politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast: The LD fight back and
Comments
-
Todays ifop rolling poll
Le Pen 23.5 (=)
Macron22.5 (=)
Melenchon 19 (+0.5)
Fillon 19 (=)
http://www.parismatch.com/La-presidentielle-en-temps-reel0 -
I think you'll find its £64 a week for the first child in tax credits.rcs1000 said:
More seriously (than my earlier comment), I think we'd agree that if you offered £1m/week for every child, then there would be a lot of children born. And if we required weekly payments to the government of £1m/week for every child, then (virtually) no children would be born.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£13.70, while a small amount (and far less than a child costs to keep), is a small economic incentive to someone to have children, relative to that number being zero, and we should expect more children to be born as a result of the existence of the benefit. The delta may be small, but this is a curve, not a step a function.0 -
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "applauds", but Mr Nabavi talked approvingly of how people "rearrange their affairs" if they don't want to pay tax at a particular rate.Ishmael_Z said:
I think you may have misunderstood Messrs Nabavi and L.. But LOL at the Dave Spart act, very good.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.0 -
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
If only people like Boris Johnson were so willing to listen to sense on Brexit.Pulpstar said:0 -
Assad has just been interviewed by a reputable French interviewer. He says the story of chemical weapons is untrue and the French journalist with 42 years experience appeared to believe him. There is no evidence that he's a liar whereas there's plenty that Trump and Johnson are.0
-
Although if I'd used chemical weapons, I think l'd probably lie about it. The Syrian government may, or may not, have used chemical weapons, but this denial adds very little new information.Roger said:Assad has just been interviewed by a reputable French interviewer. He says the story of chemical weapons is untrue and the French journalist with 42 years experience appeared to believe him. There is no evidence that he's a liar whereas there's plenty that Trump and Johnson are.
0 -
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
Trouble is, he’ll talk with someone else soon and that’ll lead to another mind-change.williamglenn said:
If only people like Boris Johnson were so willing to listen to sense on Brexit.Pulpstar said:0 -
even Harriet Harman was "understanding" of the need to restrict child tax credit to 2 children...Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-tax-credits-labour-wont-60513660 -
What, like 12 years? That seems pretty quick.Alanbrooke said:
without children you run out of society in 3 generationsdavid_herdson said:
As with all things, it's a question of balance.OldKingCole said:
There are advantages to the community in people having children.Pulpstar said:
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.OldKingCole said:
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.0 -
I suspect most thoughtful people share the journalist's scepticism about the gas attack in Syria. Johnson and Trump belong in circuses rather than the halls of power.Roger said:Assad has just been interviewed by a reputable French interviewer. He says the story of chemical weapons is untrue and the French journalist with 42 years experience appeared to believe him. There is no evidence that he's a liar whereas there's plenty that Trump and Johnson are.
0 -
And that is why we ended up with Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition.llef said:
even Harriet Harman was "understanding" of the need to restrict child tax credit to 2 children...Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
Mr. Roger, whilst it's possible things aren't as they seem (my own view is that it's possible a commander without presidential sanction made the call), the idea Assad is incapable of lying given what he and his regime have done is not a view I share.0
-
Yeah but not free of NI, surely.Sandpit said:
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
Good governance bad politics from her there.Danny565 said:
And that is why we ended up with Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition.llef said:
even Harriet Harman was "understanding" of the need to restrict child tax credit to 2 children...Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
Isn't there a theory that Assad is only really a "figurehead", and that it's other people in the regime that make the decisions on things like this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roger, whilst it's possible things aren't as they seem (my own view is that it's possible a commander without presidential sanction made the call), the idea Assad is incapable of lying given what he and his regime have done is not a view I share.
0 -
The government's policy has been to tax the rich more rather than have savage cuts to public spending. And I approve of that. I even approve of the fact that I get no CB for my children at all. It is entirely proper for the government to seek to influence behaviour in a way that reduces future costs and a limit on Child Benefit to 2 children does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to achieve this.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.0 -
The Turks have autopsied corpses and found evidence of sarin use. Apparently that's a weapon that needs to be fired via specialised munitions - ie if a munitions dump was hit, it'd just burn up harmlessly. The Syrian government, which has used sarin and other chemical weapons in the past, was carrying out a bombing run at the exact time.Roger said:Assad has just been interviewed by a reputable French interviewer. He says the story of chemical weapons is untrue and the French journalist with 42 years experience appeared to believe him. There is no evidence that he's a liar whereas there's plenty that Trump and Johnson are.
But hey, as long as Assad denies it ......
0 -
I recall reading years ago that he was only the third most powerful Assad in Syria!Danny565 said:
Isn't there a theory that Assad is only really a "figurehead", and that it's other people in the regime that make the decisions on things like this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roger, whilst it's possible things aren't as they seem (my own view is that it's possible a commander without presidential sanction made the call), the idea Assad is incapable of lying given what he and his regime have done is not a view I share.
0 -
We don't benefit from 3-4 children either. The planet would probably be more inhabitable with about 500 million people instead of 7 billion.DavidL said:
What, like 12 years? That seems pretty quick.Alanbrooke said:
without children you run out of society in 3 generationsdavid_herdson said:
As with all things, it's a question of balance.OldKingCole said:
There are advantages to the community in people having children.Pulpstar said:
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.OldKingCole said:
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
There's a discussion on R4 of Dr Dao suing United Airlines. He seems to have been fairly badly injured.0 -
"But since the USS Carl Vinson Strike Force is there now....."Pulpstar said:0 -
Child Tax Credits are Income Support masquerading under a different name. There is no income tax or national insurance on them.Pulpstar said:
Yeah but not free of NI, surely.Sandpit said:
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
Mr. kle4, that's an interesting suggestion, as he was never meant to take over (I think his elder brother was being groomed to take over but got killed in a car crash or suchlike).
Similar things are said of Mugabe, now that he's 90+. So when he goes it'll probably be a case of "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."0 -
Indeed for anyone who doesn't think its a lot, then compare to working.Sandpit said:
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit
At the living wage someone would have to work 9 hours which is more than a whole days shift for most people to get the same before-tax income as the untaxed child tax credits and child benefit gives.
Someone with four children can take home more money in benefits than someone who works full time at the living wage can be earning before taxes!0 -
I don't know how many millions they are planning to offer him but it is going to be a few.rural_voter said:
We don't benefit from 3-4 children either. The planet would probably be more inhabitable with about 500 million people instead of 7 billion.DavidL said:
What, like 12 years? That seems pretty quick.Alanbrooke said:
without children you run out of society in 3 generationsdavid_herdson said:
As with all things, it's a question of balance.OldKingCole said:
There are advantages to the community in people having children.Pulpstar said:
Quite right. No benefits just because you've popped a sprog.OldKingCole said:
Damian Green should bite the bullet and scrap the whole wretched policy.
Society does not benefit from the average person producing only 1 child. Equally, society doesn't benefit from the average person producing 5 children either.
There's a discussion on R4 of Dr Dao suing United Airlines. He seems to have been fairly badly injured.0 -
chestnut said:
Child Tax Credits are Income Support masquerading under a different name. There is no income tax or national insurance on them.Pulpstar said:
Yeah but not free of NI, surely.Sandpit said:
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
The only support ought to be for children with disabilities that require extra assistance/home modification.0 -
I don't find the 2-child limit to be the most objectionable of the Tories' welfare policies (much worse is the overly punitive Sanctions regime which often stops ALL of people's benefits, the complete lack of understanding towards benefit-claimants signed off with mental health problems, and the cuts to in-work tax credits which really do punish people "doing the right thing" and trying to get themselves back on their feet), but my main objection is to the emphasis put on the amount of money supposedly being wasted on benefit-claimants, when it's dwarfed by the amount of money being taken off the country by tax dodgers. As much emphasis put on those at the top (and, frankly, as much shame piled on them and embarrassing Channel 5 shows) as is put on benefit-claimants, and most of the country's financial problems would be solved instantly.DavidL said:
The government's policy has been to tax the rich more rather than have savage cuts to public spending. And I approve of that. I even approve of the fact that I get no CB for my children at all. It is entirely proper for the government to seek to influence behaviour in a way that reduces future costs and a limit on Child Benefit to 2 children does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to achieve this.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.0 -
However It's instructive to discover the limits of the Right's new found respect and concern for the too-long disempowered and ignored underclasses.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
It appears to run out just at that point when the masses stop their cheeky, salt of the earth, anti EU patter and start breeding.0 -
Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
You've undergone a metamorphosis! It's not unwelcome but it is surprising.MonikerDiCanio said:
I suspect most thoughtful people share the journalist's scepticism about the gas attack in Syria. Johnson and Trump belong in circuses rather than the halls of power.Roger said:Assad has just been interviewed by a reputable French interviewer. He says the story of chemical weapons is untrue and the French journalist with 42 years experience appeared to believe him. There is no evidence that he's a liar whereas there's plenty that Trump and Johnson are.
0 -
Always put me in mind of that show Tyrant. I only saw a few episodes, but it had a younger son of a middle east dictator, who was a doctor in the US or something (Assad trained as an Ophthalmologist, IIRC). In the first episode the elder son, a brutal psychopath introduced via a rape scene, almost dies in a car accident, and the younger son increasingly gets involved in a family regime they had not been prepared for. Only I think he was meant to be a decent sort, unlike Assad.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, that's an interesting suggestion, as he was never meant to take over (I think his elder brother was being groomed to take over but got killed in a car crash or suchlike).
"
0 -
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
Appalling stories coming out of Chechnya at the moment... They highlight how Russia is still in many ways an empire rather than a modern state. The writ of the central government does not have much meaning in some parts of its territory where the rule of law is non-existent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/13/they-called-us-animals-chechens-prison-beatings-electric-shocks-anti-gay-purge0 -
How right you could beMorris_Dancer said:
Similar things are said of Mugabe, now that he's 90+. So when he goes it'll probably be a case of "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/17/robert-mugabe-could-contest-election-as-corpse-says-wife0 -
You think a third child is someone starting to breed?Theuniondivvie said:
However It's instructive to discover the limits of the Right's new found respect and concern for the too-long disempowered and ignored underclasses.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
It appears to run out just at that point when the masses stop their cheeky, salt of the earth, anti EU patter and start breeding.0 -
Expect plenty of boos, regardless of quality.timmo said:
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
My understanding is that the Sanctions regime is not what it was but I agree it was a disgrace, frequently penalising people for the incompetence of bureaucracies and having somewhat chaotic lives.Danny565 said:
I don't find the 2-child limit to be the most objectionable of the Tories' welfare policies (much worse is the overly punitive Sanctions regime which often stops ALL of people's benefits, the complete lack of understanding towards benefit-claimants signed off with mental health problems, and the cuts to in-work tax credits which really do punish people "doing the right thing" and trying to get themselves back on their feet), but my main objection is to the emphasis put on the amount of money supposedly being wasted on benefit-claimants, when it's dwarfed by the amount of money being taken off the country by tax dodgers.DavidL said:
The government's policy has been to tax the rich more rather than have savage cuts to public spending. And I approve of that. I even approve of the fact that I get no CB for my children at all. It is entirely proper for the government to seek to influence behaviour in a way that reduces future costs and a limit on Child Benefit to 2 children does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to achieve this.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country. It has had a series of unfortunate side effects too. It creates a pool of workers desperate for any job, no matter how exploitative, to meet the requirements for benefits. Many of the self employed created in the last few years are particularly affected. It maintains a lot of uneconomic employment when the true cost of employing the person is significantly greater than the value of the work that they produce. It has resulted in an ever greater percentage of the workforce getting the Living Wage and not a penny more. It has meant that there is far too little pressure to increase productivity or to invest in training.
There are upsides, notably far fewer children growing up in workless households, but it is a policy that any responsible government wants to keep a very careful eye on.0 -
The news came too late for this conference:timmo said:
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.
https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/news-events/eurovision-comes-maynooth0 -
Mr. kle4, if Shapur II could be crowned before he was born, perhaps we could see a second dead president (Kim Il-sung remains president of North Korea, despite dying a few decades ago).
Mr. Glenn, indeed, the gay concentration camp is bloody disturbing.
Mr. kle4 (2), not heard of that TV show, but it is an interesting premise.0 -
By "tax dodgers", do you mean "people paying the legal minimum in tax"?Danny565 said:
I don't find the 2-child limit to be the most objectionable of the Tories' welfare policies (much worse is the overly punitive Sanctions regime which often stops ALL of people's benefits, the complete lack of understanding towards benefit-claimants signed off with mental health problems, and the cuts to in-work tax credits which really do punish people "doing the right thing" and trying to get themselves back on their feet), but my main objection is to the emphasis put on the amount of money supposedly being wasted on benefit-claimants, when it's dwarfed by the amount of money being taken off the country by tax dodgers. As much emphasis put on those at the top (and, frankly, as much shame piled on them and embarrassing Channel 5 shows) as is put on benefit-claimants, and most of the country's financial problems would be solved instantly.DavidL said:
The government's policy has been to tax the rich more rather than have savage cuts to public spending. And I approve of that. I even approve of the fact that I get no CB for my children at all. It is entirely proper for the government to seek to influence behaviour in a way that reduces future costs and a limit on Child Benefit to 2 children does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to achieve this.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.0 -
An EU sanction for the benefit of all....AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
Indeed, however it will be interesting to see which countries back the plucky Brits, - or not...kle4 said:
Expect plenty of boos, regardless of quality.timmo said:
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
NI is only paid on income from employment or self-employment, so I'd think not.Pulpstar said:
Yeah but not free of NI, surely.Sandpit said:
Yes, it's not the Child Benefit that's the issue, as much as the Tax credits. Only introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003 and funded entirely from additional borrowing since the day they were implemented. Until the recent changes to Universal Benefit and raised personal allowances, they made it almost impossible for a single mother to get a job unless she she could earn a fortune. Remember that £3,500 is tax free and per child.Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
The Kim dynasty are clearly God-Kings according to North Korea, whatever their titles.Morris_Dancer said:(Kim Il-sung remains president of North Korea, despite dying a few decades ago)e.
On Eurovision, might I suggest we should have a song entitled 'We still love you' or something like that? Building bridges and all that.0 -
There seem to be two types of activity:Danny565 said:
I don't find the 2-child limit to be the most objectionable of the Tories' welfare policies (much worse is the overly punitive Sanctions regime which often stops ALL of people's benefits, the complete lack of understanding towards benefit-claimants signed off with mental health problems, and the cuts to in-work tax credits which really do punish people "doing the right thing" and trying to get themselves back on their feet), but my main objection is to the emphasis put on the amount of money supposedly being wasted on benefit-claimants, when it's dwarfed by the amount of money being taken off the country by tax dodgers. As much emphasis put on those at the top (and, frankly, as much shame piled on them and embarrassing Channel 5 shows) as is put on benefit-claimants, and most of the country's financial problems would be solved instantly.DavidL said:
The government's policy has been to tax the rich more rather than have savage cuts to public spending. And I approve of that. I even approve of the fact that I get no CB for my children at all. It is entirely proper for the government to seek to influence behaviour in a way that reduces future costs and a limit on Child Benefit to 2 children does not seem to me to be an unreasonable way to achieve this.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
1 - Tax evasion for the little people (it gets nasty if you're a plumber and HMRC issues a tax bill for what it thinks you owe (even if you don't owe any of it, there's virtually no appeal and you're guilty until proved innocent)
2 - Tax avoidance for the better-off (after all, why evade taxes if you can afford an army of accountants and lawyers to make it all borderline-legal?)
30-40 years ago, possibly avoidance was less rife than today. I can only remember a fuss when the press revealed that the Vestey family was doing it. Yet the income tax rate for the very wealthy was 85-90%.
Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd were both prosecuted for evasion. My guess is that nowadays such people wouldn't dream of bothering - avoidance is so easy and avoids the damage to their reputation.0 -
I'd also lie about using chemical weapons, if the alternative was a well armed international community bombing the hell out of my country!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Roger, whilst it's possible things aren't as they seem (my own view is that it's possible a commander without presidential sanction made the call), the idea Assad is incapable of lying given what he and his regime have done is not a view I share.
0 -
Mr. kle4, cover version of Status Quo's Burning Bridges?
0 -
We should enter a punk act complete with on stage desecration of the Union Jack. "Some people say Remainers should be seen and not heard, but I say, 'Oh Brexit up yours!'"SimonStClare said:
Indeed, however it will be interesting to see which countries back the plucky Brits, - or not...kle4 said:
Expect plenty of boos, regardless of quality.timmo said:
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.
0 -
Remains is not quite the right word, he wasn't President between 1994 and 1998. He gained his current title posthumously.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, if Shapur II could be crowned before he was born, perhaps we could see a second dead president (Kim Il-sung remains president of North Korea, despite dying a few decades ago).
Mr. Glenn, indeed, the gay concentration camp is bloody disturbing.
Mr. kle4 (2), not heard of that TV show, but it is an interesting premise.0 -
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
0 -
Mr. Thompson, ah, I was unaware of that.
So, maybe Mugabe will die, lose office, and then reattain it.
Mr. Glenn, you silly sausage.
Mr. Sandpit, well, quite. Assad may recall Gaddafi honestly got rid of his (which I imagine he later regretted).0 -
I would say that tax avoidance is less common than it was. HMRC have been quite aggressive using the GAAR provisions to strike down schemes designed to create artificial losses and pension contributions are much more limited than they were. But we desperately need a latter day Nigel Lawson to simplify our tax code and to focus on eliminating loopholes and disparities. Hammond does not look the man for that to me.rural_voter said:
There seem to be two types of activity:Danny565 said:
1 - Tax evasion for the little people (it gets nasty if you're a plumber and HMRC issues a tax bill for what it thinks you owe (even if you don't owe any of it, there's virtually no appeal and you're guilty until proved innocent)
2 - Tax avoidance for the better-off (after all, why evade taxes if you can afford an army of accountants and lawyers to make it all borderline-legal?)
30-40 years ago, possibly avoidance was less rife than today. I can only remember a fuss when the press revealed that the Vestey family was doing it. Yet the income tax rate for the very wealthy was 85-90%.
Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd were both prosecuted for evasion. My guess is that nowadays such people wouldn't dream of bothering - avoidance is so easy and avoids the damage to their reputation.0 -
I wouldn't say United Airlines is having a bad week, but the passenger who refused to volunteer to leave has just said his ordeal was worse than the fall of Saigon in the Vietnam War:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39586391
[He was actually there].
That's quite a quote.0 -
Well, it couldn’t do any worse than our recent past entries.williamglenn said:
We should enter a punk act complete with on stage desecration of the Union Jack. "Some people say Remainers should be seen and not heard, but I say, 'Oh Brexit up yours!'"SimonStClare said:
Indeed, however it will be interesting to see which countries back the plucky Brits, - or not...kle4 said:
Expect plenty of boos, regardless of quality.timmo said:
Does that give us a chance?AlastairMeeks said:Russia withdraw from...
Eurovision.0 -
Spot on. They have served their purpose and can now go back to being screwed. Often literally...Theuniondivvie said:
However It's instructive to discover the limits of the Right's new found respect and concern for the too-long disempowered and ignored underclasses.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
It appears to run out just at that point when the masses stop their cheeky, salt of the earth, anti EU patter and start breeding.0 -
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!0 -
Self employment?
there are trends that are common to both full- and part-time self-employment. Both groups of workers have seen their age profile get markedly older in recent years, both are increasingly concentrated in the finance & business services industry, and changes in their average usual hours worked have broadly followed the trends of employees. Both groups are relatively concentrated in higher occupational groups and in the South East and London, with full-time self-employed workers in particular becoming more concentrated in the capital (Sections 3 and 4 ).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/trendsinselfemploymentintheuk/2001to2015
0 -
With huge respect, I am not confident that you know what you are talking about. Not saying I do, but ask Karen Millen how she got on with her avoidance scheme, and consider the Ramsay principle (House of Lords decision 1982, which makes avoidance much much harder than it was before).rural_voter said:
There seem to be two types of activity:
1 - Tax evasion for the little people (it gets nasty if you're a plumber and HMRC issues a tax bill for what it thinks you owe (even if you don't owe any of it, there's virtually no appeal and you're guilty until proved innocent)
2 - Tax avoidance for the better-off (after all, why evade taxes if you can afford an army of accountants and lawyers to make it all borderline-legal?)
30-40 years ago, possibly avoidance was less rife than today. I can only remember a fuss when the press revealed that the Vestey family was doing it. Yet the income tax rate for the very wealthy was 85-90%.
Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd were both prosecuted for evasion. My guess is that nowadays such people wouldn't dream of bothering - avoidance is so easy and avoids the damage to their reputation.0 -
In fact more schemes are being shot down than back then. The interesting thing about the super high rates of tax was that no-one* actually paid them. Generally people went abroad - but there were some quite ingenious ways out of paying.DavidL said:
I would say that tax avoidance is less common than it was. HMRC have been quite aggressive using the GAAR provisions to strike down schemes designed to create artificial losses and pension contributions are much more limited than they were. But we desperately need a latter day Nigel Lawson to simplify our tax code and to focus on eliminating loopholes and disparities. Hammond does not look the man for that to me.rural_voter said:
There seem to be two types of activity:Danny565 said:
1 - Tax evasion for the little people (it gets nasty if you're a plumber and HMRC issues a tax bill for what it thinks you owe (even if you don't owe any of it, there's virtually no appeal and you're guilty until proved innocent)
2 - Tax avoidance for the better-off (after all, why evade taxes if you can afford an army of accountants and lawyers to make it all borderline-legal?)
30-40 years ago, possibly avoidance was less rife than today. I can only remember a fuss when the press revealed that the Vestey family was doing it. Yet the income tax rate for the very wealthy was 85-90%.
Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd were both prosecuted for evasion. My guess is that nowadays such people wouldn't dream of bothering - avoidance is so easy and avoids the damage to their reputation.
* I believe for the famous 98% rate that was literally true - no money was ever paid under that tax.
0 -
Some of these were actually quite simple, such as Company cars with free petrol. At the time these were not taxed, and there was also Mortgage interest tax relief etc etc.Malmesbury said:
In fact more schemes are being shot down than back then. The interesting thing about the super high rates of tax was that no-one* actually paid them. Generally people went abroad - but there were some quite ingenious ways out of paying.DavidL said:
I would say that tax avoidance is less common than it was. HMRC have been quite aggressive using the GAAR provisions to strike down schemes designed to create artificial losses and pension contributions are much more limited than they were. But we desperately need a latter day Nigel Lawson to simplify our tax code and to focus on eliminating loopholes and disparities. Hammond does not look the man for that to me.rural_voter said:
There seem to be two types of activity:Danny565 said:
1 - Tax evasion for the little people (it gets nasty if you're a plumber and HMRC issues a tax bill for what it thinks you owe (even if you don't owe any of it, there's virtually no appeal and you're guilty until proved innocent)
2 - Tax avoidance for the better-off (after all, why evade taxes if you can afford an army of accountants and lawyers to make it all borderline-legal?)
30-40 years ago, possibly avoidance was less rife than today. I can only remember a fuss when the press revealed that the Vestey family was doing it. Yet the income tax rate for the very wealthy was 85-90%.
Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd were both prosecuted for evasion. My guess is that nowadays such people wouldn't dream of bothering - avoidance is so easy and avoids the damage to their reputation.
* I believe for the famous 98% rate that was literally true - no money was ever paid under that tax.0 -
https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/852567154046238720
Additionally, note Marine Le Pen convincingly loses to everyone.0 -
Simultaneously the most popular and least popular politician in France?AlastairMeeks said:http//twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/852567154046238720
Additionally, note Marine Le Pen convincingly loses to everyone.0 -
The main reason that houses are not being built is that the systemic philosophy is now that humans are a contaminant of the landscape. Hence roads, houses etc are evil.rural_voter said:
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!
The planners love to try and hide behind the NIMBYs, but in many, many places local people are rather keen on development. Well, you would be as well, if half your garden was potentially worth 6 figures....0 -
I am surprised that the notion of partial retirement for a phase hasn't been a feature of pension reform rather than constantly increasing the age of entitlement, or alternatively that entitlement dates should be linked to employment start dates.rural_voter said:
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!
My parents' pre-war generation started work at 13-15. My children's generation seem to wait until their 20s.
0 -
You mean, because they didn't go to university they cannot conceivably have formulated an independent, rational view on brexit and expressed it in the way they voted?foxinsoxuk said:
Spot on. They have served their purpose and can now go back to being screwed. Often literally...Theuniondivvie said:
However It's instructive to discover the limits of the Right's new found respect and concern for the too-long disempowered and ignored underclasses.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
It appears to run out just at that point when the masses stop their cheeky, salt of the earth, anti EU patter and start breeding.
Brexit was a really, really lucky break for many Remainers in one respect, that it made their contempt and loathing for the proles respectable and something they no longer have to keep bottled up. The relief must be tremendous.0 -
Nah, thats because Labour Party members are increasingly a world apart from the voters of this country.Danny565 said:
And that is why we ended up with Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition.llef said:
even Harriet Harman was "understanding" of the need to restrict child tax credit to 2 children...Philip_Thompson said:
Child Tax Credits != Child Benefit.Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
£2,780 per child is £53.46 per week by my maths on top of the £13.70 you wrote. So £67.16 per week or ~£3,500 per year per child.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/child-tax-credit0 -
It's interesting that Macron now beats Fillon by as much as he beats Le Pen.AlastairMeeks said:Additionally, note Marine Le Pen convincingly loses to everyone.
0 -
The only place I see anybody taken this bizarre line is a few on here !ThreeQuidder said:
Why do you want mothers who have conceived as a result of rape to be denied child benefit?calum said:Kez upping the pressure on Ruth
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/852501389381160960
Anyway Ruth must realise she's in trouble when Tim Farron joins Kezia et al and weighs in:
" I’m disappointed in Ruth," said Farron. "The problem is it’s one or the other; either she is not the decent person I suspected she might be or she’s really quite weak and [the Scottish party] is being run by a Conservative government from Westminster, and they take no notice of Ruth Davidson. She needs to stand up to Theresa May and if she believes Theresa May is wrong she needs to say so, and if she can’t persuade her quietly then she must object noisily. "0 -
Those numbers only require a 4% swing from Macron to Melenchon.AlastairMeeks said:https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/852567154046238720
Additionally, note Marine Le Pen convincingly loses to everyone.0 -
Pensioners are now better off than working families, on average.rural_voter said:
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!0 -
The eminently sensible Ramsey Principle (which basically outlawed circular transactions for tax avoidance purposes) was subverted by a later ruling in the 2000's that I can't for the life of me find a reference to right now.
The GAAR has effectively reinstated the Ramsey principle for high value avoidance.0 -
.
Neighbourhood Plans have focused communities both on the need for development, and the fact that they can have an input into the shadows of their local areas and that has in turn motivated people to see development as a positive thing.Malmesbury said:
The main reason that houses are not being built is that the systemic philosophy is now that humans are a contaminant of the landscape. Hence roads, houses etc are evil.rural_voter said:
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!
The planners love to try and hide behind the NIMBYs, but in many, many places local people are rather keen on development. Well, you would be as well, if half your garden was potentially worth 6 figures....0 -
I think you are misunderstanding. The contempt for the proles on the child benefit issue is coming from the Right. It is the PB lefties that are defending them.Ishmael_Z said:
You mean, because they didn't go to university they cannot conceivably have formulated an independent, rational view on brexit and expressed it in the way they voted?foxinsoxuk said:
Spot on. They have served their purpose and can now go back to being screwed. Often literally...Theuniondivvie said:
However It's instructive to discover the limits of the Right's new found respect and concern for the too-long disempowered and ignored underclasses.Danny565 said:
And most importantly, the money spent on people like that is PEANUTS compared to the amount of money being stolen from the taxpayer by mega-rich tax dodgers (who many PBTories, like Richard Nabavi and DavidL, applaud, despite styling themselves as "fiscally responsible").Alistair said:No one is encouraged to spawn offspring on the basis of £13.70 a week.
Incidentally studies show overwhelming that, amongst the poorest in society, child benefit gets spent by the parents on the child and not on, to fit the stereotype I'm sure people have in their head, booze and fags or other fripperies.
It appears to run out just at that point when the masses stop their cheeky, salt of the earth, anti EU patter and start breeding.
Brexit was a really, really lucky break for many Remainers in one respect, that it made their contempt and loathing for the proles respectable and something they no longer have to keep bottled up. The relief must be tremendous.
It illustrates how little the right really care about the downtrodden.0 -
New thread, comrades.0
-
You have no answer then. Noted.calum said:
The only place I see anybody taken this bizarre line is a few on here !ThreeQuidder said:
Why do you want mothers who have conceived as a result of rape to be denied child benefit?calum said:Kez upping the pressure on Ruth
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/852501389381160960
Thanks, Edmund.
0 -
I can believe it was worse for him personally. He got beaten up by a thug on the United flight; the fall of Saigon was a regime change that mostly affects those close to power.Morris_Dancer said:I wouldn't say United Airlines is having a bad week, but the passenger who refused to volunteer to leave has just said his ordeal was worse than the fall of Saigon in the Vietnam War:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39586391
[He was actually there].
That's quite a quote.0 -
That's because of cyclical movements in stock markets and the incredibly generous level at which final salary plans were funded over a period. Plus I expect the effect of £50 bn/yr of tax relief.Freggles said:
Pensioners are now better off than working families, on average.rural_voter said:
Mostly sounds good but why stop at 1M?! When Macmillan was Housing Minister, 60 years ago, the UK built almost 300-500k homes per year.Pulpstar said:
If I was in charge the following would be cut :DavidL said:
But the in-work benefits regime introduced by Brown and revised by IDS however well intentioned is almost prohibitively expensive for this country.
Both the left and the right have their hobby horses.
Defense
Triple lock ended
DFiD
Child Benefit
Housing Benefit
I'd increase spend on:
Health (I'd definitely make changes to the system though)
Include full social care within the NHS model. No need to sell your home to afford care any more.
Scrap tuition fees introduce a 5 pence extra graduate tax onto the higher rate.
Set about building a million good quality homes
I'd scrap Employer's, employees NI and roll it into the new general tax rates of 30 (15k+) & 50% (50k+)
I disagree with removing the triple lock because over 65s only on the basic pension are very poor. It was left to wither away by Thatcher and has only slowly been recovering its value in relation to working age incomes.
OTOH I'd consider a rising pension with age, to encourage the 65-75 year olds who are often pretty fit to continue doing at least some light minimum age work, say 5 hrs/day. Japanese pensioners seem to continue doing some work at age 75-85!
Don't attack the many rather poor baby boomers and those born 1935-45. Focus on why many were given overgenerous pension plans which proved out of line with what subsequent generations can afford.
The Coalition reportedly took legal advice on defaulting on public sector pensions. But it didn't.0 -
!!!! "Following the end of the war, according to official and non-official estimates, between 200,000 and 300,000 South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps, where many endured torture, starvation, and disease while being forced to perform hard labor" ... "some 30,000 South Vietnamese had been systematically killed using a list of CIA informants left behind by the US embassy" ... "within two years of the capture of the city one million people had left Saigon"FF43 said:; the fall of Saigon was a regime change that mostly affects those close to power.
0
