Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Olebrum

Osborne's Goes After The Guilty

Recommended Posts

"Won't someone please think of the children?!"

Looks like they are trying to stop children being used as a income supplement. Good. As one who has absolutely no interest in multiplying I don't see why I should have to pay an increased levy in taxes so that breeders can fritter the money away on the latest toy craze.

Short message, if you want children, you'd better make sure you can afford to raise them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article from the torygraph says it all really.

http://www.telegraph...ce-as-hard.html

Picture from the Guardian says it all in fewer words... :lol:

Chancellor-George-Osborne-006.jpg

Amusingly Osborne is being sued by the Fawcett Society now. Worse than that, a Teresa May memo has surfaced where she warns him that she is concerned his budget was illegal. The rule of law may yet prevail and our posh-but-dim rulers will be forced to do it again like the naughty public schoolboy having to redo his Latin homework. If a Chancellor isn't even competent to deliver a budget, what is the point of him? Maybe if Osborne had a bit more real-world experience and a bit less living off daddy's money experience he'd know that it is important to pay attention to the detail. I wonder who his successor will be when his internship in the government ends?

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have kinda had enough of paying for other peoples sprogs TBH so I'm quite happy to hear that finally people without children might actually for the first time be a bit better off when it comes to keeping the states mitts off their stuff.

Tax credits for people with kids earning 40k cut? Er, good? I know people on 12k who barely have a pot to pi$$ in who are paying for that. Grotesque.

According to the institute, the country’s leading economic think tank, this is because the increase in VAT and other taxes combined with changes to the benefit system will disproportionately affect pensioners and families.

How do they work that out? Seems a bit speculative to me to put it mildly.

That said VAT is an evil thing and hits the poorest the hardest. I wouldn't have thought "families", if they mean couples with children, suffer from it the most though. I would have thought single 20 somethings probably pay the most VAT as a proportion of their total income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, while the institute’s analysis confirms Treasury forecasts that every section of society will be worse off as a result of the Budget, it indicates a large disparity in how it affects different people. The wealthiest 10 per cent of families with children — those with household earnings of about £100,000 a year — will lose a total of 6.68 per cent (£6,658) of their annual income.

Top-earning childless couples will lose 4.23 per cent a year, a reduction of £2,716.

Wealthier pensioners will lose 3.59 per cent of their income, £1,995 for the richest 10 per cent of the over-65s.

No problems here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, while the institute’s analysis confirms Treasury forecasts that every section of society will be worse off as a result of the Budget, it indicates a large disparity in how it affects different people. The wealthiest 10 per cent of families with children — those with household earnings of about £100,000 a year — will lose a total of 6.68 per cent (£6,658) of their annual income.

Top-earning childless couples will lose 4.23 per cent a year, a reduction of £2,716.

Wealthier pensioners will lose 3.59 per cent of their income, £1,995 for the richest 10 per cent of the over-65s.

No problems here.

I just assume the Torygraph is moaning on behalf of the wealthy who it is aimed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Chancellor isn't even competent to deliver a budget

We've kinda been in that position for 13 years prior to the LibCons getting in, why comment now? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picture from the Guardian says it all in fewer words... :lol:

Amusingly Osborne is being sued by the Fawcett Society now. Worse than that, a Teresa May memo has surfaced where she warns him that she is concerned his budget was illegal. The rule of law may yet prevail and our posh-but-dim rulers will be forced to do it again like the naughty public schoolboy having to redo his Latin homework. If a Chancellor isn't even competent to deliver a budget, what is the point of him? Maybe if Osborne had a bit more real-world experience and a bit less living off daddy's money experience he'd know that it is important to pay attention to the detail. I wonder who his successor will be when his internship in the government ends?

Producing a budget isn't a one man job though is it? If the budget isn't legal then I would expect a whole load of Treasury Officials to fall on their swords, and not collect pensions on the way to "Go."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've kinda been in that position for 13 years prior to the LibCons getting in, why comment now?   :P

Yes but its in the past. I think a few people here are making monkeys of themselves really by giving Osborne a free pass because he isn't Gordon Brown. Have you heard him give an interview recently? 'Progressive austerity' indeed, he talks utter nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Producing a budget isn't a one man job though is it? If the budget isn't legal then I would expect a whole load of Treasury Officials to fall on their swords, and not collect pensions on the way to "Go."

The budget was largely written by people from the Big 4. Don't be so naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The budget was largely written by people from the Big 4. Don't be so naive.

Big four banks, yeh no doubt but I would have thought some attempt be made at legality. Hang on this was a coup. Maybe not! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big four banks, yeh no doubt but I would have thought some attempt be made at legality. Hang on this was a coup. Maybe not! :lol:

No, the Big 4 are accountancy consultants. Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst & Young, PwC. This wasn't done in secret, they declared the time they were donating at the time of the election. I wrote about it a bit here, nobody seemed very interested *shrug*

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but its in the past.

OK, but bear that in mind re. Thatcher. :P

I think a few people here are making monkeys of themselves really by giving Osborne a free pass because he isn't Gordon Brown. Have you heard him give an interview recently? 'Progressive austerity' indeed, he talks utter nonsense.

Maybe. I don't have a TV and tend to get my news from reading rather than video so I'm not really too aware of how Osborne comes across. I don't think I've ever heard him speak once.

The actual policies though, shorn of spin and television manner, I seem to like.

I think he probably does deserve a free pass for a bit. He's only had, what, six months? probably be a couple of years before we can judge his performance.

Well, free pass and free pass - any politics should always be challenged, IMHO, but we can't really judge him yet.

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but bear that in mind re. Thatcher. :P

Maybe. I don't have a TV and tend to get my news from reading rather than video so I'm not really too aware of how Osborne comes across. I don't think I've ever heard him speak once.

I have, and I don't think he's up to the job. Not that it matters, as he's the actor chosen for the role of "Chancellor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote about it a bit here, nobody seemed very interested *shrug*

Must have missed it. Quite easy for stuff to get buried in forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, while the institute's analysis confirms Treasury forecasts that every section of society will be worse off as a result of the Budget, it indicates a large disparity in how it affects different people. The wealthiest 10 per cent of families with children — those with household earnings of about £100,000 a year — will lose a total of 6.68 per cent (£6,658) of their annual income.

Top-earning childless couples will lose 4.23 per cent a year, a reduction of £2,716.

Wealthier pensioners will lose 3.59 per cent of their income, £1,995 for the richest 10 per cent of the over-65s.

No problems here.

Bet that doesn't take into account the 'hidden' rampaging inflation of 15-20%? of all basic living necessities - being covered up/never mentioned by our cheating Govt & big business!

Which hits the low paid far harder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hands up anyone who thought the tories give a sh*t!

Do not expect anything less than 5 years of self serving pocket lining for the countries top 1% of earners. Every tory government will and always has done it's very best to stratify society as much as is possible in a given time, the bigger the gap between the top and the bottom the better they think their policies are working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but bear that in mind re. Thatcher. :P

Maybe. I don't have a TV and tend to get my news from reading rather than video so I'm not really too aware of how Osborne comes across. I don't think I've ever heard him speak once.

The actual policies though, shorn of spin and television manner, I seem to like.

I think he probably does deserve a free pass for a bit. He's only had, what, six months? probably be a couple of years before we can judge his performance.

Well, free pass and free pass - any politics should always be challenged, IMHO, but we can't really judge him yet.

The Thatcher thing is more vexed. Thatcher in particular claimed she was transforming the country socially and culturally as well as economically. You can't both believe that and then say she had no impact on our present lives. Anyhow, I don't want to derail this thread, we can take up the Thatcher legacy elsewhere if required.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picture from the Guardian says it all in fewer words... :lol:

Chancellor-George-Osborne-006.jpg

Amusingly Osborne is being sued by the Fawcett Society now. Worse than that, a Teresa May memo has surfaced where she warns him that she is concerned his budget was illegal. The rule of law may yet prevail and our posh-but-dim rulers will be forced to do it again like the naughty public schoolboy having to redo his Latin homework. If a Chancellor isn't even competent to deliver a budget, what is the point of him? Maybe if Osborne had a bit more real-world experience and a bit less living off daddy's money experience he'd know that it is important to pay attention to the detail. I wonder who his successor will be when his internship in the government ends?

Blah blah, he's rich and i'm not blah blah, privileged therefore incompetent, blah blah.

Will you only be happy when the government is formed from a working class, fully state schooled Labour party?

If so, you'll never be happy. Take the potato off your shoulder cogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Won't someone please think of the children?!"

Looks like they are trying to stop children being used as a income supplement. Good. As one who has absolutely no interest in multiplying I don't see why I should have to pay an increased levy in taxes so that breeders can fritter the money away on the latest toy craze.

Short message, if you want children, you'd better make sure you can afford to raise them.

Who will you be relying on to pay tax during your retirement?

Have any of you ‘I don’t want kids / won’t have kids / don’t see why I should pay for others to have kids’ brigade including various Tory press ever thought that in order to pay for future retirement and in order to fund future spending we might actually need a bunch of people to WORK AND PAY TAXES? And seeing as you will need these people to work in the future in order for you to sit back and relax in retirement, if you cannot be arsed with putting in the effort to have your own children or do not see it as something you would like to do / cannot do it might actually be worth investing a bit of money in encouraging other people to create the workforce of the future?

Or do you want us to continue with encouraging mass immigration of working age people into the country?

Which is it to be? Import immigrants or encourage an increase in the birth rate in order to fund our future? You choose.

PS: I am not suggesting that the current benefits system is perfect – it is anything but perfect and needs re-working – but we sill need to provide an environment whereby people are encouraged to ‘make’ our future workforce as opposed to complaining that we ‘don’t want kids so shouldn’t have to pay for them out of our taxes’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah, he's rich and i'm not blah blah, privileged therefore incompetent, blah blah.

Will you only be happy when the government is formed from a working class, fully state schooled Labour party?

If so, you'll never be happy. Take the potato off your shoulder cogs.

No, its fine for people to be rich and competent, they certainly exist. But it is certainly through some sort of effort and struggle that we achieve both 'things' and character; rich people certainly can do this, its just they have the option of not bothering. Wealth can be a bit of a disability sometimes (a la Paris Hilton), one of the things public schools try to inculcate are notions of vocation and service to counteract this tendency. In Osborne I see no real evidence he has been prepared to put the extra effort in. He's bumbled his way into power largely off the back of being David Cameron's chum rather than 'will to power'.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who will you be relying on to pay tax during your retirement?

Have any of you ‘I don’t want kids / won’t have kids / don’t see why I should pay for others to have kids’ brigade including various Tory press ever thought that in order to pay for future retirement and in order to fund future spending we might actually need a bunch of people to WORK AND PAY TAXES? And seeing as you will need these people to work in the future in order for you to sit back and relax in retirement, if you cannot be arsed with putting in the effort to have your own children or do not see it as something you would like to do / cannot do it might actually be worth investing a bit of money in encouraging other people to create the workforce of the future?

Or do you want us to continue with encouraging mass immigration of working age people into the country?

Which is it to be? Import immigrants or encourage an increase in the birth rate in order to fund our future? You choose.

PS: I am not suggesting that the current benefits system is perfect – it is anything but perfect and needs re-working – but we sill need to provide an environment whereby people are encouraged to ‘make’ our future workforce as opposed to complaining that we ‘don’t want kids so shouldn’t have to pay for them out of our taxes’

On the contrary, if you reduce the subsidies to have kids, you will find that the responsible have less tax to pay, and they can have their own kids instead. All you are changing is who has the kids.

FWIW, society would be better off if more kids were born to the responsible and less to the irresponsible would it not Mr Irresponsible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah, he's rich and i'm not blah blah, privileged therefore incompetent, blah blah.

Will you only be happy when the government is formed from a working class, fully state schooled Labour party?

If so, you'll never be happy. Take the potato off your shoulder cogs.

Yeah Cogs - get that chip of your shoulder - only 16 of the front bench are Eton educated millionaires with massive inherited fortunes.

What are you expecting - normal people with experinence of working for a living and having to think about paying bills etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.