To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
A new Tory leader might change that, or just a reaction against Cameron's second term might change it, but I do not think just being 'as right wing as before' would put people off. The left-right spectrum is largely nonsense, and it doesn't matter if Ed M or Jezza are not as left wing as portrayed, or if Cameron or Osborne are more right wing th.
I think being very right-wing does affect GE chances, as does how left-wing you are. I think it influences how people interpret your capacity to solve solutions to the country's issues. I think Cameron appealed to a lot of people, because as you say, he doesn't come across as threatening, but as a moderate. Cameron, however won't leader in 2020. Osborne, most likely will be - someone who is far more ideological Cameron, and therefore someone with the capacity to come across as more 'extreme' than Cameron, without Cameron's affableness, or likeability.
It might well happen like that, but I disagree that being very right or left wing matters at all, not in actuality. Being seen as extreme might be, hence why the leader is particularly important (if Red Ed proposed something, well, it must be very left wing), but if we are saying certain policy positions are left or right, I don't think it makes any difference - that's why people who identify on left or right will like or dislike policies to some degree depending on who is the one proposing it, because people think left or right are clear ideological divisions when they are not, and many of everyone's beliefs flit about between them.
A few hard left or right policies here or there, and a cover of more moderate positioning, and you can do anything. It'san extreme interpretation, but it's the reason some on the left say Blair was a Tory, just using the language of Labour, and why the same accusation has been made of Cameron in reverse - people are just justifying their tribal divisions of left or right however inconsistently they have to. Sure, certain economic ideas in particular lean more to one of those tribes than the others, but that doesn't prevent the other side borrowing the bits they like, proving its nonsense in my book.
I actually liked a defence of UKIP's scattergun approach in the GE on the basis that what's wrong with pick and mixing policies people like - it's just harder to find an ideology to feel morally superior about.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
But you do know that every single one of those 3 million voters was due to lose ALL of their child tax credits under Gordon Brown ?
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
Under Brown's rules on the 31st August after the child turns 16 you lose the tax credit.
UNLESS - the child is cruelly forced into education or a training course.
So everyone who had tax credits was going to lose them eventually.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Will we see an Armageddon as massive as when Child benefit for those over 60k pa was cruelly hacked away ? That was going to swing the election according to "Newsense".
Child Benefit cuts for the higher earners affected relatively few ...a couple of hundred thousand of those who could afford it most...hence nobody really cared that much
These cuts affect 3 million of those who can afford it the least...let's see
But you do know that every single one of those 3 million voters was due to lose ALL of their child tax credits under Gordon Brown ?
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
Under Brown's rules on the 31st August after the child turns 16 you lose the tax credit.
UNLESS - the child is cruelly forced into education or a training course.
So everyone who had tax credits was going to lose them eventually.
The kids should be down the pit by that point though Harry.
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
I didn't make up 'facts' - see my reply. That a household with income of more than 100k can still get CB is not 'cutting CB for the well-off'. If you cut it for the well-off, you do so by both household income and individual income.
Since when have taxes in this country been set on household incomes? That's simply not true.
@ kraken wakes Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Yes you are probably right - It is a matter of fairness that some families have few children. The problem is that for those families who ALREADY have children then the impact is going to be massive. I repeat, a couple both working...one on £24,000 the other working part time on £8,000 with three kids at school will, in 2016/2017 lose £1,981
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
And regardless, Osborne still got rid of child benefit for the well off. And reduced pension relief for the very well off. And made stamp duty more onerous on the extremely well off. But keep peddling your memes.
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
Yep that was a couple of years ago - didn't seem to affect the GE result too much. The key point about the budget is it is designed to encourage work and disincentivise [is that a word?] benefits. It also puts pressure on employers to make up some of the difference and increases the tax free allowance and child-care provision. The aim is surely laudable - of course you can argue it will fail - but the govt has the mandate to sort out the benefit mess. We should all hope they succeed and that work begins to pay. I expect more reforms from Osborne before he is finished - maybe the merging of Tax and NI. Pensioners under 65 may not get off scot-free there - I'm one of them. however, I'd support this reform however, as in other respects the coalition measures have been good for the elderly.
Yes of course, because most people on benefits choose benefits as a lifestyle choice, as opposed to relying on them. As said before, if the Tories aims of 'incentivising work' was genuine, there wouldn't be clear discrepancies between how welfare reform is directed at the low-paid and the unemployed - groups that traditionally don't vote Tory - and welfare reform towards groups that do vote Tory such as they well-off and the middle classes.
As for employers - like they will really feel pressure to increase their wages. Wage depression has been going on for years, despite the introduction and increases in the minimum wage.
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
How antiquated and naive of you. Why not consider a hashtag instead?
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
Really? Herself didn't seem to have those problems, lots of time for coffee mornings etc... Perhaps ladies at naturally better at it than men
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
I didn't make up 'facts' - see my reply. That a household with income of more than 100k can still get CB is not 'cutting CB for the well-off'. If you cut it for the well-off, you do so by both household income and individual income.
Since when have taxes in this country been set on household incomes? That's simply not true.
I'm not advocating, or saying taxes be set on household incomes. I'm saying if you're going cut CB for the well-off, you do so by looking at individual and household income. Otherwise, in a lot of cases many well-off people are still keeping their CB, and so CB isn't being cut for the well-off.
What you have to realise is that these marginal tax rates have existed for as long as tax credits have existed and were a poverty trap that meant that 16 hours were viewed as a cap and not a starting point to work under Gordon Brown's byzantine mess.
Osborne started the process of fixing this mess years ago raising the threshold repeatedly cutting the tax on the poorest. The fact that you blame George Osborne for Gordon Brown's tax rates shows you to be either disingenuous or ignorant. .
Up to a point, Mr Thompson. What you really mean, I think, is that the Liberal Democrats as part of the Government raised the threshold. The Conservative priority was to give tax breaks to dead millionaires - which they are now doing, of course. As well to keep the record straight.
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
If the meeting had decided its nomination on the basis of which candidate got the loudest and longest applause then Corbyn would have won. But it used the alternative vote system, the one to be employed to decide the actual outcome in September. This saw Yvette Cooper win the Withington nomination very easily by 110 votes to Jeremy Corbyn’s 55, with Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham barely troubling the tellers. Burnham’s poor performance was surprising given north west England is meant to be one of his strongholds and that he had been endorsed by the local MP. In fact this was one of five CLP nominations Cooper picked up on Thursday night from within Greater Manchester. Some mentioned his volte-face over the Welfare Bill vote as a reason: but frankly who knows?! What is clear is that while Corbyn’s case for going back to a “socialism” untainted by compromise resonated at the meeting Healey’s more sober argument for Cooper prevailed.
========================================
THIS is why I expect Corbyn to lose ...he is a lot of noise from those burning with the zeal of the converted , but the more sober minded benefit from the AV voting system
The whole article can be read at the New Statesman
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
Samuel Goldwyn:
I find the harder I work the luckier I get
I think it's somewhat of a fallacy that success is the result of hard work. It comes from outside, not inside. You can't push a peice of string up a hill can you? Even Thatcher, surely the ultimate recent icon of the hard work and determination principle would have got nowhere without Airey Neave using her to bring down Ted Heath. And before that by marrying Dennis which allowed her to pursue her political career. You need sponsors. Cameron had good sponsors all the way through, as anyone successful has.
It's a combination of natural ability, opportunity (including contacts), luck and hard work.
Sometimes it's important to be in the right place at the right time.
I've built my entire career on a random, unimportant, decision in 1997. And it's ended up with me being a key player in a niche but not insignificant industry.
Mary Beard and Billy Bragg now on the JC steamroller..
True story: around 10 years back, when the Fotopic site was still up and running, I had a website on there with pics of the A13 road in Essex and East London. Emailed Billy requesting he let me name my site after his song "A13 - Trunk Road to the Sea" - and he agreed!
I feel a bit sorry for Apocalypse getting ganged up on a bit here..
Sure - but the lesson is: don't make up "facts" that aren't supported by history! That was one thing tim was very good for (at least for me!) - if he was on a thread (and when wasn't he?) then you'd better have made sure your argument rested on solid foundations.
I didn't make up 'facts' - see my reply. That a household with income of more than 100k can still get CB is not 'cutting CB for the well-off'. If you cut it for the well-off, you do so by both household income and individual income.
Since when have taxes in this country been set on household incomes? That's simply not true.
I'm not advocating, or saying taxes be set on household incomes. I'm saying if you're going cut CB for the well-off, you do so by looking at individual and household income. Otherwise, in a lot of cases many well-off people are still keeping their CB, and so CB isn't being cut for the well-off.
You don't consider the practicality of a measure?
To consider child benefit on Household income and everything else on individual income would waste an awful lot of money. Sometimes there is a compromise between the perfect solution and a practical solution.
There was a time when there was a married couples allowance, all very sexist and demeaning to the little wife at home, was I think the argument against it.
Using household income is one step forward, two back and more cost.
Stephen Bush thinks Corbyn is going to do it, and adds a lovely anecdote:
At one contest there were just 25 ballots: nine for Jeremy Corbyn, eight for Andy Burnham, four for Yvette Cooper, and one simply reading “Fuck Kendall”.
============================
I don't think Stephen Bush knows how to read between the lines ; if he were a homicide detective he couldn't find his way out of the rain
Gordon Brown??? The IFS have said that the cuts will cost 3 million families an average of £1,300
Are the IFS privvy to the 2017/2018 personal tax allowance information? How about the rate of the living wage? How about the payrises their fictitious family are being awarded by their employers?
In short, they do not know.
The figures are for 2016/2017...already published...they know
It might well happen like that, but I disagree that being very right or left wing matters at all, not in actuality. Being seen as extreme might be, hence why the leader is particularly important (if Red Ed proposed something, well, it must be very left wing), but if we are saying certain policy positions are left or right, I don't think it makes any difference - that's why people who identify on left or right will like or dislike policies to some degree depending on who is the one proposing it, because people think left or right are clear ideological divisions when they are not, and many of everyone's beliefs flit about between them.
A few hard left or right policies here or there, and a cover of more moderate positioning, and you can do anything. It'san extreme interpretation, but it's the reason some on the left say Blair was a Tory, just using the language of Labour, and why the same accusation has been made of Cameron in reverse - people are just justifying their tribal divisions of left or right however inconsistently they have to. Sure, certain economic ideas in particular lean more to one of those tribes than the others, but that doesn't prevent the other side borrowing the bits they like, proving its nonsense in my book.
I actually liked a defence of UKIP's scattergun approach in the GE on the basis that what's wrong with pick and mixing policies people like - it's just harder to find an ideology to feel morally superior about.
I think being 'extreme' is being seen as very left or right wing. I agree that certain policy positions isn't an issue but that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about generally very right-wing, or very left-wing individuals.
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
Really? Herself didn't seem to have those problems, lots of time for coffee mornings etc... Perhaps ladies at naturally better at it than men
She's obviously a superwoman.
From talking to friends, it gets easier when they go to nursery or school.
Still, they're away on holiday for two weeks. So guess what I do? Go on a bender? Go for a long walk? Have a party?
I think one of the challenges the Left faces (or rather, is failing to face, but should), is its continual use of hyperbolic language which, due to repetition, simply loses its effect.
The NHS has not collapsed, despite being run by some flavour of non-Labour administrations for forty odd years out of the last seventy. It will always be under pressure and under funded because of the limitless demands placed upon it by its customers.
Rightwingers do not want to punish the poor, no matter how many times its asserted, no matter how hysterical the language. People have to expect to pay their way, think about family planning; help should focused on the truly needy.
We are currently running a deficit of around £75 billion (i.e. we're borrowing 10% of our spending), while paying debt servicing costs north of £40 billion p.a. Over the life of this government that will go up to a total of around £250 billion. I have yet to see a single credible suggestion from the left as to how they would address this - i.e. what cuts WOULD they make? Alternatively, what tax rises (that would actually raise the money as opposed to mere gesture politics) would they propose?
I would very much like to see Osborne tackle middle-class and wealthy pensioner benefits. That he hasn't (yet) diminishes him to a merely political chancellor, rather than a great reforming one. I still hope he will.
To consider child benefit on Household income and everything else on individual income would waste an awful lot of money. Sometimes there is a compromise between the perfect solution and a practical solution.
There was a time when there was a married couples allowance, all very sexist and demeaning to the little wife at home, was I think the argument against it.
Using household income is one step forward, two back and more cost.
If the Conservatives' don't want to invest the money in making sure a CB cut for the well-off was properly enforced then that's fine. But they can't claim, in reality that CB is being cut for the well-off, but are simply administering a compromise.
I don't get the point of a married couple's allowance. Being married doesn't make anyone better, or more special.
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
Quite so - low inflation has been a huge boon for pensioners with the least-supportable part of the triple lock (the 2.5%) coming into play.
@ kraken wakes Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Yes you are probably right - It is a matter of fairness that some families have few children. The problem is that for those families who ALREADY have children then the impact is going to be massive. I repeat, a couple both working...one on £24,000 the other working part time on £8,000 with three kids at school will, in 2016/2017 lose £1,981
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
First of all Felix...it's tax credits we're talking about not child benefit. Did you not understand the point which was that for every pound the "part-time parent" earned to achieve a "better life-style", they would only get to see 21 pence...got it?
It depends on how many kids the couple has...at some point the eligibility to tax credits will...I think it's around £37,000 for a couple with three kids. Clearly if your a lower income then the longer that rate will apply.
The same rate would apply to a single parent on £16,000 - if they increased their salary by £4,000 the net increase in their family income would be just £850.
Of course three kids will be beyond the cap in a few years time so if people want to plan for a third kid that will be their choice, as it is for everyone else. Fairness right?
EDIT: And that tax rate would have for anyone above £6,475 under Gordon Brown, not well over £10,000.
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
Future pensioners haven't though - the age of entry to pensioner-hood has been raised
"From December 2018, it will start to increase for both men and women to reach 66 by October 2020. The government is planning further increases, which will raise the state pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. They will then review it every five years in line with life expectancy."
To a degree Cameron is lucky. He appears quite detached from the actual details of politics, a large amount of the Conservative operation is run by Osborne. Cameron is just the affable front-man for it. The interesting this, the Tories at their heart appear uninterested in the modernising agenda. They are arguably just as right-wing as they were before.
Samuel Goldwyn:
I find the harder I work the luckier I get
I think it's somewhat of a fallacy that success is the result of hard work. It comes from outside, not inside. You can't push a peice of string up a hill can you? Even Thatcher, surely the ultimate recent icon of the hard work and determination principle would have got nowhere without Airey Neave using her to bring down Ted Heath. And before that by marrying Dennis which allowed her to pursue her political career. You need sponsors. Cameron had good sponsors all the way through, as anyone successful has.
It's a combination of natural ability, opportunity (including contacts), luck and hard work.
Sometimes it's important to be in the right place at the right time.
I've built my entire career on a random, unimportant, decision in 1997. And it's ended up with me being a key player in a niche but not insignificant industry.
I've been very "lucky" too. I (slightly arrogantly) presume that something else would have turned up eventually, and I'd have made some sort of success of it, but really things couldn't have gone much better since I got into my industry, more through luck than judgement. Apart from having to move oop North, natch.
Mind you, my first proper post-graduation job was with Enron, so perhaps I earned some luck.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
Yep that was a couple of years ago - didn't seem to affect the GE result too much. The key point about the budget is it is designed to encourage work and disincentivise [is that a word?] benefits. It also puts pressure on employers to make up some of the difference and increases the tax free allowance and child-care provision. The aim is surely laudable - of course you can argue it will fail - but the govt has the mandate to sort out the benefit mess. We should all hope they succeed and that work begins to pay. I expect more reforms from Osborne before he is finished - maybe the merging of Tax and NI. Pensioners under 65 may not get off scot-free there - I'm one of them. however, I'd support this reform however, as in other respects the coalition measures have been good for the elderly. Yes of course, because most people on benefits choose benefits as a lifestyle choice, as opposed to relying on them. As said before, if the Tories aims of 'incentivising work' was genuine, there wouldn't be clear discrepancies between how welfare reform is directed at the low-paid and the unemployed - groups that traditionally don't vote Tory - and welfare reform towards groups that do vote Tory such as they well-off and the middle classes.
As for employers - like they will really feel pressure to increase their wages. Wage depression has been going on for years, despite the introduction and increases in the minimum wage.
As I said you can argue the measures will fail and the benefit recipients will return a Labour govt just like they did in May after the benefit cuts from the previous govt - oh wait! Alternatively they can seek to work more hours at better rates of pay - which has always been what most people do who want to get on in life.
To consider child benefit on Household income and everything else on individual income would waste an awful lot of money. Sometimes there is a compromise between the perfect solution and a practical solution.
There was a time when there was a married couples allowance, all very sexist and demeaning to the little wife at home, was I think the argument against it.
Using household income is one step forward, two back and more cost.
If the Conservatives' don't want to invest the money in making sure a CB cut for the well-off was properly enforced then that's fine. But they can't claim, in reality that CB is being cut for the well-off, but are simply administering a compromise.
I don't get the point of a married couple's allowance. Being married doesn't make anyone better, or more special.
As it happens, there are huge tax breaks for marriage (in terms of IHT and CGT) but they only apply if you're well-off.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
Really? Herself didn't seem to have those problems, lots of time for coffee mornings etc... Perhaps ladies at naturally better at it than men
She's obviously a superwoman.
From talking to friends, it gets easier when they go to nursery or school.
Still, they're away on holiday for two weeks. So guess what I do? Go on a bender? Go for a long walk? Have a party?
No.
I'm decorating.
At least with decorating you are free for a bit of a flight around the galaxy once the light starts to go.
@felix You're obsessed with the GE....even though I didn't bring it up. Although I should point out that 13m families will be affected by budget cuts. This is in contrast to the 500k affected by HB changes, and the 1.2m affected by CB changes....
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
To consider child benefit on Household income and everything else on individual income would waste an awful lot of money. Sometimes there is a compromise between the perfect solution and a practical solution.
There was a time when there was a married couples allowance, all very sexist and demeaning to the little wife at home, was I think the argument against it.
Using household income is one step forward, two back and more cost.
If the Conservatives' don't want to invest the money in making sure a CB cut for the well-off was properly enforced then that's fine. But they can't claim, in reality that CB is being cut for the well-off, but are simply administering a compromise.
I don't get the point of a married couple's allowance. Being married doesn't make anyone better, or more special.
As it happens, there are huge tax breaks for marriage (in terms of IHT and CGT) but they only apply if you're well-off.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
Really? Herself didn't seem to have those problems, lots of time for coffee mornings etc... Perhaps ladies at naturally better at it than men
She's obviously a superwoman.
From talking to friends, it gets easier when they go to nursery or school.
Still, they're away on holiday for two weeks. So guess what I do? Go on a bender? Go for a long walk? Have a party?
No.
I'm decorating.
At least with decorating you are free for a bit of a flight around the galaxy once the light starts to go.
Why wait for the light? I'm just docking at Zamka Platform in my T-7. Whilst the plaster dries. Ahem.
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
What? I'm talking about taking both incomes into account when paying CB.
Those receiving tax credits are going to be losing up to 79% of everything they earn. A couple earning £32,000 with three kids will lose £1,981 (after income tax reductions).
@TheKrakenAwakes For the avoidance of doubt what is your own position on tax credits for the couple in the example that you quote?: [ ] Tax credits should remain unchanged [ ] Tax credits should be reduced - if so, by how much? [ ] Tax credits should be increased - if so, by how much?
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
I think that 50% is too high a tax rate, but I do think it's reasonable that both incomes should be taken into account when paying taxes. Why should one household that have one earning £20k and one earning £40k have to pay more tax than a household where both are earning £30k?
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
And when Labour put up taxes, it hit men more than women. Yet nobody seemed to worry about that. Do we just think women are more important than men?
I notice that all of yesterday the BBC bulletins led with the phrase "Lord Sewel is not affiliated to any political party"...then i wake up this morning to find he has been suspended by Labour Party.
I didn't know random political parties could just go about suspending non-affiliated individuals from involvement in their party.
Even so, in the episode ‘Rebel Without a Pause’, broadcast in December 1978, Wolfie gets serious. Standing underneath Karl Marx’s memorial in Highgate Cemetery he has this conversation with girl friend Shirl (who has no interest in politics and only wants him to get married and get a proper job).
Shirl: Maybe the people of Britain don’t want [your kind of] ‘freedom’.
Wolfie: Of course they do.
Shirl: They might not.
Wolfie: Well they’re going to get it whether they want it or not … They’re confused Shirl, they’re bewildered by the shifting sands of class. … The working class, yer actual working class, it’s suddenly become trendy so now you’ve got different standards of it. You’ve got your ‘working class working class’, the miners, shipbuilders, steelworkers, you know true grit, salt of the earth who ate the end of the week get ten bob and a green apple for their sweat. And then you’ve got the ‘middle-class-working-class’: the Vanessa Redgraves, Paul Foots, ex-grammar school boys whose satchels were filled with Das Kapital and Biggles Holds His Own. You see them at universities with their collarless shirts and well-rounded vowels, like a cross between Prince Charles and When the Boat Comes In. And then you’ve got your upper-class-working-class, watered-down Wedgie Benns who lost their political virginity at a jolly wheeze at Twickers. They sit in their private saunas while the au pair turns the pages of the Morning Star and then they put ‘Vote Labour’ stickers at the back of their Rolls Royces.’
What to make of this peculiar moment? Wolfie, a working class young man bereft of a university education – like the author John Sullivan in fact - is resentful of those socialists who come from outside the ‘working class working class’ and yet claim to speak for them from their position of privilege. I doubt that Tony Benn ever had a sauna, let alone an au pair and Rolls Royce, yet he is brought into the mix. Benn, who in 1978 was leading a new generation of university-educated socialists – those with Das Kapital in their satchels – in the task of taking the Labour party into an unprecedented left-wing direction- in the name of the working class - was tarred by Wolfie's brush.
I notice that all of yesterday the BBC bulletins led with the phrase "Lord Sewel is not affiliated to any political party"...then i wake up this morning to find he has been suspended by Labour Party.
I didn't know random political parties could just go about suspending non-affiliated individuals from involvement in their party.
Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to Conservative Central Council (15 March, 1986)
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
And when Labour put up taxes, it hit men more than women. Yet nobody seemed to worry about that. Do we just think women are more important than men?
I don't agree with increased taxation on average or low-paid earners. If you're referring to the 50p rate, then that may just be the case because men earn more than women....
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
It depends. Pensioners, Middle Class voters, and men have all been untouched by this government generally, and are likely to be a reliable voting constituency. Osborne will never get rid of child benefit for the well-off, or the middle classes because it hurts a constituency that votes Tory. As usual, welfare reform is just limited to groups that don't vote Tory.
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole: You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
That's not a loophole: it's by design. Household 1 has one partner enjoying a work-free week. Or "working" for the household doing jobs - cleaning, gardening, childcare that Household 2 may have to pay for out of their joint post-tax income.
(snip)
As I've discovered, looking after a young child leaves precious little time for cleaning or gardening! Sometimes even personal hygiene takes a back seat ...
Really? Herself didn't seem to have those problems, lots of time for coffee mornings etc... Perhaps ladies at naturally better at it than men
She's obviously a superwoman.
From talking to friends, it gets easier when they go to nursery or school.
Still, they're away on holiday for two weeks. So guess what I do? Go on a bender? Go for a long walk? Have a party?
No.
I'm decorating.
At least with decorating you are free for a bit of a flight around the galaxy once the light starts to go.
Why wait for the light? I'm just docking at Zamka Platform in my T-7. Whilst the plaster dries. Ahem.
A T7! Sheesh, I am more than 600 hours in and haven't got anywhere near the cash to afford that beast. I must go off and play some more. Have fun.
I think that 50% is too high a tax rate, but I do think it's reasonable that both incomes should be taken into account when paying taxes. Why should one household that have one earning £20k and one earning £40k have to pay more tax than a household where both are earning £30k?
Eilzabeth Warren did some very good work when she was still an academic on the economics of family units. She demonstrated very persuasively that budgeting based on two incomes makes families more prone to risks from illness or loss of a job. It's a strong argument for allowing a non-working partner to transfer their tax allowance to their spouse.
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
What? I'm talking about taking both incomes into account when paying CB.
But the principle that you are saying is that for some benefits / taxes household income matters and for others personal income matters. Why should an individual be disadvantaged based on their partner's income (of which they may see zero)
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
It sniffs as being wrong, and from 2013:
Over the past 40 years there has been a rise in the percentage of women aged 16 to 64 in employment and a fall in the percentage of men. In April to June 2013 around 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work, an increase from 53% in 1971. For men the percentage fell to 76% in 2013 from 92% in 1971.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
Presumably this was a ham fisted attempt at saying that of the unemployed (a much smaller number than was usual in the past 25 years) there was a higher female:male ratio than at any point in the last 25 year...
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
What? I'm talking about taking both incomes into account when paying CB.
But the principle that you are saying is that for some benefits / taxes household income matters and for others personal income matters. Why should an individual be disadvantaged based on their partner's income (of which they may see zero)
They aren't being disadvantaged, because it's not an either/or thing. Both partners incomes will be contributing to overall household income, so therefore it's fair that's taken in account when receiving benefits. Personal income is different, as the government is taking rather than giving.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
It sniffs as being wrong, and from 2013:
Over the past 40 years there has been a rise in the percentage of women aged 16 to 64 in employment and a fall in the percentage of men. In April to June 2013 around 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work, an increase from 53% in 1971. For men the percentage fell to 76% in 2013 from 92% in 1971.
On-topic, I thought there was a convention of sorts that if a party was choosing a new leader, the other parties stayed out of it. That doesn't seem to stop the supporters of said other parties thinking what a good idea it would be to pay £3 to distort the contest but I suppose it's no worse than vote-swapping so there you go..
It would be wholly inappropriate for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats to involve themselves officially or to state a presence for any candidate during the period of the election.
I do think however that while the Government of the country is continuing, it is wholly appropriate for Ministers to respond to issues pertaining to that governance but not to involve themselves in the internal debate within another party. Absenting themselves from interviews relating to the day-to-day business of Government seems wrong.
I think it's a good idea for the conservatives to stay off the airwaves. The Labour leadership contest is beginning to quieten down now, as hustings have finished and the ballot is not for another 3 weeks.
It is the silly season and the MSM will look for any political story, however, trivial to 'big up'.
Having said that, I think it's a good look for the PM to be on a trade mission and George Osborne to be in Paris, whilst Labour are otherwise engaged.
I listened to LBC yesterday and it was amazing how many 'mature' people rang up who said they were going to vote for JC. These were non-Labour voters but felt JC was 'authentic'. I can't read this at all.
@felix You're obsessed with the GE....even though I didn't bring it up. Although I should point out that 13m families will be affected by budget cuts. This is in contrast to the 500k affected by HB changes, and the 1.2m affected by CB changes....
I can fully understand why you aren't obsessed by the GE result - except it is kind of why we are where we are. Like it or loathe it the govt has a mandate and I would hope everyone would wish them well in their attempts to reform a welfare system which is not fit for purpose - as evidenced by your second sentence.
Pensioners have been unscathed. The middle classes and men who aren't pensioners have had to bear a heavy burden.
A great majority of the cuts, will affect women more so than men. Women are more likely to be low-paid, and therefore will rely on benefits more so than men. Women are more likely to be working in the public sector - a sector which will be hit by cuts. There is a good reason for the gap between the genders in voting for those under-55.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Tissue Price's graph (a few posts upthread) shows that the biggest burden from 2010-15 was borne by the wealthiest 10% of the population - by some margin.
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
On the wealthy - well of course that kind of graph shows that, the wealthy have more to take from. But the wealthy, will still be wealthy, they'll still be able to keep up the lifestyle that they are used to. Whereas a family who, for example are losing money they would have gotten from the government will now have a significant income shortfall, and will face struggles to pay bills. Likewise many who lose their jobs as a result of cuts will now have to find new employment - the wealthy will still have an income coming in.
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
It sniffs as being wrong, and from 2013:
Over the past 40 years there has been a rise in the percentage of women aged 16 to 64 in employment and a fall in the percentage of men. In April to June 2013 around 67% of women aged 16 to 64 were in work, an increase from 53% in 1971. For men the percentage fell to 76% in 2013 from 92% in 1971.
(*) IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail.
Absolutely agree. Not just engineers - anyone working in a system with high consequences when things go wrong. Economists and executive managers listen up.
@felix You're obsessed with the GE....even though I didn't bring it up. Although I should point out that 13m families will be affected by budget cuts. This is in contrast to the 500k affected by HB changes, and the 1.2m affected by CB changes....
I can fully understand why you aren't obsessed by the GE result - except it is kind of why we are where we are. Like it or loathe it the govt has a mandate and I would hope everyone would wish them well in their attempts to reform a welfare system which is not fit for purpose - as evidenced by your second sentence.
Like it or loathe it the government hasn't yet banned people from being critical of them
I think it's a good idea for the conservatives to stay off the airwaves. The Labour leadership contest is beginning to quieten down now, as hustings have finished and the ballot is not for another 3 weeks.
It is the silly season and the MSM will look for any political story, however, trivial to 'big up'.
Having said that, I think it's a good look for the PM to be on a trade mission and George Osborne to be in Paris, whilst Labour are otherwise engaged.
I listened to LBC yesterday and it was amazing how many 'mature' people rang up who said they were going to vote for JC. These were non-Labour voters but felt JC was 'authentic'. I can't read this at all.
The women's unemployment rate is a strange stat, because it only considers those actively seeking work, which means long term the movement of women from staying at home into the workforce has put upwards pressure on unemployment. Which means the employment rate hit an all time high at the same time the unemployment rate with a 25 year high (i.e. since the last recession).
How much had the female population increased by during that period, and how much of the decrease occurred before 2010?
Why does it matter?
Because a marginally larger number of a larger number can still be a smaller percentage; hence we could both be right: you are talking raw numbers, I'm talking percentages.
(*) IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail.
Absolutely agree. Not just engineers - anyone working in a system with high consequences when things go wrong. Economists and executive managers listen up.
There's a possibly apocryphal story from the 1960s. A company was trying to sell a new gubbins (electronic, I think) to NASA for the Apollo program. NASA agreed to a meeting, and flew people over.
The company arranged a load of management in a room, and they were surprised when a group of men with pocket-protectors walked in. The management team gave the spiel about how brilliant their product was, how well it would do the job, and how NASA would be stupid not to use it.
At the end they asked for any questions. A NASA engineer simply asked: "How does it fail?"
None of the management knew, and after this they ensured they had engineers in all their meetings with NASA.
(I'd love to know where I heard this story, but cannot remember)
He didn't get rid of CB for the well-off. Getting rid of it for the well-off means including not only individual, but also household income. It doesn't matter how much tax Household 2 has to pay. A joint income of nearly 100k, is by any definition 'well-off'. That Osborne did this essentially shows that this so-called 'CB cut for the well-off' was a part of his usual political PR stunts, as opposed to genuine reform.
And as for reduced pension relief, that's nothing compared to the triple lock, and pensioners keeping all their benefits including free winter fuel allowance etc. The IFS concluded that the budget overall was regressive - impact far more on poorer than richer households. Lone moves on the 'well-off' and the pensioners don't change that overall, the budget was beneficial to these groups.
So you believe that we should go back to taxing women based on how much their husbands/partners earn*? Interesting. The Tories abolished that in the 80s... I guess Labour really does want to take us back to the 70s
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
No, I believe both incomes should be taken in account.
So, when my wife earned £21,000 as a civil servant she should have been taxed at 50% because I was doing ok?
I think that 50% is too high a tax rate, but I do think it's reasonable that both incomes should be taken into account when paying taxes. Why should one household that have one earning £20k and one earning £40k have to pay more tax than a household where both are earning £30k?
We've had individual taxation for some time now and I can see no good reason for changing this. It was originally a measure strongly supported by feminists who did not like the idea that women's earnings were some sort of lipstick money to be added to those of the main - male - earner. I don't see why we should go back to those sort of days which taxation on a household basis would necessarily mean.
As for child benefit, this was paid to the woman for very good reason: to give her some indepedent income to recognise the costs of raising a child. Originally Labour wanted it paid to the man and women successfully argued against that. I don't see why child benefit should be based on household incomes when taxation is individual - it might cure some anomalies but would create others.
How much had the female population increased by during that period, and how much of the decrease occurred before 2010?
Why does it matter?
Because a marginally larger number of a larger number can still be a smaller percentage; hence we could both be right: you are talking raw numbers, I'm talking percentages.
You mentioned the raw numbers in regard to supporting my assertion, though.
You need to deal with the fact that for many benefits is a rational choice. A lot of that is ending, but it is there. For many many years welfare has rewarded bad behaviour, and infantilised whole groups of society.
Comments
A few hard left or right policies here or there, and a cover of more moderate positioning, and you can do anything. It'san extreme interpretation, but it's the reason some on the left say Blair was a Tory, just using the language of Labour, and why the same accusation has been made of Cameron in reverse - people are just justifying their tribal divisions of left or right however inconsistently they have to. Sure, certain economic ideas in particular lean more to one of those tribes than the others, but that doesn't prevent the other side borrowing the bits they like, proving its nonsense in my book.
I actually liked a defence of UKIP's scattergun approach in the GE on the basis that what's wrong with pick and mixing policies people like - it's just harder to find an ideology to feel morally superior about.
Mirror PoliticsVerified account
@MirrorPolitics
Andy Burnham promises to table vote of no confidence in Jeremy Hunt #ImInWorkJeremy
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-promises-table-vote-6148268 …
Putting aside fairness for the moment you need to remember that next April these cuts of between £1300 and £2000 will be filiering through to 3 million families. At that point they are going to realise that by the end of the Tory Government their families are likely to be many,many thousands of pounds worse off. They would have had no opportunity to make up the difference because of the high effective marginal rate.
Politically, cutting benefits is viewed as popular by workers- whether it will be viewed as quite so popular when they realise that it's them who are taking the hit we will have to see.
The other thing we will have to see is what effect these cuts will have on the economy as a whole. By reducing spending power to this extent MUST have an impact on the economy particularly as these are the demographic who spend the most.
Alternatively, a reduction in the rate of child birth will greatly alleviate the pressures being felt on class sizes, housing, welfare spending, midwifery, GP services, the NHS, social services etc.
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Yes you are probably right - It is a matter of fairness that some families have few children. The problem is that for those families who ALREADY have children then the impact is going to be massive. I repeat, a couple both working...one on £24,000 the other working part time on £8,000 with three kids at school will, in 2016/2017 lose £1,981
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
Why, because it is an empty gesture?
As for employers - like they will really feel pressure to increase their wages. Wage depression has been going on for years, despite the introduction and increases in the minimum wage.
If the meeting had decided its nomination on the basis of which candidate got the loudest and longest applause then Corbyn would have won. But it used the alternative vote system, the one to be employed to decide the actual outcome in September. This saw Yvette Cooper win the Withington nomination very easily by 110 votes to Jeremy Corbyn’s 55, with Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham barely troubling the tellers. Burnham’s poor performance was surprising given north west England is meant to be one of his strongholds and that he had been endorsed by the local MP. In fact this was one of five CLP nominations Cooper picked up on Thursday night from within Greater Manchester. Some mentioned his volte-face over the Welfare Bill vote as a reason: but frankly who knows?! What is clear is that while Corbyn’s case for going back to a “socialism” untainted by compromise resonated at the meeting Healey’s more sober argument for Cooper prevailed.
========================================
THIS is why I expect Corbyn to lose ...he is a lot of noise from those burning with the zeal of the converted , but the more sober minded benefit from the AV voting system
The whole article can be read at the New Statesman
Sometimes it's important to be in the right place at the right time.
I've built my entire career on a random, unimportant, decision in 1997. And it's ended up with me being a key player in a niche but not insignificant industry.
To consider child benefit on Household income and everything else on individual income would waste an awful lot of money. Sometimes there is a compromise between the perfect solution and a practical solution.
There was a time when there was a married couples allowance, all very sexist and demeaning to the little wife at home, was I think the argument against it.
Using household income is one step forward, two back and more cost.
*I've used this gender construction as, in most cases, the male earns more than the female
From talking to friends, it gets easier when they go to nursery or school.
Still, they're away on holiday for two weeks. So guess what I do? Go on a bender? Go for a long walk? Have a party?
No.
I'm decorating.
The NHS has not collapsed, despite being run by some flavour of non-Labour administrations for forty odd years out of the last seventy. It will always be under pressure and under funded because of the limitless demands placed upon it by its customers.
Rightwingers do not want to punish the poor, no matter how many times its asserted, no matter how hysterical the language. People have to expect to pay their way, think about family planning; help should focused on the truly needy.
We are currently running a deficit of around £75 billion (i.e. we're borrowing 10% of our spending), while paying debt servicing costs north of £40 billion p.a. Over the life of this government that will go up to a total of around £250 billion. I have yet to see a single credible suggestion from the left as to how they would address this - i.e. what cuts WOULD they make? Alternatively, what tax rises (that would actually raise the money as opposed to mere gesture politics) would they propose?
I would very much like to see Osborne tackle middle-class and wealthy pensioner benefits. That he hasn't (yet) diminishes him to a merely political chancellor, rather than a great reforming one. I still hope he will.
I don't get the point of a married couple's allowance. Being married doesn't make anyone better, or more special.
https://twitter.com/TheEponymousBob/status/598456787877105664
Smaller families will also enable parents to focus more on their children, improving behaviour and educational attainment and making the provision of family childcare easier.
Their access to work will improve, and in the process so will their pool of wealth and standard of living.
It is quite easy to see that the communities in our society with the largest numbers of children are the ones who place the greatest demand on the resources provided by everyone else, whilst often making the least contribution towards them.
It is a matter of fairness that some families stop having so many children.
Yes you are probably right - It is a matter of fairness that some families have few children. The problem is that for those families who ALREADY have children then the impact is going to be massive. I repeat, a couple both working...one on £24,000 the other working part time on £8,000 with three kids at school will, in 2016/2017 lose £1,981
I don't think the child benefit changes affect any existing families. In the example you quote surely the part-time parent should seek to work more hours. That was always my approach if I wanted a better lifestyle.
First of all Felix...it's tax credits we're talking about not child benefit. Did you not understand the point which was that for every pound the "part-time parent" earned to achieve a "better life-style", they would only get to see 21 pence...got it?
"From December 2018, it will start to increase for both men and women to reach 66 by October 2020. The government is planning further increases, which will raise the state pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. They will then review it every five years in line with life expectancy."
(don't have access to YouTube, but it's a good song)
Mind you, my first proper post-graduation job was with Enron, so perhaps I earned some luck.
As for the middle classes what heavy burden have they had to bear?
Um, that's precisely what he did. You're entitled to your own argument but not your own facts.
Hmmm, not quite. There was a loophole:
You might have heard a lot about the changes to child benefit in recent months and the main reason why some people are angry is that eligibility for child benefit is being assessed on individual incomes, rather than on household incomes – and in some cases, this loophole seems somewhat unfair.
For example, in Household 1, only one person works, and they earn £60,000 – so child benefit will be cut completely. But in Household 2, both partners work, and they each earn £49,900 (giving a total of £99,800) – but because neither of them earns more than £50,000 individually, they keep all of their child benefit.
Yep that was a couple of years ago - didn't seem to affect the GE result too much. The key point about the budget is it is designed to encourage work and disincentivise [is that a word?] benefits. It also puts pressure on employers to make up some of the difference and increases the tax free allowance and child-care provision. The aim is surely laudable - of course you can argue it will fail - but the govt has the mandate to sort out the benefit mess. We should all hope they succeed and that work begins to pay. I expect more reforms from Osborne before he is finished - maybe the merging of Tax and NI. Pensioners under 65 may not get off scot-free there - I'm one of them. however, I'd support this reform however, as in other respects the coalition measures have been good for the elderly.
Yes of course, because most people on benefits choose benefits as a lifestyle choice, as opposed to relying on them. As said before, if the Tories aims of 'incentivising work' was genuine, there wouldn't be clear discrepancies between how welfare reform is directed at the low-paid and the unemployed - groups that traditionally don't vote Tory - and welfare reform towards groups that do vote Tory such as they well-off and the middle classes.
As for employers - like they will really feel pressure to increase their wages. Wage depression has been going on for years, despite the introduction and increases in the minimum wage.
As I said you can argue the measures will fail and the benefit recipients will return a Labour govt just like they did in May after the benefit cuts from the previous govt - oh wait! Alternatively they can seek to work more hours at better rates of pay - which has always been what most people do who want to get on in life.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/625698765052243968
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-stands-firm-after-andy-burnham-issues-legal-threat-over-nhs-cover-up-row-8862240.html
Perhaps Andy needs to talk about his issues, plenty of therapists might be able to offer some help to reduce his compulsive behaviour.
You're obsessed with the GE....even though I didn't bring it up. Although I should point out that 13m families will be affected by budget cuts. This is in contrast to the 500k affected by HB changes, and the 1.2m affected by CB changes....
A Red Wedgie-wood Benn, perhaps? He'd be luvvin' this.
For the avoidance of doubt what is your own position on tax credits for the couple in the example that you quote?:
[ ] Tax credits should remain unchanged
[ ] Tax credits should be reduced - if so, by how much?
[ ] Tax credits should be increased - if so, by how much?
As for employment by gender, private sector job growth has more than compensated for job losses in the public sector, so that womens' employment is now at its highest ever level.
I didn't know random political parties could just go about suspending non-affiliated individuals from involvement in their party.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to Conservative Central Council (15 March, 1986)
On women's unemployment, under the coalition female unemployment was at its highest point for more than twenty five years. So it's a double edged sword.
Perhaps the raw numbers support her assertion, but I doubt it.
There's lots of good stuff in that link; I'll have to read it when I've delivered a load of Chi Eridani Marine Paste ...
Perhaps the raw numbers support her assertion, but I doubt it.
There's lots of good stuff in that link; I'll have to read it when I've delivered a load of Chi Eridani Marine Paste ...
That doesn't really deal with female unemployment though. The link says that in 2012 1.14m were unemployed - the highest since November 1987.
(*) IMO any engineer worth his salt should study how things fail.
On-topic, I thought there was a convention of sorts that if a party was choosing a new leader, the other parties stayed out of it. That doesn't seem to stop the supporters of said other parties thinking what a good idea it would be to pay £3 to distort the contest but I suppose it's no worse than vote-swapping so there you go..
It would be wholly inappropriate for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats to involve themselves officially or to state a presence for any candidate during the period of the election.
I do think however that while the Government of the country is continuing, it is wholly appropriate for Ministers to respond to issues pertaining to that governance but not to involve themselves in the internal debate within another party. Absenting themselves from interviews relating to the day-to-day business of Government seems wrong.
It is the silly season and the MSM will look for any political story, however, trivial to 'big up'.
Having said that, I think it's a good look for the PM to be on a trade mission and George Osborne to be in Paris, whilst Labour are otherwise engaged.
I listened to LBC yesterday and it was amazing how many 'mature' people rang up who said they were going to vote for JC. These were non-Labour voters but felt JC was 'authentic'.
I can't read this at all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175959/Girl-gang-attacks-immoral-sunbather-wearing-bikini-French-park-sparking-JeSuisCharlie-style-social-media-campaign.html
How much had the female population increased by during that period, and how much of the decrease occurred before 2010?
The company arranged a load of management in a room, and they were surprised when a group of men with pocket-protectors walked in. The management team gave the spiel about how brilliant their product was, how well it would do the job, and how NASA would be stupid not to use it.
At the end they asked for any questions. A NASA engineer simply asked: "How does it fail?"
None of the management knew, and after this they ensured they had engineers in all their meetings with NASA.
(I'd love to know where I heard this story, but cannot remember)
He said he would not attend the Lords until the outcome of any investigation into his conduct, after which he would review his "long-term position".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33680837
As for child benefit, this was paid to the woman for very good reason: to give her some indepedent income to recognise the costs of raising a child. Originally Labour wanted it paid to the man and women successfully argued against that. I don't see why child benefit should be based on household incomes when taxation is individual - it might cure some anomalies but would create others.
You need to deal with the fact that for many benefits is a rational choice. A lot of that is ending, but it is there. For many many years welfare has rewarded bad behaviour, and infantilised whole groups of society.