.

[bridge too far]

It's a life-long contract.

 

But it often isn't, is it. And it's a bloody expensive contract to get out of if the terms and conditions aren't met

[dune]

Welldone DC for saying it how it is.

 

[badgerx16]

Welldone DC for saying it how it is.

 

I know he's lying - his lips are moving

[barney]

Welldone DC for saying it how it is.

 

 

Has DC got that strange look on his face due to dunes tongue being up his arse.

[dune]

I know he's lying - his lips are moving

 

But it's as I keep explaining to you, Labour have always ruined the economy of our country and left it to the Conservatives to sort the mess out.

[badgerx16]

But it's as I keep explaining to you, Labour have always ruined the economy of our country and left it to the Conservatives to sort the mess out.

Just because you keep on saying it, doesn't make it any more true.

[barney]

But it's as I keep explaining to you, Labour have always ruined the economy of our country and left it to the Conservatives to sort the mess out.

 

Thats why after 13 years of labour the tories gained massive public support to get into power NOT.

[trousers]

Recently had a get-together with some old mates that I've known since school. We've all just passed the big 60 and we're all still earning decent money including one bloke who sold his business and retired at 57.

 

We all get £250 Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes as well as Senior ticket rates at SMS.

 

Why??

 

I might appreciate it in 5 years time when the pension kicks in so why don't these things start at 65?

 

You don't have to keep it. That's the beauty of conservatism (with a small 'c') - it puts choice in the hands of the citizen rather than the state.

 

I assume pensioners who don't need this handout give it to a charity of their choice?

 

Or, of course, we could always get the government to deploy an expensive and beaurocratic means testing system for it....

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I find it amusing that not only has Cameron used a well known Kitchener catchphrase, but also, just like Kitchener, he is relying on the naivity of the British public to help fulfill his aims. Kitchener was banking on the public's notion that war was 'heroic, patriotic, an adventure' etc while Cameron is banking on the public not realising that his 'Big Society' is a way of simply covering up public sector cuts.

 

"Your country needs you!" Really? Given the choice I'd rather bloody well emigrate then pay for a mess I didn't create. Coupled with that I'm now being told by Hutton that I have to pay more into my pension scheme I'm not a happy boy this morning. I will personally accept a minimal rise in my contributions per month (no more than £50 at a maximum) however if they try and take the **** I think you will see serious discontent and a return to the dark ages of the 70s and 80s.

[GenevaSaint]

Because we are all equal. The tax system already takes account of the differences in earnings. To take away these other 'benefits' amounts to yet another marginal tax. Where is the incentive to save for old age? Anyone with any sense would buy gold and keep it under the bed.

 

But it's the same argument as someone being in the 40% tax bracket and having their child benefit taken away. If you're well paid in your working life, have a good pension, own home and nest egg why should you get these benefits when they're not necessary?

 

And apologies to you Whitey if you said removing CB is not a good idea for 40% tax payers.

[GenevaSaint]

I find it amusing that not only has Cameron used a well known Kitchener catchphrase, but also, just like Kitchener, he is relying on the naivity of the British public to help fulfill his aims. Kitchener was banking on the public's notion that war was 'heroic, patriotic, an adventure' etc while Cameron is banking on the public not realising that his 'Big Society' is a way of simply covering up public sector cuts.

 

"Your country needs you!" Really? Given the choice I'd rather bloody well emigrate then pay for a mess I didn't create. Coupled with that I'm now being told by Hutton that I have to pay more into my pension scheme I'm not a happy boy this morning. I will personally accept a minimal rise in my contributions per month (no more than £50 at a maximum) however if they try and take the **** I think you will see serious discontent and a return to the dark ages of the 70s and 80s.

 

I've not read the whole thing yet thorpe, but I do think teachers are getting the rough end of the stick as their pension program is already self financing is it not? It's a bit harsh given some of the other public sector pensions out there.

 

FAQ on public sector pensions.....I stand corrected.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912958

Edited 7 October, 2010 by GenevaSaint

[JackanorySFC]

I find it amusing that not only has Cameron used a well known Kitchener catchphrase, but also, just like Kitchener, he is relying on the naivity of the British public to help fulfill his aims. Kitchener was banking on the public's notion that war was 'heroic, patriotic, an adventure' etc while Cameron is banking on the public not realising that his 'Big Society' is a way of simply covering up public sector cuts.

 

"Your country needs you!" Really? Given the choice I'd rather bloody well emigrate then pay for a mess I didn't create. Coupled with that I'm now being told by Hutton that I have to pay more into my pension scheme I'm not a happy boy this morning. I will personally accept a minimal rise in my contributions per month (no more than £50 at a maximum) however if they try and take the **** I think you will see serious discontent and a return to the dark ages of the 70s and 80s.

 

We're paying more in debt interest every year than we do on the NHS - surely if we can wipe a big chunk of this off together in the next 5 years it will be worth it? I'm a higher rate tax payer and I'm happy to forsake the Children's allowence (and no - my missus is not on good money at all) and whatever else is thrown at me. If things seem to get tight then I'll work harder to earn more money. If I can't afford a kid I won't have one, simple surely?

 

Rather than moaning we need to take a look at the disgusting debt this country (and us - the individuals) got itself into over the last decade - pull together, work hard and pay things off giving our kids the benefit of extra money to spend on important things like NHS, Education, Policing etc rather than debt servicing.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

We're paying more in debt interest every year than we do on the NHS - surely if we can wipe a big chunk of this off together in the next 5 years it will be worth it? I'm a higher rate tax payer and I'm happy to forsake the Children's allowence (and no - my missus is not on good money at all) and whatever else is thrown at me. If things seem to get tight then I'll work harder to earn more money. If I can't afford a kid I won't have one, simple surely?

 

Rather than moaning we need to take a look at the disgusting debt this country (and us - the individuals) got itself into over the last decade - pull together, work hard and pay things off giving our kids the benefit of extra money to spend on important things like NHS, Education, Policing etc rather than debt servicing.

 

I'm a higher rate tax payer (just) and will be hurt by child benefit taken away. Of course this pales into insignificance compared to people losing their jobs or those on much lower incomes facing cuts etc. However wouldn't it just be farer to simply increase the top rate from 40% to 41% for all tax payers - as well as raising significantly more money? We're going to have the rediculous situation where those earning just below the top rate threshold won't be able to accept small wage rises because they'll lose thousands. The super rich won't even notice a cut in child benefit. The tories are making the poor and the middle classes pay the way out of debt.

[solentstars]

We're paying more in debt interest every year than we do on the NHS - surely if we can wipe a big chunk of this off together in the next 5 years it will be worth it? I'm a higher rate tax payer and I'm happy to forsake the Children's allowence (and no - my missus is not on good money at all) and whatever else is thrown at me. If things seem to get tight then I'll work harder to earn more money. If I can't afford a kid I won't have one, simple surely?

 

Rather than moaning we need to take a look at the disgusting debt this country (and us - the individuals) got itself into over the last decade - pull together, work hard and pay things off giving our kids the benefit of extra money to spend on important things like NHS, Education, Policing etc rather than debt servicing.

 

good post i payed higher rate tax and would rather the debt was cut back to put more money into nhs and education policeing,i could never understand why people on my income could claim child benefit .

[Whitey Grandad]

But it's the same argument as someone being in the 40% tax bracket and having their child benefit taken away. If you're well paid in your working life, have a good pension, own home and nest egg why should you get these benefits when they're not necessary?

 

And apologies to you Whitey if you said removing CB is not a good idea for 40% tax payers.

 

No need to apologise, but I do think that this proposal is a ridiculous idea. Penalising people who have tried that litle bit harder than most to get an education, who may have stayed in studying instead of going to the pub, who spent years in higher education whilst their contemporaries were out earning money and getting on to the career ladder, who put money aside when possible to save for a rainy day, is sending out the wrong message to society. Try to look after yourselves and we shall take money away from you, **** it up against the wall and we shall give money to you.

 

There are plenty of other areas for making savings. How about the £8billion foreign aid money, some of which we give to China? And why ring-fence the NHS? Doubling their budget maid only a 30% improvement so cutting by 10% would never be noticed.

 

I can think of a much fairer proposal: how about taking Child Benefit away from smokers?

[Whitey Grandad]

good post i payed higher rate tax and would rather the debt was cut back to put more money into nhs and education policeing,i could never understand why people on my income could claim child benefit .

 

Because you are already paying a much higher amount of tax than people on lower incomes. Where would you stop? Should those who earn more pay more for their bread or cornflakes?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lord Sugar was on the One show the other night. He said that he receives £200 winter fuel allowence. He tried to send it back but was unable to do so. Even though he donates it to charity, it still comes from the tax payers pocket. Surely even the lefties realise that this is crazy, but watch them cry and moan if GO abolishs this benefit, for the rich.

[badgerx16]

Lord Sugar was on the One show the other night. He said that he receives £200 winter fuel allowence. He tried to send it back but was unable to do so. Even though he donates it to charity, it still comes from the tax payers pocket. Surely even the lefties realise that this is crazy, but watch them cry and moan if GO abolishs this benefit, for the rich.

Not at all. The issue is quite simple - should there be 'universal' benefits ? As I posted earlier in this thread, up until the start of the Tory conference, every utterance from DC, GO, and Nick Clegg said that these were sacrosanct. If, however, you want to make them only go to those who need them, you have to means test. But as that involves MORE administration & back-office costs, the Government have tried to avoid it, and created a botch job.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

We're paying more in debt interest every year than we do on the NHS - surely if we can wipe a big chunk of this off together in the next 5 years it will be worth it? I'm a higher rate tax payer and I'm happy to forsake the Children's allowence (and no - my missus is not on good money at all) and whatever else is thrown at me. If things seem to get tight then I'll work harder to earn more money. If I can't afford a kid I won't have one, simple surely?

 

Rather than moaning we need to take a look at the disgusting debt this country (and us - the individuals) got itself into over the last decade - pull together, work hard and pay things off giving our kids the benefit of extra money to spend on important things like NHS, Education, Policing etc rather than debt servicing.

 

I agree with the sentiment, I really do, but the phrase 'pull together' makes me cringe. When I see the bankers (note, not the private sector in general) give up their bonuses and the government take it as an extra tax for just one or two measly years (much like the public sector payrises which I was not against by the way) then I will 'climb on board' but from where I'm sitting, it's the same it's always been: The super rich get away with it, the rest of us get screwed.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Lord Sugar was on the One show the other night. He said that he receives £200 winter fuel allowence. He tried to send it back but was unable to do so. Even though he donates it to charity, it still comes from the tax payers pocket. Surely even the lefties realise that this is crazy, but watch them cry and moan if GO abolishs this benefit, for the rich.

 

Yeah he doesn't need it agreed. I won't moan if he removes it for the rich: I didn't moan when he got rid of child support for them, in fact I agreed with him. My Grandparents need their winter fuel allowance as I imagine the majority of pensioners do, but I won't feel sorry for Bobby Charlton (for example) if he loses his!

[benjii]

Because the costs to 'society' are a lot lower if everybody lives in nice family units.

 

I'm sure they are, but I don't think a relatively small tax incentive is going to contribute one bit to everyone living in nice family units.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not at all. The issue is quite simple - should there be 'universal' benefits ? As I posted earlier in this thread, up until the start of the Tory conference, every utterance from DC, GO, and Nick Clegg said that these were sacrosanct. If, however, you want to make them only go to those who need them, you have to means test. But as that involves MORE administration & back-office costs, the Government have tried to avoid it, and created a botch job.

 

Surely its not above the wit and wisdom of someone in this day and age to be able to sort this out. The fact is Sugar lives most of his life in FLA, does not want the money, does not need the money, and yet the Govt keeps giving it to him.

 

If someone in Govt cant come up with a solution, then I suggest they get a private Company to do so. Their brief would be to administer the winter fuel payments in such a way that anyone living abroad, anyone who didn't want it and anyone who didn't need it (Govt would obvioulsy need to set up qualifing criteria) didn't receive it. In return the Private Company could keep £25 of all the £200 saved, saving the Govt a hell of a lot of £175.

 

The lefties seem to think that more people receiving benefit is a good thing, that it shows what a caring, sharing society we are. We have a situation where people pay tax at a higher rate, but recieve tax credits, am I the only one who thinks that's complete and utter madness.

 

Instead of giving Lord Sugar £200, instead of giving Wayne Rooney child benefit, we should be increasing the tax free allowence of people to ensure the poorest pay no tax and that going to work really does make you better off than staying at home.

[solentstars]

Because you are already paying a much higher amount of tax than people on lower incomes. Where would you stop? Should those who earn more pay more for their bread or cornflakes?

 

i,m comfortable and payed a higher rate of tax and have a better standard of living why would i want the extra money from child benifit to line my pockets even more .

[OldNick]

I always thought the Welfare state was to defend the poor and the really deserving.

To have a national debate when it is patently wrong that people earning a good wage is nonsense.

The system has become overblown and the myriad of different benefits is mindblowing.

The only people who should get benefit are the poor and the people unable to fend for themselves,period.

[Whitey Grandad]

i,m comfortable and payed a higher rate of tax and have a better standard of living why would i want the extra money from child benifit to line my pockets even more .

 

There is nothing stopping you from donating to charity, which would be far more effective than giving it back to the government, and as an advantage you would remove some of your income from the higher tax rate! I can think of many worthy cause in health and education.

[solentstars]

Surely its not above the wit and wisdom of someone in this day and age to be able to sort this out. The fact is Sugar lives most of his life in FLA, does not want the money, does not need the money, and yet the Govt keeps giving it to him.

 

If someone in Govt cant come up with a solution, then I suggest they get a private Company to do so. Their brief would be to administer the winter fuel payments in such a way that anyone living abroad, anyone who didn't want it and anyone who didn't need it (Govt would obvioulsy need to set up qualifing criteria) didn't receive it. In return the Private Company could keep £25 of all the £200 saved, saving the Govt a hell of a lot of £175.

 

The lefties seem to think that more people receiving benefit is a good thing, that it shows what a caring, sharing society we are. We have a situation where people pay tax at a higher rate, but recieve tax credits, am I the only one who thinks that's complete and utter madness.

 

Instead of giving Lord Sugar £200, instead of giving Wayne Rooney child benefit, we should be increasing the tax free allowence of people to ensure the poorest pay no tax and that going to work really does make you better off than staying at home.

 

i think the coalition have started to raise the fresh hold of the low earners tax free allowance so they do not pay tax and their aim is 10,000 which is a great move.

[Whitey Grandad]

The only people who should get benefit are the poor and the people unable to fend for themselves,period.

Agreed, but there is abig difference between 'unable' and 'unwilling'.

[solentstars]

There is nothing stopping you from donating to charity, which would be far more effective than giving it back to the government, and as an advantage you would remove some of your income from the higher tax rate! I can think of many worthy cause in health and education.

 

i prefer it to cut the deficit has i already give donations to charity the most recent to the 2 firefighters killed in shirley.

[badgerx16]

Surely its not above the wit and wisdom of someone in this day and age to be able to sort this out. The fact is Sugar lives most of his life in FLA, does not want the money, does not need the money, and yet the Govt keeps giving it to him.

Well it seems to be beyond the BrokeBack coalition. So much for 'new politics'.

 

If someone in Govt cant come up with a solution, then I suggest they get a private Company to do so. Their brief would be to administer the winter fuel payments in such a way that anyone living abroad, anyone who didn't want it and anyone who didn't need it (Govt would obvioulsy need to set up qualifing criteria) didn't receive it. In return the Private Company could keep £25 of all the £200 saved, saving the Govt a hell of a lot of £175.

That seems eminently sensible, so the Government, no matter what colour, certainly won't do it.

 

The lefties seem to think that more people receiving benefit is a good thing, that it shows what a caring, sharing society we are. We have a situation where people pay tax at a higher rate, but recieve tax credits, am I the only one who thinks that's complete and utter madness.

Well Thorpey & I have agreed with you, so stop generalising.

 

Instead of giving Lord Sugar £200, instead of giving Wayne Rooney child benefit, we should be increasing the tax free allowance of people to ensure the poorest pay no tax and that going to work really does make you better off than staying at home.

Don't have a problem with that.

 

Isn't political debate easy !

[GenevaSaint]

i think the coalition have started to raise the fresh hold of the low earners tax free allowance so they do not pay tax and their aim is 10,000 which is a great move.

 

Lets get things straight here, that was a Lib Dem policy, the Tories would've never have gone for it, unfortunately for them they were over a barrel with their kegs down.

 

Don't forget the Tories are the party who opposed a national minimum wage as it would costs hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[JackanorySFC]

I agree with the sentiment, I really do, but the phrase 'pull together' makes me cringe. When I see the bankers (note, not the private sector in general) give up their bonuses and the government take it as an extra tax for just one or two measly years (much like the public sector payrises which I was not against by the way) then I will 'climb on board' but from where I'm sitting, it's the same it's always been: The super rich get away with it, the rest of us get screwed.

 

Just been for lunch at Coq De Argant with my mate Mark the Trader from JPM. Lovely day, amazing location when the sun's shining - can thoroughly recommend it. Anyway - I digress. He's expecting approx £300k for his bonus this year - approx 54% of that goes to the tax man by way of IT an NIC. How much more do you want from him? What is fair? Seriously, he recognises he should (and does) pay his way. I can tell you now from what he said a minute ago, he's happy to keep paying his way and waving things like child benefit and inheritance tax (he was clearly taking the p*** with that as I know for a fact his old dear lives in a council house on Somerton Ave in Harefield). Push him too far like your suggesting and he and his colleagues will simply move to Switzerland, leaving a £162k black hole in this country's tax receipts from his bonus alone.

 

Oh, and he uses his money well, off on his stag do in 5 weeks and he's paying for all our flights to Vegas (Virgin - refused to book with BA after their strike action - this keeps Virgin's hard working trollie dollies in their jobs enabling them to pay tax), paid for my lunch (paying the wages of the superb waiters and excellent chef in there as well as 17.5% VAT on our £200 bill), meanwhile his nanny (who from his high wages he pays enabling her to pay taxes and NI and leave enough to spend it on going out, clothes etc) looks after his kid.

 

He does not "get away with it". The wealthy and the wealth creators are absolutely essential to this country's economy - I think most of them recognise the next 5 years will be tough, and they will do their bit - however, push them too far at your peral, once they are gone there will be no-one left to pay for the services you and others take for granted.

[OldNick]

Just been for lunch at Coq De Argant with my mate Mark the Trader from JPM. Lovely day, amazing location when the sun's shining - can thoroughly recommend it. Anyway - I digress. He's expecting approx £300k for his bonus this year - approx 54% of that goes to the tax man by way of IT an NIC. How much more do you want from him? What is fair? Seriously, he recognises he should (and does) pay his way. I can tell you now from what he said a minute ago, he's happy to keep paying his way and waving things like child benefit and inheritance tax (he was clearly taking the p*** with that as I know for a fact his old dear lives in a council house on Somerton Ave in Harefield). Push him too far like your suggesting and he and his colleagues will simply move to Switzerland, leaving a £162k black hole in this country's tax receipts from his bonus alone.

 

Oh, and he uses his money well, off on his stag do in 5 weeks and he's paying for all our flights to Vegas (Virgin - refused to book with BA after their strike action - this keeps Virgin's hard working trollie dollies in their jobs enabling them to pay tax), paid for my lunch (paying the wages of the superb waiters and excellent chef in there as well as 17.5% VAT on our £200 bill), meanwhile his nanny (who from his high wages he pays enabling her to pay taxes and NI and leave enough to spend it on going out, clothes etc) looks after his kid.

 

He does not "get away with it". The wealthy and the wealth creators are absolutely essential to this country's economy - I think most of them recognise the next 5 years will be tough, and they will do their bit - however, push them too far at your peral, once they are gone there will be no-one left to pay for the services you and others take for granted.

 

He is worth a lot to our country and should be rewarded. He shouldn't get child benefit though. He may also like others buy a nice house and pay a massive stamp duty payment and get nothing back for that.All money into the state coffers that keep it all moving.

[JackanorySFC]

He is worth a lot to our country and should be rewarded. He shouldn't get child benefit though. He may also like others buy a nice house and pay a massive stamp duty payment and get nothing back for that.All money into the state coffers that keep it all moving.

 

Forgot to mention that, moved only a year ago to Bexleyheath (or is it Bexley? - whatever) from Greenwich, house was £800k. That's another £32k off the debt mountain! Furnishing it he let his missus loose in John Lewis and Habitat (paying the wages of their staff who from that pay their taxes and NI as well as the VAT on purchases). Bought a kitchen from Smallbones in Devises (they are the nuts, through that he kept their excellent craftsman in a job through the recession) and paid for local builders to redo his bathrooms (enabling them to keep their local boozers open by having beer tokens). Seriously, what do people think would happen if these people were taxed out of this country?

[OldNick]

Forgot to mention that, moved only a year ago to Bexleyheath (or is it Bexley? - whatever) from Greenwich, house was £800k. That's another £32k off the debt mountain! Furnishing it he let his missus loose in John Lewis and Habitat (paying the wages of their staff who from that pay their taxes and NI as well as the VAT on purchases). Bought a kitchen from Smallbones in Devises (they are the nuts, through that he kept their excellent craftsman in a job through the recession) and paid for local builders to redo his bathrooms (enabling them to keep their local boozers open by having beer tokens). Seriously, what do people think would happen if these people were taxed out of this country?

 

He should have furnished the house with antiques.Much better and they are a green product , so Ive gone off him now Lol, let him p### off to Switzerland

[Lord Duckhunter]

At least he wont go cold in his old age, he'll have £200 winging towards him whether he wants it or not.

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't forget the Tories are the party who opposed a national minimum wage as it would costs hundreds of thousands of jobs.

How do you know that it hasn't? The level of benefits has a much greater effect than the minimum wage. Nobody receiving benefits is going to take a low-paid job if staying at home is more worthwhile.