Budget

[boyfalldown]

If we were a more ordered society many more less expensive areas wouldn't put people off.

In the next breath though you'll argue that we should provide less help for people and less support. Does this (new) position mean that you realise you cant have both. I fully agree with a society that rewards ones achievments, but a society where large nunmbers at the bottom are hungry will never be well ordered.

 

[Mr Bump]

School reputation makes a massive difference to house prices. I think thats what is meant

this and other things to be honest.
firstly how much parents seem to think the school they choose is the only way there children will become astronauts and prime ministers and the simple fact that making the choice in that way locks them in to possibly 20 years in the same house/place.

Its a bit like retiring and saying we are going to take loads of foreign holiday then buying a dog that needs you to stay at home

quite a few smart folk I know live where they like and spend the extra they save on housing on a private school

 

[dinners]

firstly how much parents seem to think the school they choose is the only way there children will become astronauts and prime ministers...........

........quite a few smart folk I know live where they like and spend the extra they save on housing on a private school

Smart folk who want their kids to be Astronauts and Prime Ministers ?

You've sort of contradicted yourself there.

 

[Mr Bump]

Smart folk who want their kids to be Astronauts and Prime Ministers ?

You've sort of contradicted yourself there.

ha ha
true

 

[viv1969]

I disagree why should we live in hutches like rabbits when the answer is to many people chasing to few houses. I am not giving up my bundle of land and nice quiet house, no way....

the developed world is going through a population explosion and nothing will sort this out until that is addressed.

Now, did I say anything about hutches?
I talked about building more apartments....I gave no dimensions.

 

[dejongj]

this and other things to be honest.
firstly how much parents seem to think the school they choose is the only way there children will become astronauts and prime ministers and the simple fact that making the choice in that way locks them in to possibly 20 years in the same house/place.

Its a bit like retiring and saying we are going to take loads of foreign holiday then buying a dog that needs you to stay at home

quite a few smart folk I know live where they like and spend the extra they save on housing on a private school

Snap. Although my children go to a voluntary aided school which is out of county as well.

Just live where you want and deal with it

For my youngest she couldn't get a place at first and had to pursue either private or a school with a terrible offsted review. When we engaged with the school it turned out to be wonderful. The children were great as well, but yes unfortunately many children didn't get the support at home which made me sad. It wasn't the school, it was the parents that gave it the bad rating.

 

[SFTPhotography]

In the next breath though you'll argue that we should provide less help for people and less support. Does this (new) position mean that you realise you cant have both. I fully agree with a society that rewards ones achievments, but a society where large nunmbers at the bottom are hungry will never be well ordered.

Large numbers aren't hungry and with sink estates with sky tv dishes outside, cars you do wonder if many people get their priorities right. Food banks are a good thing, it means those who cannot afford to eat, get to eat. Poverty will always exist, relative and absolute.

My feeling is many governments penalise achievements puntively with burdensome tax, and that is my contention that its unfair. Tory governments tend to be the least punitive and it shows with this budget.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Smart folk who want their kids to be Astronauts and Prime Ministers ?

.

Whilst I understand people want the for the best for their children you tend to find parents are overly ambitious for their children and assume they should do better than them both in terms of academic attainment and have better more lucrative careers. Parents in my experience are feircely competitive about their children and thats a sad reflection of our culture. They'll find their own level. No school in the UK is terrible, it teaches the basics and the kids can take it from there.

 

[boyfalldown]

Large numbers aren't hungry

you obviosly disagree when I talk about large numbers. thick end of a million refered to food banks lat year. I'm not sure what a large number is then? And are you seriously saying they were refered for reasons other then they were hungry?

and with sink estates with sky tv dishes outside, cars you do wonder if many people get their priorities right. Food banks are a good thing, it means those who cannot afford to eat, get to eat. Poverty will always exist, relative and absolute.

how many benefits claimants actually live like that. Large flat screens, sky, iphones, flash cars etc etc....not many. It embarassing both to be part of the worlds largest economy and need food banks at all. And that they've increased so much. I agree poverty will always exist and they'll always be starta in society. But having too wide a gap is good for no-one and leads to a less ordered society.

My feeling is many governments penalise achievements puntively with burdensome tax, and that is my contention that its unfair. Tory governments tend to be the least punitive and it shows with this budget.

I agree that massive taxes are unfair. Thankfully the days of an 83% tax rate are long gone. But I don't have a problems with a stepped tax rate like we have now. Do you? The way I see it is I'm repaying society for my education, my healthcare and whatever I need in the future. Our taxes are hardly burdensome or punative. or out of step with the rest of the developed world.Even at 40% + losing your allowance for the highest earners thats not punative.

I guess we disagree on this government

 

[boliston]

i think they should merge ni and tax into a single tax - everyone knows basic rate tax is 20% but how many people know the ni% rate?

 

[JonathanRyan]

I'd suggest more social housing and removing mortgage interest as an allowable expense for landlords, which should stop the rise and rise of private BTLs inflating property prices.

It's possible that would work in the long term. I doubt it personally but it's possible. But in the short term it would cause carnage in the property market.

Either

(1) BTL landlords would unload their portfolios wholesale causing a massive crash in property prices. There are lots of bad consequences of that but the one that would scare the government the most is the rampant inflation it would cause. It would also cause a massive short term shortage of rental properties and lead to many people who don't (yet) have deposits struggling for somewhere to live.

(2) Smarter landlords hold onto their properties and jack the prices up. A lot. And that would pretty much cripple renters and stop them ever affording properties.

More likely is a third option where some clever chaps in shiny suits repackage the whole debt funded property market so BTL landlords can carry on as before and just jack the rental prices up a bit for fun.

 

[JonathanRyan]

i think they should merge ni and tax into a single tax - everyone knows basic rate tax is 20% but how many people know the ni% rate?

A cynic would suggest that the reason for not doing that is that it allows a little more leeway in planning tax affairs which means (1) less tax for better off people who can afford accountants (2) more money for accountants.

 

[dejongj]

Someone less cynical would suggest that it is because not all forms of income attract national insurance

 

[SFTPhotography]

you obviosly disagree when I talk about large numbers. thick end of a million refered to food banks lat year. I'm not sure what a large number is then? And are you seriously saying they were refered for reasons other then they were hungry?

Out of the UK population thats quite a low number.

how many benefits claimants actually live like that. Large flat screens, sky, iphones, flash cars etc etc....not many. It embarassing both to be part of the worlds largest economy and need food banks at all. And that they've increased so much. I agree poverty will always exist and they'll always be starta in society. But having too wide a gap is good for no-one and leads to a less ordered society.

Maybe, but the distrobution of tax to the poor is quite generous, just how much more money needs throwing at them. There are jobs out there, its up to people to work to live. I don't have an issue with the foodbanks.

I agree that massive taxes are unfair. Thankfully the days of an 83% tax rate are long gone. But I don't have a problems with a stepped tax rate like we have now. Do you? The way I see it is I'm repaying society for my education, my healthcare and whatever I need in the future. Our taxes are hardly burdensome or punative. or out of step with the rest of the developed world.Even at 40% + losing your allowance for the highest earners thats not punative.

I guess we disagree on this government

We do disagree, the stepped tax is IMHO unfair as it takes not only more absolutely, which I am fine with, but more relatively.

I'd like to see personal allowances raised radically, to £20k plus pa, and upper rate tax abolished. I'd support massive radical cut backs in public spending. The NHS needs a shake up, only essential healthcare should be provided by that. Education for kids, well its nice, but subsidising student loans and further education, its optional and should be wholly paid for privately. People fall on hard times and expect benefits, why not just save and self insure. People expect a massive safety net, why should we all pay for other peoples safety net.

 

[big soft moose]

There are jobs out there, its up to people to work to live. I don't have an issue with the foodbanks.

you don't appear to understand that a lot of the poor are working - theres a lot of people working but earning less than the living wage

People fall on hard times and expect benefits, why not just save and self insure. People expect a massive safety net, why should we all pay for other peoples safety net.

because they have no money left to save once they've paid there essential living costs ... see point 1

What you are essentially saying is 'i'm alright , jack' - which is easy to say when you are on a bankers salary. (and also explains why bankers have joined traffic wardens and lawyers as most despised occupation)

 

[JonathanRyan]

The NHS needs a shake up, only essential healthcare should be provided by that.

Well there's an idea. How would you define "essential care"?

 

[onomatopoeia]

It's possible that would work in the long term. I doubt it personally but it's possible. But in the short term it would cause carnage in the property market.

Either

(1) BTL landlords would unload their portfolios wholesale causing a massive crash in property prices. There are lots of bad consequences of that but the one that would scare the government the most is the rampant inflation it would cause. It would also cause a massive short term shortage of rental properties and lead to many people who don't (yet) have deposits struggling for somewhere to live.

(2) Smarter landlords hold onto their properties and jack the prices up. A lot. And that would pretty much cripple renters and stop them ever affording properties.

More likely is a third option where some clever chaps in shiny suits repackage the whole debt funded property market so BTL landlords can carry on as before and just jack the rental prices up a bit for fun.

Or a government that made that change could also provide capital to councils to buy up these massively discounted properties and turn them into social housing. This would solve the waiting list problem, it would make social housing available in so-called "nice areas" (often with "good schools"), it would lead to not only a fall in property prices but a fall in rents as social housing became a desirable alternative to renting in the private sector.

I don't even like social housing, and I have a mortgage so it would see my equity reduce or vanish, but we seem to be turning into a nation of born-again Rachmans* and making property unaffordable for those on average incomes that weren't able to buy when prices were much lower.

*with apologies to Carter USM

 

[boyfalldown]

Out of the UK population thats quite a low number.

for one of the largest economies in the world its way too high

Maybe, but the distrobution of tax to the poor is quite generous, just how much more money needs throwing at them. There are jobs out there, its up to people to work to live. I don't have an issue with the foodbanks.

Theres lots of McJobs sure. But that leads to zero hours and people not earning a living wage. I assume from your previous posts you have a fairly senior position at RBS. And get involved in recruitment. I know when I worked for a pharma company then its alright to say there were lots of jobs, but I never took anyone out of welfare. Over the 10 years I worked in that industry I recruited maybe 100 people, they came as new graduates, from exisiting jobs and one or two who'd just been made redundant. But no-one ever off welfare. I imagine banking is the same. Maybe you can tell me I'm wring and that you do oftern recruit there. So theers lots of jobs, but ones that pay enough money to save are much rarer.

We do disagree, the stepped tax is IMHO unfair as it takes not only more absolutely, which I am fine with, but more relatively.

I'd like to see personal allowances raised radically, to £20k plus pa, and upper rate tax abolished. I'd support massive radical cut backs in public spending. The NHS needs a shake up, only essential healthcare should be provided by that. Education for kids, well its nice, but subsidising student loans and further education, its optional and should be wholly paid for privately. People fall on hard times and expect benefits, why not just save and self insure. People expect a massive safety net, why should we all pay for other peoples safety net.

mmmm - so are you suggesting that a system like the American healthcare is better for anyone?

Its beyond me (sorry) how anyone how has had anythin ever from 'the system' could in all honesty support the tax cuts you propose

 

[JonathanRyan]

Or a government that made that change could also provide capital to councils to buy up these massively discounted properties and turn them into social housing. This would solve the waiting list problem, it would make social housing available in so-called "nice areas" (often with "good schools"), it would lead to not only a fall in property prices but a fall in rents as social housing became a desirable alternative to renting in the private sector.

It's an interesting idea. I think it would need far more money than the current government could afford though. They would end up in some kind of PFI where a big firm borrowed a ton of cash and bought up a lot of properties. They would of course need to offset their borrowing against profits So you'd effectively ask the government to pass legislation to allow big firms a huge competitive advantage against smaller entrepreneurs. It's right from the government's playbook (e.g. make those nasty artisan coffee shops pay crippling taxes but let Starbucks stroll on by) with a vague hint of communism. And pretty much nothing changes for the renters, because I can't imagine such a white knight PFI cutting rent substantially.

It's too horribly likely to ignore.....

 

[SFTPhotography]

Well there's an idea. How would you define "essential care"?

Life saving and critical healthcare.

 

[SFTPhotography]

for one of the largest economies in the world its way too high

In your opinion. In my opinion its fine.

Theres lots of McJobs sure. But that leads to zero hours and people not earning a living wage. I assume from your previous posts you have a fairly senior position at RBS. And get involved in recruitment. I know when I worked for a pharma company then its alright to say there were lots of jobs, but I never took anyone out of welfare. Over the 10 years I worked in that industry I recruited maybe 100 people, they came as new graduates, from exisiting jobs and one or two who'd just been made redundant. But no-one ever off welfare. I imagine banking is the same. Maybe you can tell me I'm wring and that you do oftern recruit there. So theers lots of jobs, but ones that pay enough money to save are much rarer.

Not nearly as senior as you think, and sometimes we do take on those on welfare. Depends on their interview. I was made redudant once, had too much savings to qualify for JSA and an agency got me a job within weeks. It was crap, but it was a job.

Living wages are based on living alone, whats wrong with house/flat sharing? People expect too much materially and should look to themselves for what they have and do not have, rather than looking to those with more than them.

mmmm - so are you suggesting that a system like the American healthcare is better for anyone?

Possibly, state healthcare is great, but paying for cosmetic surgery etc isn't on. Nor are gender re-assignments. Paying for accident and emergency and critical healthcare is.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Life saving and critical healthcare.

Oh this is going to be fun......

So, flu jabs for fat people. Yes or no?

[Background to save ourselves a couple of posts, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunology has recently proposed free flu jabs for those with a BMI over 40 as a really cost effective way of stopping people (1) dying and (2) clogging up hospital beds. Flu kills about 8,000 people per year in the UK. It also "uses up" about 1,000 HDU beds.]

 

[SFTPhotography]

Oh this is going to be fun......

So, flu jabs for fat people. Yes or no?

[Background to save ourselves a couple of posts, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunology has recently proposed free flu jabs for those with a BMI over 40 as a really cost effective way of stopping people (1) dying and (2) clogging up hospital beds. Flu kills about 8,000 people per year in the UK. It also "uses up" about 1,000 HDU beds.]

Still no. How about lose weight and be healthy. Charge the fat people for the hospital beds they take when normal people don't need them for flu.

Heart disease and illness due to obesity is the first NHS cut I'd make. Then charge smokers and alcoholics treatment costs their habits have brought about.

 

[boyfalldown]

Not nearly as senior as you think,

mmmmmm high net worth?

Possibly, state healthcare is great, but paying for cosmetic surgery etc isn't on. Nor are gender re-assignments. Paying for accident and emergency and critical healthcare is.

By what measure is US healthcare great?

% of government spend? - The US is higher then the UK
Number of doctors. The UK is higher per head. US ones earn more though, although they have to pay most of the difference in malpractice insuranvce premiums
Life Expectancy. Nope UK is higher
Live Births per 1000. UK is better again

Infact on every objective measure the US is worse then the UK. Of course if you'd like to spend more money to get less and call it 'better'

 

[JonathanRyan]

Still no. How about lose weight and be healthy. Charge the fat people for the hospital beds they take when normal people don't need them for flu.

Heart disease and illness due to obesity is the first NHS cut I'd make. Then charge smokers and alcoholics treatment costs their habits have brought about.

So you'd treat them when they became too ill to smoke/eat? I just want to be clear if you're saying that being fat and/or smoking and/or drinking more than a moderate amount of alcohol means you lose all your rights to health care or not.

What about smokers who also have inherited diseases? What about fat people who break a bone while saving a small child from being run down? How heavy would you have to be for it to be a death sentence?

 

[SFTPhotography]

So you'd treat them when they became too ill to smoke/eat? I just want to be clear if you're saying that being fat and/or smoking and/or drinking more than a moderate amount of alcohol means you lose all your rights to health care or not.

I've you managed to eat/drink/smoke yourself into a hospital then the amounts are hardly moderate?

Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. IMHO.

I favour BIG spending cuts. Big ones.

 

[JonathanRyan]

I've you managed to eat/drink/smoke yourself into a hospital then the amounts are hardly moderate?

But if you're fat and 17 it's not your fault, it's your parents' "fault". So the day you turn 18 you lose all NHS if you are over a certain BMI? Is that the plan?

What about hyperthyroidism? What about body builders? What about dwarves?

 

[boyfalldown]

So you'd treat them when they became too ill to smoke/eat? I just want to be clear if you're saying that being fat and/or smoking and/or drinking more than a moderate amount of alcohol means you lose all your rights to health care or not.

What about smokers who also have inherited diseases? What about fat people who break a bone while saving a small child from being run down? How heavy would you have to be for it to be a death sentence?

But if you're fat and 17 it's not your fault, it's your parents' "fault". So the day you turn 18 you lose all NHS if you are over a certain BMI? Is that the plan?

What about hyperthyroidism? What about body builders? What about dwarves?

Its kind of pointless. Just let Steve live in his iwn little disfuntional Utopia and hope he never gets sick

 

[dinners]

As a slim drinking smoking 4X4 user - I'd like something in return for my tax

 

[SFTPhotography]

But if you're fat and 17 it's not your fault, it's your parents' "fault". So the day you turn 18 you lose all NHS if you are over a certain BMI? Is that the plan?

17yrs can control their diet and influence how they eat/don't eat.

What about hyperthyroidism? What about body builders? What about dwarves?

Medical conditions are medical conditions, but self imposed medical conditions, why should we pick up the tab when our country is broke?

 

[big soft moose]

Living wages are based on living alone, whats wrong with house/flat sharing? People expect too much materially and should look to themselves for what they have and do not have, rather than looking to those with more than them.
.

you really don't have a clue, do you ? - anyone on the living wage will have to share accomodation as theres no way they could afford to rent alone.

min wage is about £6.50 - so a stand 37.5 hour week nets 243.75 - so circa £1k per month or £12k per year of that they'll pay 20% tax on £2k (circ £33 per month)

So that leaves say £967 per month to live on

rent, even in a flat share is going to be £3-400 - possibly a lot more depending where they are, but lets call it £350

so after rent that leaves £617

council tax will be a ball park £50 month (or more) - £567

Water and electric (and gas if any) will come to circa £100 a month - £467

then they've got to get to work which means either running a car or public transport - lets say a car is out of the question (which is a real arse if they live in the sticks somewhere), so that leaves unreliable and infrequent public transport - say £7 per day - thats £140 pcm leaving them with £327

Food is going to be at least £50 per week - probably more (and that assumes they have both the facility and the ability to cook ) - so that leaves £127pcm or £31.25 per week for everything else - presumably they'll need clothes to work in, they might need a phone either land line or mobile and so forth. It doesnt leave much over at the end of the day

and thats for someone who's single - if they have a family rent will be higher (you can't live in a houseshare with kids), food will be higher, council tax will be higher, utilities will be higher - plus kids need clothes etc - its not achievable on min wage - it only barely achieveabl on a living wage.

for that matter even for proffesionals it isnt easy - I'm laughing , well smiling broadly anyway , because my wife and I are dinkies - but ive got a colleague who earns the same as me (circa 27 grand gross), he has two kids, a mortgage, has to run a car for work, and his wife has just been made redundant - £27k doesnt go very far in those circumstances

 

[dinners]

What are dinkies ?

 

[KEEFYP]

Steve, I've often thought your posts on here and other forums are tongue in cheek and in the main to illicit responses. I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity tbh.

Life saving and critical healthcare.

In your opinion. In my opinion its fine.

Not nearly as senior as you think, and sometimes we do take on those on welfare. Depends on their interview. I was made redudant once, had too much savings to qualify for JSA and an agency got me a job within weeks. It was crap, but it was a job.

Living wages are based on living alone, whats wrong with house/flat sharing? People expect too much materially and should look to themselves for what they have and do not have, rather than looking to those with more than them.



Possibly, state healthcare is great, but paying for cosmetic surgery etc isn't on. Nor are gender re-assignments. Paying for accident and emergency and critical healthcare is.

Is life saving and critical healthcare applicable to people who's lifestyle is a primary cause of illness requiring life saving and critical healthcare?

If those illness are caused by poor diet that is attributable to high sugar put into food by manufacturers, other additives that have been put in to maximise profit by corporations.

JSA is not dependant on how much cash asset you have, it is based on NI contributions over the previous 26 weeks. The self employed don't get JSA if they hit hard times, the recent of which have been created and caused by the very organisation you are employed by and their cohorts in greed.

You are employed by a paragon of sound business, an organisation propped up by the tax payer due to the averice of it's board and gamblers within. Says a lot really. You must therefore understand your hypocrisy of the in employment benefits, as your colleagues are effectively drawing from the same principle in being propped up by the tax payer. Living wage comes into play here.

So good to hear you actually look to employing people on welfare. Are they the same people who like yourself found their job redundant and needed the safety net of welfare to tide them over?

Credibility is slipping the longer this thread goes on.

 

[KEEFYP]

What are dinkies ?

Dual Income No Kids

 

[big soft moose]

What are dinkies ?

Double income, no kids - technically we don't earn enough to be propper dinkies (it was a saying from the 90s - like yuppies), but between us we pprobably gross 50k - so while we arent roling in it we arent poor by any stretch of the imagination.

Theres another saying from the 90s which might be applicable to certain posters. - LOMBARDS. (lots of money but are right d******ds)

 

[SFTPhotography]

Who says having kids is a right. If you cannot afford to have them...don't.

Min wage and house sharing 2-3-4 ways is perfectyly do-able.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Steve, I've often thought your posts on here and other forums are tongue in cheek and in the main to illicit responses. I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity tbh.





Is life saving and critical healthcare applicable to people who's lifestyle is a primary cause of illness requiring life saving and critical healthcare?

If those illness are caused by poor diet that is attributable to high sugar put into food by manufacturers, other additives that have been put in to maximise profit by corporations.

JSA is not dependant on how much cash asset you have, it is based on NI contributions over the previous 26 weeks. The self employed don't get JSA if they hit hard times, the recent of which have been created and caused by the very organisation you are employed by and their cohorts in greed.

You are employed by a paragon of sound business, an organisation propped up by the tax payer due to the averice of it's board and gamblers within. Says a lot really. You must therefore understand your hypocrisy of the in employment benefits, as your colleagues are effectively drawing from the same principle in being propped up by the tax payer. Living wage comes into play here.

So good to hear you actually look to employing people on welfare. Are they the same people who like yourself found their job redundant and needed the safety net of welfare to tide them over?

Credibility is slipping the longer this thread goes on.

I never worked for RBS. People here say I do, but don't. My post was in relation to my seniority within a UK retail bank, but not RBS or any state bailed out one.

I never was elidgble for JSA as had over £3k in savings at the time and was told to use those. Simple.

People can choose how healthily or unhealthily they eat, they live, etc and shouldn't automatically be given a pass as they've eaten their way into a triple bypass by their 40th Birthday.

 

[big soft moose]

Who says having kids is a right. If you cannot afford to have them...don't.

and what do you do if you or your wife get made redundant after you've had kids ?

Min wage and house sharing 2-3-4 ways is perfectyly do-able.

Have you ever done it ?

and yes as Keefy mentioned above - the reason the country is brasic is down to bankers f*****g up the economy by stupidly investing in subprime debt and perpetuals, and mortgage backed derivatives and all that. Its funny how all the 'stand on your own two feet you lazy scum' bankers suddenly had their hand out for public cash when their investments went bad. If the tax payer hadnt bailed them out (to the tune of over £20Bn in RBS 's case) people like you could be finding out first hand how easy it is to live on NMW (if you were lucky to get a mcjob)

 

[SFTPhotography]

and what do you do if you or your wife get made redundant after you've had kids ?

Save and build a contigency. Food banks? Take in a lodger to help pay bills? Get another job....

Have you ever done it ?

Yep. Best time of my life too.

 

[dinners]

Double income, no kids

Ah I see.

We're the polar opposite.

4 kids (15, 6, 3 & 2) and and my wife Karen (teacher) has taken a sabbatical for 5 years

We're OK on my income but we're still 35K PA down