The budget

[akr]

Breeding is a choice. ..never an accident.
Two seems more than fair to me.

If you truly believe that, your view should be no credits or anything for any children - you just make your choice if you can afford 1, 2, 3 etc children.

Your love of children knows no bounds - thank goodness you never were one

 

[dejongj]

Breeding is a choice. ..never an accident.
Two seems more than fair to me.

I agree, also when you are by yourself you only have two hands to hold them. One for each. It makes sense and is logical.

 

[Mr Bump]

Wrong, it is not based on pollution....Pollution is a flat rate, value of the car makes it more expensive Yet some suggest this is a budget for the rich...

wrong, pollution has many faces, luxury cars consume a lot of resources and hence pollute more during construction....

so...... you polute more you pay more..

 

[cambsno]

you polute = you pay

So scrap road tax and just put on fuel instead...

But, using your view, maybe we should tax kids too, seeing as they consume and add to pollution.

 

[akr]

I agree, also when you are by yourself you only have two hands to hold them. One for each. It makes sense and is logical.

No hands required

 

[Mr Bump]

So scrap road tax and just put on fuel instead...

But, using your view, maybe we should tax kids too, seeing as they consume and add to pollution.

tax kids to bloody right especially land fill nappies they should be £10 a pack just on tax alone.

 

[cambsno]

wrong, pollution has many faces, luxury cars consume a lot of resources and hence pollute more during construction....

so...... you polute more you pay more..

But I would argue a luxury car will last longer and actually be greener. How many Kia's are still running 20 years later compared to Merc SLs or Rollers?

 

[dejongj]

wrong, pollution has many faces, luxury cars consume a lot of resources and hence pollute more during construction....

so...... you polute more you pay more..

Nope you are still not getting it, it is not taxed on the input resources, it is taxed on the list price value. Huge difference.

 

[dejongj]

No hands required

Why correct, it is horrible. I've always hated rains....I found them stupid things for parents who can't be bothered getting involved...In my opinion ofcourse...

 

[viv1969]

No hands required

Well they're on a leash.
It's a good start.

 

[akr]

Why correct, it is horrible. I've always hated rains....I found them stupid things for parents who can't be bothered getting involved...In my opinion ofcourse...

I was only joking but I hope you were also basing the number of children you can have based on your available hands

That said we had one of those backpack type ones for a while, it was useful when walking them at the start to stop them falling, leading to many mission impossible poses...

Well they're on a leash.
It's a good start.

They are not leashes Ruth, they are ropes to encircle you with.

 

[srichards]

I was wondering what the limit was previously on share dividend income that was tax free for basic rate tax payers. Annoyingly I think they've possibly shut a loophole that might have been a good one to use if you were a basic rate tax payer.

I still think 40% is far too high a tax rate. They should cut it to 33%. Why would you bother when you have 40% income tax taken and a load of NI taken as well. This is why welfare doesn't work as they take away benefits as fast as you earn more pretty much. Lose the benefits/tax credits and other nonsense and make sure anyone in full time work earns enough to live on and that is paid for by their employer not everyone else. Seems an excellent plan to me.

Kids also need to learn to cost a lot less. This average figure of 200k up until 21 is outrageous. I have no idea why anyone wastes so much money on having them!

 

[dejongj]

I was only joking but I hope you were also basing the number of children you can have based on your available hands

That said we had one of those backpack type ones for a while, it was useful when walking them at the start to stop them falling, leading to many mission impossible poses...



They are not leashes Ruth, they are ropes to encircle you with.

LOL No I wasn't joking, it was a true consideration that if something happened to my wife, or something to me, either one of us can easily bring up two children...

 

[cambsno]

I was wondering what the limit was previously on share dividend income that was tax free for basic rate tax payers. Annoyingly I think they've possibly shut a loophole that might have been a good one to use if you were a basic rate tax payer.

I still think 40% is far too high a tax rate. They should cut it to 33%. Why would you bother when you have 40% income tax taken and a load of NI taken as well. This is why welfare doesn't work as they take away benefits as fast as you earn more pretty much. Lose the benefits/tax credits and other nonsense and make sure anyone in full time work earns enough to live on and that is paid for by their employer not everyone else. Seems an excellent plan to me.

Kids also need to learn to cost a lot less. This average figure of 200k up until 21 is outrageous. I have no idea why anyone wastes so much money on having them!

Agree. Unless you really are in long term need, benefits should not be comfortable enough to live for years on them.

I would like to see a system along the lines of up to 10k no tax, 10-20k 10p, 20-40k 20p, 40-70k 30p 70-100k 40p and 100k+ 45p.

 

[Musicman]

The contoversial one IMO is
Families with more than two children will not receive tax credits or housing benefit for their third or subsequent children under a fundamental change to the welfare system.
TBH I agree with this, hopefully it should stop people knocking out loads of kids to claim unrealistic amounts every month.
There are stories every week about the scroungers, who manage to work the system, lets hope it cuts this down.

The thing is that

• the child benefit and tax credits they receive don't make up for the actual costs of bringing up the children, so it's no real incentive*
• any additional housing benefit goes to the landlord, not the family, so it's no real incentive
• from what evidence exists, the sizes of families of people claiming benefits is roughly in line with that of the general population. If the system were encouraging them to breed, then we would expect them to have more children than the norm.
• the absolute number of people with large numbers of children claiming benefit is very small

* 2014/15 rates

Child benefit: £13.70 per additional child per week
Child tax credit: 53.46 per week

Total: £67.16 per week.

These are the benefits that will be cut for additional children after the second: out of which you have to pay for food, clothes, entertainment, transport, Christmas and birthday presents, everything that the child needs.

If you're looking at having a child as an investment to scrounge off the state, it's a very poor one indeed. Would you (anyone?) be prepared to be paid to bring up someone else's child for £67.16 a week and expect to make a profit out of it?

 

[dejongj]

Many people don't think like that. It's a meal ticket to a larger property and extra money they haven't got. Really simple. Your reasoning is that of a person who doesn't do that.

 

[onomatopoeia]

its so stupid because its only 50k for one person so two people can earn 49k each for a total of 98k but if someone earns 50k and their partner 12k they don't get it. the tories baffle me

You are assuming a convention family model with two resident parents. Now take into account separated parents, parents that were never in a relationship but still managed to create a baby, divorced and remarried parents with extended step families and you may realise how difficult evaluating it based on the combined salaries of the two parents is.

 

[munch]

It would be nice to at least see some links to some of the "facts" given by musicman.

The actual cost of bringing up a child is according to Centre of Economic and Business Research (CEBR) £229,251 I know for a fact it didn't cost nowhere near that much to bring up our daughter. I doubt if it cost us £67.16 per week.

Don't get me wrong I know people who really struggle on benefits, but I also know of people who are on benefit who live the "life of Riley" something has to be wrong with the system.

 

[onomatopoeia]

I was wondering what the limit was previously on share dividend income that was tax free for basic rate tax payers. Annoyingly I think they've possibly shut a loophole that might have been a good one to use if you were a basic rate tax payer.

I still think 40% is far too high a tax rate. They should cut it to 33%. Why would you bother when you have 40% income tax taken and a load of NI taken as well. This is why welfare doesn't work as they take away benefits as fast as you earn more pretty much. Lose the benefits/tax credits and other nonsense and make sure anyone in full time work earns enough to live on and that is paid for by their employer not everyone else. Seems an excellent plan to me.

It is/was a common wheeze for company directors (of small companies) to pay themselves a low salary that attracted no income tax or NI, then take the remainder in dividends, which only attracted income tax, thereby avoiding NI entirely and leaving them better of in tax terms than their employees for the same nominal salary.

The NI UEL and start of the 40% band have tended to co-incide, so the NI paid on the portion of salary that is taxed at 40% used to be 0%, but is now something like 2% as recent NI rises have also applied over the UEL. One does not pay 12% NI on that part of salary that attracts 40% income tax though (a common misunderstanding), so the marginal rate is 42%. Part of my income attracts this, and I don't begrudge it, at least not too much.

 

[Nod]

I was wondering what the limit was previously on share dividend income that was tax free for basic rate tax payers. Annoyingly I think they've possibly shut a loophole that might have been a good one to use if you were a basic rate tax payer.

IIRC, all dividends are taxed at source and that tax isn't refundable.

 

[mark richards]

Don't get me wrong I know people who really struggle on benefits, but I also know of people who are benefit who live the "life of Riley" something has to be wrong with the system.

because they know how the system works...I have two disabled children, ones approaching 21 and other is 18, we have had to find out, everything for our-self's, they make claiming for things
very difficult.. ,which is a hassle on its own,it hard-enough bringing up two disabled kids, with-out dealing with other-things...we have been told in the past,that we should have claimed for this that
& other, but was never told? ...sorry too late now..
we both dont drink or smoke, or have time out together..we are mostly with the kids 24-7...
we do try to have a holiday in this country once a year, touring caravan. but even that is getting harder to afford..
I wish i could find out ,how these people can live a life of Riley, because we can't....

 

[dejongj]

IIRC, all dividends are taxed at source and that tax isn't refundable.

They are, but you income isn't... So when you add dividend to your income your income increases, thus your potential tax liability.

 

[Nod]

Again IIRC, the tax rate on dividends is lower than the general rate (10% as opposed to 20% base rate).

 

[dejongj]

Again IIRC, the tax rate on dividends is lower than the general rate (10% as opposed to 20% base rate).

In the context of what you responded to it was 'tax free' as it was taxed at source for basic income, technically it wasn't naturally but it was already paid thus it seemed like it was.... From April 2016 onwards it won't be....

 

[Mr Bump]

Nope you are still not getting it, it is not taxed on the input resources, it is taxed on the list price value. Huge difference.

whatever, so expensive cars are cheaply built cars with high price tags?
expensive cars cost a lot to make and consume vast amounts of recourses relative to a modest family car, they cost much more in time and resources to maintain over there lifetime, and much more time and resources to recycle at the end of there life.

sigh

 

[nilagin]

whatever, so expensive cars are cheaply built cars with high price tags?
expensive cars cost a lot to make .........................

Actually they don't. They may well have more expensive items fitted, but the actual cost of manufacture is no different to lower priced cars. The higher cost just means the manufacturer can make a profit from a lower volume of cars sold, compared to lower priced cars for smaller profit that are sold in much higher numbers.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I am pleased with the budget. It needs to be fairer on those who pay for the welfare state rather than those who take from it.

 

[Mr Bump]

Actually they don't. They may well have more expensive items fitted, but the actual cost of manufacture is no different to lower priced cars. The higher cost just means the manufacturer can make a profit from a lower volume of cars sold, compared to lower priced cars for smaller profit that are sold in much higher numbers.

and so this go's on so the "expensive items" don't consume more time, energy and resources to make than the items in a modest family cars then?

All that leather stitched upholstery and 50 leccy motors to move all those seats around, the 28 speaker sound system, the bits of semi fake wood in the dashboard.

http://www.carbontrust.com/news/201...a-premium-race-to-the-top-luxury-goods-market

 

[nilagin]

and so this go's on so the "expensive items" don't consume more time, energy and resources to make than the items in a modest family cars then?

All that leather stitched upholstery and 50 leccy motors to move all those seats around, the 28 speaker sound system, the bits of semi fake wood in the dashboard.

http://www.carbontrust.com/news/201...a-premium-race-to-the-top-luxury-goods-market

Do you really think there is a higher carbon footprint from stitching leather upholstery over vinyl or cloth upholstery? If anything in high end cars it's likely to be less as they are hand stitched. I have 8 way electric seats in my car and both seats only have two motors. No reason for a higher priced car to have more.

 

[nilagin]

I am pleased with the budget. It needs to be fairer on those who pay for the welfare state rather than those who take from it.

I'd only agree with that if it was reworded as those who take, having not contributed and have no intention of doing so. I have just over 12yrs to go before I reach state pension age, I'll be fairly p'd off if there's nothing left by the time I get there, having contributed for over 40yrs by that time and not taken anything out. Fortunately for me my works pension is fairly good, but I should still be able to receive what I am due and contributed to.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'd only agree with that if it was reworded as those who take, having not contributed and have no intention of doing so. I have just over 12yrs to go before I reach state pension age, I'll be fairly p'd off if there's nothing left by the time I get there, having contributed for over 40yrs by that time and not taken anything out. Fortunately for me my works pension is fairly good, but I should still be able to receive what I am due and contributed to.

I'm more thinking of those on tax credits etc who are in work and people with large families that need state help to keep their litter of children.

 

[nilagin]

Around 85% of a modern car is made from recycled material, which in turn can be recycled, further.

 

[nilagin]

I'm more thinking of those on tax credits etc who are in work and people with large families that need state help to keep their litter of children.

It's a bit of a grey area, some people really do struggle due to a change in work circumstances, whilst for some it has always been a source of income. It should be means tested better, assistance for those to get back on their feet, not those who are just exploiting it.

 

[Cartus]

I'm more thinking of those on tax credits etc who are in work and people with large families that need state help to keep their litter of children.

Who's been reading the Daily Mail again

 

[Cobra]

BTW The roadtax grrrr what is this nonsense that cars over £40K pay a £310 per year supplement on top of the £140 for the first £500 years.

For the first 500 years?

There's no way in hell that I can afford a car in that bracket, but it doesn't make sense to me either.

tax kids to bloody right especially land fill nappies they should be £10 a pack just on tax alone.

I work on and around landfills and TBH the amount of nappies has decreased dramatically in the last few years.
It seems that most *Medical* now goes to be burnt.
I'm not disagreeing with you BTW

Child benefit: £13.70 per additional child per week
Child tax credit: 53.46 per week

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that people earning nearly £50,000 / year or £96,000 (is it?) jointly are getting state benefits,
A fairer way would be to drop the threshold to well under the average wage, say half and give the "deservers" more"

its so stupid because its only 50k for one person so two people can earn 49k each for a total of 98k but if someone earns 50k and their partner 12k they don't get it. the tories baffle me

As above
I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that people earning nearly £50,000 / year or £96,000 (is it?) jointly are getting state benefits,

...sorry too late now..
we both dont drink or smoke, or have time out together..we are mostly with the kids 24-7...
we do try to have a holiday in this country once a year, touring caravan. but even that is getting harder to afford..
I wish i could find out ,how these people can live a life of Riley, because we can't....

That kinda reinforces my point above.

 

[Cartus]

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that people earning nearly £50,000 / year or £96,000 (is it?) jointly are getting state benefits,
A fairer way would be to drop the threshold to well under the average wage, say half and give the "deservers" more"

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for children and subsequently it was never means tested as an individual (or couple) could conceivably earn £1m pa and still neglect their kids.

That used to be the principle.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for children and subsequently it was never means tested as an individual (or couple) could conceivably earn £1m pa and still neglect their kids.

That used to be the principle.

Why should the tax payer pay for people's choice to breed?

 

[Cobra]

The point of child benefit was that it was a benefit for children and subsequently it was never means tested as an individual (or couple) could conceivably earn £1m pa and still neglect their kids.

Fair point and all that

 

[Cartus]

Why should the tax payer pay for people's choice to breed?

There was a time fairly recently when the population of the UK was falling. We need economies to demonstrate growth and one way to achieve that is to increase the population.

Why do you think Steve, the government allow the levels of immigration we've witnessed over the past few years? It stimulates economic growth is the answer. This government knew they would be re-elected on how well the economy had apparently performed rather than losing the election over immigration. It worked it seemed.

 

[twist]

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that people earning nearly £50,000 / year or £96,000 (is it?) jointly are getting state benefits

Perhaps this will help..... £50k per year is £3,350 per month after tax if each earn 25k PA.

Lets say the couple have a mortgage for a standard house, thats about £1000 per month, next bills and food, another £500 per month. They both work full time, travel costs, £350 per month. They have 2 kids in full time nursery, £1500 per month.

How much is left? £0, oh except the £100 odd they get from the state which might be spent on a few days out over that month to buy the odd ice cream or perhaps a fish and chips. Likely that it would go to a bill though.