A middle-class backlash?
The overwhelmingly middle-class party activists in Birmingham are not quite sure what to make of it.
In principle, they're inclined to agree that it is "bonkers", as Iain Duncan Smith put it, that those earning over £50,000 a year qualify for child benefit. In practice, they're not so sure because they think these are already hard times for the middle class and this is another serious financial blow.
The middle class think they've already borne the brunt of Labour's tax and national insurance rises, which the Tories have no plans to reverse.
More and more are being sucked into the 40% income tax bracket because the level at which it hits has not been raised in line with inflation (again no Tory proposals to change that), the return on their savings has plummeted in the wake of the financial meltdown and in many cases their pensions have been shot to shreds.
Younger affluent couples will also worry about how to cope with the massive rise in university tuition fees coming down the pike. When the Chancellor repeats ad nauseum that "we're all in this together" the middle class can chorus "too right we are".
Then there are the anomalies in what is being proposed. If the family has one wage earner making £50,000 a year then child benefit will be forfeited. But if it has two earners making £40,000 each then child benefit will still be paid because neither earner is in the 40% tax bracket.
The Chancellor says for it to be otherwise would involve complicated means-testing. But since the change won't come in until 2013 many will think he has plenty of time to make the changes more equitable.
Most commentary on deficit reduction has concentrated on the likely response of the public-sector unions, with threats of strikes and demonstrations.
But a Tory-led coalition government might be about to see something much more dangerous to its long-term interests: a middle-class backlash.
At least it casts doubts on the Marxist claim that Tories always act in their own class interests.
Click here for more conference coverage from the Daily Politics.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Welcome back Andrew.
This seems like a reverse of the charity begins at home, hammer your core supporters first.
Interesting times ahead.
I am sure those with one earner only over 50k will find a way of splitting it between to two of a couple. Creative accountants will rule as always.
Perhaps this being announced first is to try and soften the blow for what he has planned for thos earning a pittance or on disability benefits.
Doubt it will be seen that way by either affected party.
Complain about this comment
Looks like I am the only one of the usual suspects to have found your new post so far.
I am hoping for some clarification of "universal credit" it sounds god, trips nicely off the tongue but is meaningless.
Not everyone can have the same amount of "credit" as circumstances, children, age, etc differ so there has to be some calculation still involved.
I would like to know how it differs from Income Support now. If you qualify for that then you automatically get all other means tested benefits. That is currently referred to as "passported" benefits in the trade. A universal bensfit entitlement if you like.
Perhaps as usual the devil will be in the detail, when we get it.
Complain about this comment
The more I look a t the child benefit isuue the more complex it becomes and more likely to come back and bit George.
Trawling through the news sites it is stopped for any family with a single earner over 44k.
So say the male earns 44,500 then the child benefit for say 3 childrn at 2.4k a year goes. So for an excess of 500 the state takes 2.4k. Unless there is a taper built into the detail this one is going to be a hot potato for the Tories to sell to many of their own.
Please say I am not number 3 , getting lonely here.
Complain about this comment
Then there are the anomalies in what is being proposed. If the family has one wage earner making £50,000 a year then child benefit will be forfeited. But if it has two earners making £40,000 each then child benefit will still be paid because neither earner is in the 40% tax bracket.
The Chancellor says for it to be otherwise would involve complicated means-testing. But since the change won't come in until 2013 many will think he has plenty of time to make the changes more equitable.
I'm retired on a microscopic company pension, but they don't seem to find it too complicated to means-test me.
I'm sure you can imagine how much I sympathise with those struggling along on £50,000 a year and a cheap mortgage. The only things I can recall ever getting free from the state is a cataract operation and my bus pass. At least they probably won't want to confiscate the operation.
Complain about this comment
Well,well, well! No wonder BBC journalists didn't want technicians striking during the Conservative Party conference. A strike would have prevented them from broadcasting hostile and negative reports about the "evil, baby eating Tories". What a difference from last week's Beeb journalists' love-in with Labour. BBC impartial? Don't make me laugh!
Complain about this comment
Xtun reinforcements coming...
The basic concept is correct but the implementation will be tricky - joint income has to be taken into account otherwise this will be extremely divisive and could backfire like the 10P tax fiasco.
It is untenable that the pensioners on fixed but taxable pensions end up subsidising middle class lifestyles through child benefit.
Personally I would favour taxing child benefits so that there is a smoother transition.
Complain about this comment
I'm with you 5
The Labour tub-thumping by the BBC is starting to get more than a little tedious of late.
He's an idea for helping out the squeezed middle - abolish the license fee. Perhaps a few disposable nappy adverts might inject a little bit of humour into the BBC's endless, hysterical anti-cuts agenda.
One less super regressive tax to worry about.
Complain about this comment
5. At 12:48pm on 04 Oct 2010, openandfrank wrote:
Well,well, well! No wonder BBC journalists didn't want technicians striking during the Conservative Party conference. A strike would have prevented them from broadcasting hostile and negative reports about the "evil, baby eating Tories". What a difference from last week's Beeb journalists' love-in with Labour.
A conspiracy theory! You don't often find them on these blogs.
Call me a cynic, but I wonder if the BBC would have preferred the technicians not to strike simply because they'd prefer to continue broadcasting, that being what they do.
Mind you they've been keeping the lid on flying elephants. Have you ever seen them show film of one?.
Complain about this comment
I discussed this with a German colleague who said that in Germany, married couples can pool their income for tax purposes, so a married couple earning 60k & 20k, can be taxed on 40k & 40k.
This seems like a fairer option and as a side benefit, would've thrown some red meat to the Tory core (as explicit support for marriage). I doubt it's terribly complicated from a tax POV either, given it's how the tax system used to operate for married couples. In fact it would simplify some tax aspects, such as husband/wife companies and their treatment under section 660a of ICTA 1988.
Complain about this comment
6 Coats
Nice to have company. Was wondering if I had entered a parallel blogsphere.
I think you have the answer in that tax idea.
What everyone seems to have forgotten is that this benefit is money paid direct to the parent with care usually the woman. This may be the only true "cash" she gets. The earners income may be totally swallowed by the bank if they are running on an overdraft. Also an extra 2.4k in tax (3 kids, another 700 for each extra kid) taken from the main pay will cripple those spending up to and beyond the hilt which is many these days.
Your idea goes against a recent change in other benefits in that Child Benefit no longer counts as income for the calculation of , say , Income Support or Housing Benefit.
Sure I just heard George say no family on benefits will get more in benefits than the average pay if they had gone to work. Does he think before he opens his mouth ? Average pay based on what/who. This would mean a massive rise for many as benefits really are breadline despite the Daily Mail's attempts to say otherwise.
Can just imagine the form. Q1, What job would you have done. Ans Banker.
If he intends to include Housing Benefit in this average amount where are all the homeless going to be housed when the landlords say no market rent no tenancy.Or does he intend to upset the Tory voting landlords by forcing rents down to uneconomic levels.
Does nobody work out the obvious consequences any more never mind the unintended?
It will be an interesting revolutionary mob , 45k earners alongside Income Support claimants, pensioners with walking sticks for pikes and with a mounted regiment in wheelchairs.
Complain about this comment
Been saving this one up specially for the Tory conference and true to form George Osborne is at it again. We saved you from the brink of disaster fantasy part 2.
"But Mr Clegg said that the last government's borrowing had taken the country "to the brink of bankruptcy". That is similar to rhetoric that Chancellor Osborne has used - but it is simply not true.
As it happens, governments can't go bankrupt - they can only default on their debt. But I'm not just being pedantic. The facts are that on the eve of the election, the UK still had an uncontested triple-AAA credit rating, and the market was demanding an interest rate of just 3.9% to lend the government money, compared to 3.7% for US bonds and 3.1% for Germany. (That UK rate might have been higher had investors not been expecting a Tory victory, but the average yield for the previous 12 months was about the same.) Whatever you think about the fiscal mess that the coalition inherited, these are not the characteristics of a country on the "brink" of bankruptcy or default."
Stephanie Flanders - BBC Economics Editor 21.09.10
A certain amount of terminological inexactitude involved? Well, having made their bed I suppose they have to 'lie' in it.
Complain about this comment
THe detail is now coming out. The magic average income figure is 500 pounds per week after tax. Not sure what that means as few benefit claimants pay tax or does he mean take home pay ?
Either way 500 quid a week will be a nice increase for many , I would love it, where do I claim? Somehow I dont think this is the Universal Credit figure IDS keeps spouting about. But surely it must be or they are at cross purposes ?
No mention about which benefits this includes yet as 500 quid wouldnt cover the rent for many in expensive property areas and as this is money the claimant hands to another party, the landlord, there is no direct benefit to the claimant other than a roof over their head, likewise Council Tax benefit. Dunno if they still pay mortgage interest but if they do and that is included............ So does he mean 500 quid plus housing rent/mortgage and council tax or what ?
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I wonder if everyone else out in the Country is as confused about Osborne's message as I am. Osborne is making all the right noises, however when it comes to policy he seems to be doing just the opposite of what he is proposing will get Britain out of this financial crisis.
He talks of the Global economy and the need for growth in the British economy, then does not address the issues which are making Britain uncompetitve. Britain needs to include in its programme of cuts, some means of lowing taxation to encourage growth. The 50p tax and other punitive taxation on high earners, is already proving to be disastrous to the UK economy. More companies are relocating and more people of wealth are moving to lower taxation Countries. This in turn sees the tax take go down. Then he goes on to complete the sin by saying he will make moves to stop bonus payments, that bankers have to make to compete in a World that continues to make these payments. As banks are private enterprises, in most cases, he cannot do this for a start, without bringing in heavy legislation which would kill enterprise in other companies. Furthermore the Global economies would not follow suit, therefore banks and other financial services would merely relocate and Britains very important financial sector would be lost.
The same as he talks about Welfare reform, the only reforms that seem to be happening are hitting hard working middle class families. The cutting of the child benefit for those earning over 44,000 is a mistake for many reasons. Not least that this payment would still be available to couples earning 86,000 in some cases. It means irresponsible people, not working, will continue to receive these vast amounts of child benefit and to have children they cannot afford, for payment. More children in fact born to needing Welfare payments and education uplifts. Child benefit should have been cut down for all, none should be paid for those over 16 and none for any children born after the first two. Furthermore there should be no payments for immigrants who have paid nothing into the system because they are not working. The birth rate amongst working immigrants is very high, this further puts a strain on resources. Only making payments for the first two children born, would have addressed this problem.
I am also puzzled by Osbornes declaration that he will cut benefits, for those not working, to a level of not more than the average wage for all families. If this is his guide, why would these families bother to work if they receive the average wage. This payment is set far too high.
All of this could in fact see the Welfare budget continue to increase rapidly over the coming years.
Another source of concern, should be the amount of immigrants coming to Britain is beginning to increase again, especially from Poland. This could see any growth in jobs going not to British workers who have lost their jobs in any cuts or who are presently on benefits, but to immigrants.
The markets are on hold at the moment to see what the Coalition has to offer. If this is a sample I am afraid it is going nowhere.
All this is at odds with Osbornes natural instincts for economic recovery before the formation of this Coalition. Could it be then that the Lib/Dems are putting restrictions on what he can do within the restraints of the politics involved for this alliance.
"We are all in this together" is a very good message, however if the policies proposed are not going to pull the economy back into balance, it will be a case of we are all in this together going downwards.
Complain about this comment
Idont Believeit 11
Not true, I am afraid, and if Stephanie Flanders said this, she should know better. Countries can go bankrupt and do. Recent examples are Argentina 2001 and Iceland 2008. When a Country can no longer service its debts its currency becomes worthless and they are then formally bankrupt. Argentina went into hyperinflation because of printing money. Germany has been bankrupt twice through the two wars.
It is quite easy for a Country to spin into a debt spiral once a deficit begins to get large and overspending becomes the norm. The imbalance in the economy then takes over and unless sharp cut backs are made, the Country enters a loss of confidence by the markets, printing money to keep afloat and the sprial begins.
Complain about this comment
coats 6
It is not really possible to tax child benefit as such. Reasons are whilst you can do this with married couples, what about those who are cohabiting. No one would know their financial position, therefore you would be punishing just married couples for being married and knowing their declared income. I also seem to remember there is some kind of legal argument which prevents this too. The money is deemed to belong to the child therefore cannot be subject to tax.
Means testing is out of the question too, the costs to administer would be astronomical and would in the end cost more than the saving.
This is the problem with think tanks who suggest these sort of things, they never think.
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft @14
Bit harsh on Steph. You devote your whole post to trying to refute something that even she concedes is a technicality (but non the less technically correct) but offer nothing on the substantial part of her argument. The tory story about the recession and the previous governments part in completely messing it up and taking us to the brink of bankruptcy and disaster, doesn't quite match the recorded facts. The recent change to 'the cuts won't be so bad' and caring Conservative spending plans seems odd if we are in the 'direst danger' as you have pointed out yourself in other posts. Perhaps the danger wasn't as bad as they thought once they got over the shock of suddenly having to make real decisions rather than criticising others as the opposition.
Nice to be in power but it brings brickbats as well as plaudits. We must stay on their backs and make sure they do it right.
Complain about this comment
Strange analysis from Andrew regarding the Tories not acting in their own class interests. The Tories are there on behalf of big business and multi-nationals, ref. Cameron secretly meeting Murdoch in Downing Street just days into the new administration. Rupert ain't middle class (and neither is David).
Complain about this comment
Coats
Your idea is viable in standard couple one works one homemakes in that the child benefit could continue to be paid, usually to the mother, and the earners tax code ammended to claw it back.
Thus the benefit itself is not taxed but it is snatched back via the tax system.
Something similar happens now with Incapacity Benefit which adjusts your tax code against any other income you may have, occupational pension for example. This applies on quite modest income far less than 44k.
How they work both parents together earning over 44k is another kettle of fish altogether.
Complain about this comment
I don't mind this tory policy to remove child benefit from middle to high earners. More generally, a move away from universal benefits (including the pension) to a system based on need is worth a serious look. Plus a (much) higher minimum wage and personal allowance - and higher taxes at the top end.
Complain about this comment
19. At 7:21pm on 04 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
I don't mind this tory policy to remove child benefit from middle to high earners. More generally, a move away from universal benefits (including the pension) to a system based on need is worth a serious look. Plus a (much) higher minimum wage and personal allowance - and higher taxes at the top end.
NHS is a universal benefit just like pensions, Saga. Would you scale charges for that? Personally, I wouldn't scale either, but why someone on over £40,000 p.a. should need child benefit defeats me.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix @19
What are your thoughts on the line of reasoning offered to justify such a move. The 'they don't really need the money so we'll take it off them and put it to better use'. Seems a little socialist? S-C certainly wasn't happy about it earlier today.
Still suppose 'we' shouldn't complain. Perhaps we could try something similar on people earning more than Dave? Let them get more but then claw it back through the tax system.
Complain about this comment
19 Saga
I suppose if you dont earn 50k then 50 looks high.
If you earn 50k then that is normal to you and say 100k is what you would consider high and so on.
To take over 3k from a 4 kid family with an income of 45k is taking 7% of their income away. How many could handle that ?
Unless we are in the realms of tough I dont earn anything like that so let them stew the concept is wrong.
Other than that what were Tory voters will be on the march which is all to the good.
We need to be more like the French. A proposal to increase their SRP age to 62 had brought near riots on the streets with families and students there in support. We have been told our SRP age is going to increase to 66 and then 68 and it is mooted that it will progressively increase to the 70s, and what happens ?. We shrug and accept it and the young joke that they will never get one because it will be 95 by the time they are old enough.
When did we lose our backbone ?
Complain about this comment
Susan, Xtun
The implementation of this policy needs careful consideration - however I do believe in principle it is the right thing to do.
Complain about this comment
20 IaO
Why does everyone posting on here seem to think that those on 40k+ are filthy rich ?
The first thing most do when their income increases is improve their housing situation. This means that a large proportion of their income goes in mortgage payments and their disposable income will not be as great as everyone seems to think.
Kippers and curtains folk they used to be called when I was a lad. They have the outward trappings of wealth but live meagrely.
You may argue it was their choice to over extend themselves mortgagewise but it was reasonable to them in the rules of the game that appertained at the time. Bullingdon boy now proposes to change those rules and inflict a 7% cut in their income if they have 4 kids.
Never thought I would argue the toffs corner but unfairness is unfairness whoever it is used against.
Cant work out whether George is trying a risky variation on divide and rule or if in fact this trumpeted leveler will disappear twixt now and 2013 as it was just playing to the envy crowd.
Complain about this comment
outrage,
By UBs, I mean cash payments rather than (e.g. health and education) core services. CSs should be free to all - or funded out of general taxation, rather.
Do you like the notion of UBs? Which ones shouldn't be need related, in your view? Just the pension or others too?
(course if a means-driven system isn't practical, or costs too much to implement, then maybe not ... worth considering though).
Complain about this comment
IDB,
The official reasoning is the ubiquitous "deficit reduction", I suppose, but I'm more interested in the long term notion (which has merit, IMO) of moving away from universal benefits towards a needs-driven system. What do you make of that? If you see a place for UBs, which ones would you retain - i.e. which ones do you think shouldn't be related to need?
Complain about this comment
xtun,
You used to point out very frequently how crazy and unfair it is for people on those sort of incomes (50k and +) to be receiving state handouts.
What's changed your mind?
Complain about this comment
"Furthermore there should be no payments for immigrants who have paid nothing into the system because they are not working. The birth rate amongst working immigrants is very high, this further puts a strain on resources." - sc @ 13
Gee, Susan - working or not working, you don't go a bunch on "immigrants", do you?
Complain about this comment
Looks more like a middle class split to me. Some are clearly very anti the change, just because they will lose out. Others are more realistic about the need for change.
Can anybody explain why some of the £200 Tax/NI that I pay every month on the earnings from my minimum wage job (47hrs/week) should be used to subsidise families earning more than £44K...?
I think you'll find that I need the money more than they do.
I've probably worked harder for it too...!
Complain about this comment
Xtun
Why does everyone posting on here seem to think that those on 40k+ are filthy rich ?
There has to be a cut-off somewhere - the general taxpayer should not be subsidising lifestyles that some of the taxpayers cannot aspire to.
Perhaps some of the anomalies in the dual income families could be sorted out through the tax credit system - I may be mistaken but I think both incomes are taken into account.
Complain about this comment
Dual income means both working, thus childcare costs. This means that the 1 x £80k family will probably still be better off financially than the 2 x £40k family, even with the CB retained by the latter (and their lower aggregate tax bill).
Complain about this comment
27 Saga
That was the tax credit system which gave them more dosh.
Dosh which those who lost out on the 10p tax were paying into the pot so it could, in part, be given to 60k plus people. That was/is crazy.
To remove a universal benefit that has been around for 64 years and in effect reduce family income by quite a percentage if you are on the cut off point is quite different to not giving them more. It is as unjust as the 10p tax band removal was.
I see they are already backtracking. I do often wonder are the civil servants idiots these days or do they deliberately hand the Minister
a grenade minus pin. Either way how do they continue to be employed ?
Complain about this comment
coats 23
I have been through the main reasons why withdrawal of child benefit is wrong, however there are others which take into account fairness in society.
Child Benefit is a Universal credit because it gives an indication of what value children have in British society. All children should be valued. That was the ideology behind it first being introduced to prevent divides in society where children are concerned. It was an idea which was introduced at a time when society was much more unfair than it is now. To promote family values, and a feeling of being as one in society. Better to have lowered it for all, none for over 16 and none for any children over two born, than to have this cut off point which is very unfair.
A single Mother or Father, through no fault of their own, may very well be paying for child care some days of the week. They earn 44,000, therefore, they will lose child benefit. In overtaxed Britain this is not a lot of money for parent on their own with children or a couple when one person is not working. This extra sum of money may help towards their child care etc. It could well see many in difficulty as 1752.40 a year for just two children is a lot of money.
It forces women who are in couples, and the husband works and earns 44,000, who would rather stay at home with their children, back to work. In a society that needs good parenting this is wrong and makes it harder for others seeking jobs to do so.
To my knowledge migrants from abroad can still come to Britain and claim child benefit send it home for children not living in the UK. This also applies to some other benefits. It is therefore incumbent on Osborne to explain why this is fair, when he withdraws this benefit from certain families in this Country.
When a person earning money for his family, is told his child benefit is to be withdrawn, he may very well ask why then he is paying tax for other children in other Countries in the form of overseas aid. In India for example, there is a great deal of wealth, they just choose not to help with poverty. They choose also to continue to allow their people to have large families which they cannot afford. Why then should a man in Britain lose child benefit for his family, to provide for others.
Britain can no longer claim it is a society of fairness for its people. There is no fairness for hard working families in our society. Fairness only seems to be extended to the work shy who have numerous children, those in other Countries and those who take no responsibility for themselves.
This policy was not introduced out of necessity, as in some ways it will prove to bad in economic terms. It was produced out of a necessity to keep certain voters onside. Labour without an argument other than the squeezed middle, Lib/Dems happy in the Coalition and IDS quiet.
My advice to those who are slightly over this 44,000 threshold is to put the amount above it, into their pension, thus giving them the ability by lowering their income to still claim family benefit. If this is tax avoidance, good.
Complain about this comment
Idont Believeit 11 16
I didn't answer 11 other than stating how incorrect SF was as regards Countries going bankrupt. Because if someone claiming to know economics can get the basics wrong, it follows the rest will be wrong too. This proved to be the case when I read on. Economics should be based on what you know to be the correct way forward, in this particular case, for a Country, no political leanings should enter into this judgement. This tends to be the problem with high profile economists who work for Governments and receive rewards for using poor judgement.
I also have very little interest in posts which are sent taking small amounts, of probably a much longer piece, from another blog to use to their advantage. I would prefer to read the full script in it original form. Furthermore people like SF who have a particular political bias and claim economic knowledge, which they use merely to stir up the masses, have no interest for me either.
Britains economic problems are obvious for anyone to see, should they choose to. If then they deny the evidence presented, it is because they want to, rather than it being based on anything solid. Therefore it would have been pointless to answer you in further detail.
Complain about this comment
32. xTunbridge wrote:
'To remove a universal benefit that has been around for 64 years and in effect reduce family income by quite a percentage if you are on the cut off point is quite different to not giving them more. It is as unjust as the 10p tax band removal was.'
So just because something has been around for 64 years we can't change it??? C'mon xT, that's cobblers.
Let's say you're earning £70k+, how on earth can you justify receiving child benefits, no matter what mortgage or cars you think you can afford.
Would you be pacified if they raised the cutoff point to say, £55?
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
the more that Cameroon goes on about linking pensions to wages, the worse it gets. What must be resisted is the proposal to allow companies to change the link of RPI to increases in CPI instead is a disaster. Any MP which votes this through will be answerable to their electorate, and will not be forgiven. However, MPs voted like sheep in respect of Iraq and look what happened there.
If it is such a good idea to change the link for occupational pensions from RPI to CPI then why is it not such a good idea the change the link for Index-Linked Gilts. If the change was made just imagine how much would be saved, the the national interest, of course. Actually I am surprised that others have not seen the link of government of national interest to banking and interest rates, it's all subliminal, it's all in the message. This is not a government in the national interest, it a government of national unity, although that has too many links to the thirties.
talking of the thirties, let's solve the unemployment problem by having people employed for a proper means testing system! Bring back the means test, yes! Soft chairs, no sell them and buy wooden benches, made from environmentally secure forests of course.
Complain about this comment
The BBC reports. "The Treasury says about 15% of families will lose out. In real terms, this means 1.2m families will be affected, but 6.6m will see no change to their child benefits.
The Treasury claims the child benefit bill is about £12bn a year, and the cutback will save £1bn annually."
Surely, for those who wish the deficit to be cut faster and deeper the savings of £1bn do not go far enough?
Complain about this comment
33 Susan
It forces women who are in couples, and the husband works and earns 44,000, who would rather stay at home with their children, back to work. In a society that needs good parenting this is wrong and makes it harder for others seeking jobs to do so.
Many dual income families make considerable sacrifices to provide a reasonable standard of living, in some areas it is difficult to exist on a single wage and many women have no option but to work and constantly guilt trip about having to leave their children in nurseries. For those without large families prepared to help out, the cost of child care takes a large chunk out of their wages and the amount of income retained is quite low.
Women also form a vital part of the working economy, 3 or 4 years ago we struggled to recruit staff - without those working women we would have been even more reliant on migrant workers. Is this the option you would advocate when the economy starts to recover?
Whilst I agree with the general drift of the policy, there may be better ways of achieving the same end such as raising the 40% tax rate.
Complain about this comment
How on earth can someone consider themselves middle-class whilst receiving state benefits? This is absurd.
Are they really middle class or just jumped up proles eager for free beer?
This country has been debauched by handouts, bonuses and all sorts of easy money.
This is the time we need to knuckle down to some real work.
Complain about this comment
35 Blame
Free schooling has been around for about 100 years lets scrap that make everyone pay. Dunno why I have to pay for everyone elses kids to go to school anyway.
NHS about the same time as child benefit lets scrap that make everyone pay.
Local Authorites have been liable to make housing provision for decades. lets scrap that the poor and homeless can find their own or a shop doorway somewhere.
Libraries, museums, parks all totally non essential lets scrap them.
Of course things can change but I believe this change is wrong. It would only be less unfair if it was no child benefit for any child born after 2012 for those with a significant amount of disposable income after housing costs were taken into consideration. Benefit changes have historically been for new claimants. I think there are at least 3 different types of Incapacity benefit running at the momemt as those on IVB kept it as did those on IB and currently it is called Employment and Support Allownace for claimants since 2008. The goalposts only move for new claimants. Dunno why George thinks he can do this different .
Interestingly if the proposal comes to fruition, which I doubt, will it mean the better off produce less children ? Obviously the less well off will continue to reproduce at well above the 2.4 rate until they rule the roost by numbers anyway.Just wondered if this will help them get there sooner.
Already Cameron is having to stand up and defend it and the Childrrns Minister is talking about "adjustments". This has not been thought through.
Whatever the income of the main earner, the man usually, Child Benefit is often the only cash a stay at home mum gets direct to her and I will bet it is a lifeline in many households however afluent.
Oh yes and often the car you mention is a company one or leased. Kippers and curtains is as relevant now as it was 50 years ago.
Thatcher the milk snatcher. Cameron the child benefit thief. Don't rhyme as well but it gives the picture.
On other matters I see the Tories have a new pool of cheap labour , prisoners. Those on the outside being undercut by lags as well as cheap EU labour. Oh what fun. If they made unemployment a criminal offence then that would solve the problem. Ken Clarke will find em a job in prison,I jest(hopefully).
Complain about this comment
35 Blame
I forgot in 40 above. City bonuses up to 7bn !!!
Some sacrifice there eh ?
Complain about this comment
37
Surely, for those who wish the deficit to be cut faster and deeper the savings of £1bn do not go far enough?
====================================
Quite. The coalition appears to have no intention on "fixing" the deficit let alone the debt during this parliamentary term. Call it political cynicism but any real cuts must happen in either 5 or 10 years time. I do not think that Labour have figured this out yet - that if they get in next time, not much will have changed from present.
What spending plans the coalition have they will ensure the penalty clauses are extreme committing any future government to staying with the plans. All the coaltion can do is shape things in the direction that they want things to go. What is really worrying are the level of tax receipts right now and the trend over the next 5 years - these will be the benchmark of real economic recovery. As catch22 has often pointed out the number of companies that have been allowed to defer tax payments to the HMRC is quite shocking.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
is there not a problem with sending people from hospitals to live at home for the last months, weeks, days, of their life, and the government spending huge sums of money adapting homes for the person. Consider this, an appraisal is made, sometimes decides that a person can be sent home if the home is adapted. Kit is ordered, fitters arranged, rooms adapted, furniture moved, doorways resized, and then. The person comes home, and then dies, what an absolute waste of money.
The trouble is that decisions have to be made about life expectancy, a difficult decision at the best of times, and all this to end bed blocking, that's what this is all about.
Complain about this comment
Good, good morning each & Andrew.
Cuts! What cuts?
Quite right ECB. Little or nothing is being cut...so far. Only robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The idea of a combined household income. Was this not the way it was before the crusade to give wife-kind a tax status all of their own?
Complain about this comment
BTW.
I see my membership has lapsed and the promise of becoming moderation-free has been denied me, again. So much changes, so much remains the same.
Complain about this comment
coats 38
Why on earth would you need to employ migrant workers when we have 5-6 million inactive people in Britain?
Furthermore I made no point against working women. I spoke about women who choose not to go to work to look after their children. That is quite different. Often women even on less income than 44,000 choose not to work and their income is made up by credits. I think you need to read 33 again to take in its contents.
Complain about this comment
40.xT
'Free schooling has been around for about 100 years lets scrap that make everyone pay. Dunno why I have to pay for everyone elses kids to go to school anyway.
NHS about the same time as child benefit lets scrap that make everyone pay.
Local Authorites have been liable to make housing provision for decades. lets scrap that the poor and homeless can find their own or a shop doorway somewhere.
Libraries, museums, parks all totally non essential lets scrap them.'
Steady on, xT. One thing at a time! :)
I'm with you on the bigger picture (I think) This is just one of a series of 'reforms'/changes/daft ideas, call them what you think appropriate, but they have to be looked at in totality with others they intend to role out. As I've said elsewhere, theoretically it's not a bad idea, the less well off shouldn't have to contribute for those much better off enjoying the same benefits. In simple terms (I can only do simple) the word 'universal' says it all. For the benefit of everyone. That's OK if it refers to something other than a lifestyle choice. We don't choose to get ill. (NHS) But how many children we have is a lifestyle choice.
I agree with you that the way they plan to implement it has flaws, which is why I'd consider scrapping it altogether and create a fairer tax system which is means tested and neither encourages those who can't afford to support big families or continues to give handouts to those who can.
Complain about this comment
46 Susan
If you re-read my post you will see I was referring back to a couple of years ago when we were crying out for labour and removing women from that labour pool would [in normal times of employment] have a detrimental effect on the economy.
I am not sure that the taxpayer should be supporting lifestyle choices - many of the taxpayers who subsidise these lifestyle choices may be surviving on small occupational pensions having been made redundant and with limited options for employment in the current climate.
Being a full time mother and housewife may be admirable but if it is a matter of choice - surely you would expect to make some financial sacrifices?
Complain about this comment
22. At 8:24pm on 04 Oct 2010, xTunbridge wrote:
"To take over 3k from a 4 kid family with an income of 45k is taking 7% of their income away. How many could handle that ?"
In most cases, I would be much more concerned should the Base Bank Rate increase. This would involve many households having to pay more than the £3k in increased mortgage repayments.
And if the two were to come along at once...
Complain about this comment
coats 48
My belief is that you are not reading posts for some reason, picking out bits which suit and turning them around. It makes no difference whether you are talking about 3 to 4 years ago or not, Britain still had about the same amount of inactive people, therefore the original argument remains the same.
No one is talking about lifestyle choices as you know, but if we were to do so, there are more people at the lower end of the economic scale who make more choices of lifestyle, than the average workers who are penalized under this new benefits grab. Therefore it could be said, why are we paying parents on lower incomes for their wives or partners to stay at home with their children and then increasing their income by credits. What are you going to do about their lifestyle choice, which is supported by the taxpayer?
Your argument does not stack up, the same as the one regarding tax or means testing the child benefit.
I have said already the Child benefit should remain a universal credit for all. However you would raise more income by lowering the amount paid, only pay benefit for the first two children and pay nothing for those over 16. This would be much more fair and economically sensible.
The pain was only put onto middle class people, who are already paying extra tax and NIC for political reasons and is a disaster.
You did not address the important points I brought up in 33 so one must assume you choose not to. Therefore the whole reason for the discussion is meaningless.
Complain about this comment
Susan@50
Sadly my evil employer expects some output today - I will re-read your post and respond when I have more time.
Complain about this comment
50. Susan-Croft
'You (coats) did not address the important points I brought up in 33 so one must assume you choose not to. Therefore the whole reason for the discussion is meaningless.'
Susan, is not life itself meaningless? We live, we die. What happens in between is merely filling in time. Wouldn't you say?
Complain about this comment
I am overjoyed with sheer delight on hearing the self-regarding middle classes complain at the Tory party conference, on the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph that they will lose £20 a week from Child Benefit because they earn over £44,000 a year!
Presumably this is the very same middle class who will cough up £300,000 + to buy a house in a privileged catchment area so they can send their child to the state school of their choice but can’t find the £10,000 + each year to send them to a private school in the first place!
In an over-populated, resource-drained, environmentally degraded world it is now time to cut all child benefit, maternity / paternity pay and abolish all state provided education as it only serves to encourage the very worst form of open-ended irresponsibility that no society can ever possibly afford or hope to keep up with.
Anyone who makes the entirely voluntarily choice to bring an actual human being into existence should be solely responsible for that personal life style decision and they alone should be forced to pay for this themselves.
If people want to have children then fine, that is their individual decision and their decision only - it is not only unfair but completely impractical and entirely unsustainable to expect everyone else in society (especially if they are childless or pay for their children already) to pay for other people's irresponsible behaviour.
Any system that rewards or incentivises people to bring unwanted babies into an already over-congested world needs to be abolished immediately - how many more Baby Peters or Shannon Matthews do we need to see before we all finally understand that this form of welfare dependency needs to be brought to an immediate end.
Now that Bankrupt Britain is completely bust and run out of all that money it has borrowed this is the perfect opportunity for the government to save the tax payer an absolute fortune by finally doing the right thing. However, on writing this, I find out that the Tories are engaging in more social engineering with the marriage tax allowance – one step forward, 2 steps back.
When will politicians learn?
Complain about this comment
#53
Might you imagine that the logical declension of, 'eugenics' is "You genius"?
It strikes me that the ultimate proof of your pudding would be to begin with yourself. Or can it be that only other people are to blame?
Complain about this comment
47 Blame
Any thoughts on the 500 quid limit to "families benefits".
George hasnt given the detail so is it mom , dad + one or up to +4 or what ?
You cant give 500 quid to a small family and the same to a much larger one, if we still have a welfare state that is.
On the other hand whats all this "families". Pensioners would like 500 quid a week. I would love it.
I reckon he is just floating ideas to get reaction to see what he cam get away with.
Complain about this comment
Susan 33
"When a person earning money for his family, is told his child benefit is to be withdrawn, he may very well ask why then he is paying tax for other children in other Countries in the form of overseas aid. In India for example, there is a great deal of wealth, they just choose not to help with poverty."
Why are Mrs N and myself as a childless couple paying tax for other people that are wealthier than ourselves, to spend on their childrens holidays and ice creams? If we have a choice, sending the taxes we are paying, to other countries in the form of oversea's aid, sounds very attractive.
Complain about this comment
naughty2 56
Do you ever think about engaging your brain before you write.
I do not have children either, nor do I intend to have them. I think along similar lines to chaos as it happens, with regard to over population. I pay my taxes for people to have children too. However you have to have fairness in any tax system and this political move by the Coalition is not fair nor economically sound.
Complain about this comment
Coats 51
If you are going to use scarcasm as wit, make it funny or it does not work, Blame knows that from experience. You also know what it is the lowest form of, that kind of explains it I guess.
I would say that slaving away with you means watching sport.
Complain about this comment
Blame 52
Susan, is not life itself meaningless? We live, we die. What happens in between is merely filling in time. Wouldn't you say?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For you Blame, yes I would.
Complain about this comment
55
Is the limit of 500 quid per week stipulation not aimed more at housing benefit excess? I read somewhere that a family was renting a house in central London paying circa 90,000 Quid per year. The owner was a private trust baased in the Cayman Islands but the original advertised rent was 60,000 for a private tenant. Presumably the bumped up price was due to renting it to the DSS - not all landlords rent to DSS cases.
This is also a real problem area for large families as a large council house may have up to 3 bedrooms at a pinch. We all know tha we have a shortage of council housing, but we do have a surplus of government owned housing stock that is lying empty across the country. Unfortunately empire building is at the forefront of many Whitehall departments which is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
@Tom Austin
"It strikes me that the ultimate proof of your pudding would be to begin with yourself. Or can it be that only other people are to blame?"
What utter idiocy - of course other people are to blame. I am not receiving any Child Benefit, Paternity Pay, a council home or State provided education for my step child (I paid for her private school).
My taxes are paying for these things which encourage the very worst form of open-ended irresponsibility and I want it to stop. That's why I will vote for any political party that actually does the right thing and abolish all the state bribes paid out to those irresponsible half-wits who over-populate our planet with their unwanted children that they themselves admit they cannot afford.
When in a hole, stop digging. Don't bring an actual human into existence so that you can then make that hole even bigger at the expense of all the responsible people in society who have chosen not to have children or already pay for the ones that they have. To do so amounts to no more than child cruelty.
You like very many others on here and elsewhere have made the baseless assumption that without Child Benefit, Tax Credits, Paternity pay, etc then no one will ever want to have any children so, therefore, the human race will die out (hence your "Eugenics" smear).
This is complete and utter rubbish as the human race existed and perpetuated itself for millions of years before there was any such thing as a welfare state and will continue to do for many years after the welfare state is bankrupt.
Just because you're only interested in having children to get whatever state bribes are available, it does not follow that other people are like this.
If people want children then that is up to them but the state should not be bribing or encouraging people to do the wrong thing.
If you can't feed them then don't breed them.
Complain about this comment
@mrmcnaughty2
"Why are Mrs N and myself as a childless couple paying tax for other people that are wealthier than ourselves, to spend on their childrens holidays and ice creams? If we have a choice, sending the taxes we are paying, to other countries in the form of oversea's aid, sounds very attractive."
You shouldn't and I agree that it is not only unfair but it is immoral, irresponsible (over population) and unsustainable (the system will inevitably go bust).
That's why CB needs to be abolished and the Welfare state needs to be dismantled. It is only those have voluntarily chosen to bring an actual human being into existence who are solely responsible for that personal lifestyle decision and they should be forced to pay for that - no one else.
Complain about this comment
56 mrnaughty2
I assume, no hope, you question is tongue in cheek ?
Although at first sight the nobbling of the better off may seem to many a not too unreasonable move, it is in fact the first step in dismantling what has been built over almost 70 years.
Child benefit, or family allowance when I was young, is as basic a benefit as SRP. Once any chancellor gets away with sniping at it where does it stop ? This time over 45k, next budget over 40k ?
The Road Fund Licence , now called the Tax Disc, was just that, a fund to build and repair roads. It is now a massive tax gatherer for anything and everything.
Like you I have no offspring so my tax goes towards the education and child benefit of those who have children. This is how it is in a welfare state. We all contribute according to our means and we all draw out according to our circumstances. Some pay and get little, others pay nowt and get lots. It is the nature of the beast.
I can live with it.
I still reckon this Child Benefit tinkering will turn on George and bite him. Would love to be a fly on the wall at all the Conservative Associations around the country attended by the adults of the 1.2 m families affected, the vast majority will be Tory and will they be hopping mad.
Complain about this comment
55. xT
'I reckon he is just floating ideas to get reaction to see what he cam get away with.'
You may be proven right xT.
On the £500 pw / ±26k pa cap, that's not a bad day's work for doing nowt. More than I get if my little company goes through a few rough months on the trot. Get's a bit rougher if you have more than two kids I'd imagine.
So the middle and lower classes have had a few tasters, let's see what he has in mind for the top bracket.
Complain about this comment
"City bonuses up to 7bn !!!" xt @ 41
Mmm - scandal and a half.
The £500 pw benefits "cap", btw - think it boils down to limiting the amount of housing benefit. There aren't too many people pulling down that much on benefits and those who are probably have lots of kids and are accomodated in pricey areas - e.g. London.
Complain about this comment
59. Susan-Croft
I'm devastated!
But glad to know you are making a difference.
Complain about this comment
To eugenicists everywhere...
Fortunate is s/he who has every need catered for by virtue of there one (or more) multi-talented children.
Perhaps all that one needs are children sufficient to sustain us in old age?
Ah, but then, this is just why people in the third world have many children. Of course if they planted only the crops they needed for their domestic market and their own sustenance fewer children would be required for all would lead far healthier lifes.
Oh, alas and alack. We live in a global economy hence these third world farmers must plant cash crops, buy what they need, but do not have, from those bastions of generosity in the west, like your good self.
It IS NOT true to say that the poor live off the rich, quite the reverse is in fact the case.
Complain about this comment
65 Saga
Ok, so what hapens to the folk in pricey property with lots of kids ?
Is this a new claimants rule or existing ones too ?
Probably no answers until the detail comes out but if it is HB that is causing the pain why dint George/IDS call it that instead of the less than clear "benefit cap" ?
Cutting the Tory voting landlords income eh ? Soon be nobody voting for them.
Complain about this comment
57 Susan
Fairness in the Tax System. Ah Susan, if only.
Unfortunately, never was, never will be. If there was fairness in the Tax system the "higher" rate of tax would not be 50% but would be what the word suggests "higher".
We may not receive welfare benefits but we do pay our fair share in taxes and thus we are entitled to have a view as to where they are spent.
So no, in principle I do not think that child benefit should be given to all and sundry (rich bankers, DC,NC,GO etc).
Our starting base should be to look after those who genuinely require state benefits i.e those unable to defend for themselves.
XT
Yep £45 this time £40k and then...
You can not have both, a Tory led government and a proper funded Welfare State.
Complain about this comment
24. At 8:44pm on 04 Oct 2010, xTunbridge wrote:
20 IaO
Why does everyone posting on here seem to think that those on 40k+ are filthy rich ?
The first thing most do when their income increases is improve their housing situation. This means that a large proportion of their income goes in mortgage payments and their disposable income will not be as great as everyone seems to think...
I didn't suggest that they are filthy rich. I suggested that it's a pretty good wage. Mortgage interest rates have always been a bit of a lottery, hasn't it? They are far lower just now than mine ever was.
But you do know kind of how much it's going to cost to bring up kids, and I don't think that the state should be shelling out for it at all, let alone to those earning £40k.
Having kids is a pretty much a choice. Getting old or ill pretty much isn't.
Complain about this comment
Susan@58
Sadly I am fully employed and therefore not always able to respond at length.
If you wish to engage people in discussion can I suggest you discard the vitriol and start listening to the other side of the argument sometimes. You make some very valid points at times, although I may disagree with them, but they represent an alternative point of view. Simply rubbishing everyone who disagrees with you does not take the debate forward.
Complain about this comment
Giving child benefits to parents who are well-able to support their own children is not a good use of public money. Using taxes to fund a 'universal' benefit also means that people on low incomes are actually subsidising people who earn more than they do.
In a civilised and compassionate society, people who genuinely need support should of course receive it. But we should not be rewarding people 'willy-nilly' just because they have children, irrespective of whether they need the benefit or not. Wasting public money in this way means there are even less funds available for those who genuinely need support.
Similarly, giving special tax relief to married couples (irrespective of need) discriminates against people who are single.
The Tories should forget social engineering and concentrate on stopping the waste.
Complain about this comment
"Why are Mrs N and myself as a childless couple paying tax for other people that are wealthier than ourselves, to spend on their childrens holidays and ice creams? If we have a choice, sending the taxes we are paying, to other countries in the form of oversea's aid, sounds very attractive"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because it makes you feel good? Gives you that warm, inner glow of doing something that helps others? What goes round comes round? And it is probably only a very tiny proportion of your contribution that is used that way. If it helps, close your eyes and imagine hard that all of your particular contribution is used for overseas aid.
Complain about this comment
25. At 8:54pm on 04 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
outrage,
By UBs, I mean cash payments rather than (e.g. health and education) core services. CSs should be free to all - or funded out of general taxation, rather.
Do you like the notion of UBs? Which ones shouldn't be need related, in your view? Just the pension or others too?
(course if a means-driven system isn't practical, or costs too much to implement, then maybe not ... worth considering though).
Well, one person's definition of 'need' will be different from another's, of course, and so 'it depends'!
Child benefits, for example, seem to me to be thrown around like confetti at a wedding, to use a not necessarily appropriate simile. That is certainly one that should be need related, and only apply to the first two. Unless you're unfortunate enough to have twins on your second run down the piste. And even then only enough to buy them unfashionable clothes and perhaps a small mince pie at Christmas. Bah! And a condition would be that they learn first-aid and learn to cook.
Where was I? Oh yes, you asked me which UBs (your definition is fine) should not be need-related. Well, as I said, a big problem is defining need. And there's something inherently distasteful about a means test - it never seems to be applied fairly, does it? Salary or savings? What about a poor person with a big house? Or a rich one with a small flat?
I don't have an answer, Saga. I'll have to put my team onto it.
Complain about this comment
coats 71
You do not like it much when what you do yourself, is returned do you?
Yes I did try to make some valid points to you and in response you then decided to bring up issues I had not said and were not in my post. Therefore I was answering to something I had not said in the first place. You addressed none of the actual points made. Therefore you were as usual, just messing around. Sarcasm by you then followed as usual.
I will always answer sensible posts but when someone is blatantly just acting the clown as you, blame, naughty and Sagamix, often do, I am not interested and you will get back as much as you give.
Complain about this comment
"I will always answer sensible posts" - susan
That's good to hear.
So, do you favour Universal Benefits or Means Tested Benefits as the (primary) basis for welfare?
Complain about this comment
naughty 69
Ok you believe there is no fairness in the tax system. I can agree with that, in so much as why should I, not having any children myself, pay for other peoples children. Why should I pay for benefits for others when I have never been on benefits myself.
However you say a degree of fairness can be achieved by a higher than 50% tax rate for high earners.
My question therefore is how will you get growth in the economy when you have achieved this fairness as you see it?, on higher rate tax payers. Already higher rate tax payers have lost their personal tax allowance, seen increased NIC and will have their pensions contributions taxed both employer contributions and their own contributions, plus the 50p tax rate. Rhetoric is all very well, but you must explain, when companies and those of enterprize are leaving the Country because of Britains uncompetitve tax regime already, how you will achieve growth in the economy. Also how you will encourage Business to come to the UK in the first place under these circumstances.
You have to attain the wealth in the first place to pay for any kind of benefit, how will you do this?
Complain about this comment
"I don't have an answer, Saga" - outrage @ 74
That means I've totally bamboozled you then. Excellent.
Trouble is, I've slightly bamboozled myself too - since I'm not sure either. I could tell you that I favour a purely needs-driven system (and I do, in theory) but I've a sneaking feeling that it wouldn't turn out in practice to be what I have in mind.
Complain about this comment
"The Tories should forget social engineering" - distant @ 72
Yes - you and I agree on something for a change. The tax break for marriage ... either it works (thus dodgy soc eng, as you say) or it doesn't work, in which case futile gesture politics.
Bad idea - pls drop.
Complain about this comment
"Ok, so what hapens to the folk in pricey property with lots of kids?" - xtun @ 68
Well if it turns into actual policy - as opposed to aspirational soundbite - there will be some forced, downwardly mobile house moves, I would imagine.
Complain about this comment
73
IDBI
I guess one of my overall problem with this issue is that there are those who have continually criticised those who are in receipt of benefits, who are also in receipt of benefits.*
On this issue I am in agreement with DC (at the moment) if we need to save £1bn, better this way than have to reduce other services.
My preference would still be tax rises, as I still think the 80/20 (revised 77/23) still puts too much emphasis on savings.
*And before anyone asks, this is not a dig to any contributors on this blog. But they are out there and we've all come across them.
DT 72
"Similarly, giving special tax relief to married couples (irrespective of need) discriminates against people who are single."
This is definately a no, no.
Complain about this comment
Family allowance, or child benefit, was introduced in a different era and was probably 'universal' purely for simplicity of administration. It was also an era when families consisting of a husband, a wife, and children were the norm, not the exception, and real poverty (not 60% of average income) was more common than it is today.
In the current state of the national finances, and in the light of changes that have taken place in society in terms of general prosperity and lifestyles, it it reasonable to review whether it should continue to be paid to anyone earning nearly twice the average income. Unfortunately, the attempt at simplicity, to keep administration costs down, creates some anomalies, and it would have been better if it could have been based on household income - like student grants. But that raises other problems, so there is no easy solution.
But the rationale of aiming some of the financial burden at the relatively well off should be welcomed. The argument that everyone tailors their spending to the limits of their income, although generally true, cannot be a cause for rejecting the idea - it could equally well apply to bankers and other super-wealthy people. And the fact that it only raises a billion is also misleading - as Tesco is fond of saying, "Every little helps." Look how successful they've been.
Complain about this comment
The furore that has developed over child benefit this week appears, certainly to myself, bizarre in the extreme. From the point of view of a young, working class Tory, the very notion that anybody earning in excess of £44,000 a year should be eligible for any kind of benefit whatsoever is utterly perverse. Of course, the child benefit is a national institution - perhaps not too unlike the NHS itself in the view of the general public. This fact, however, does not in any way prevent such an institution from coming under necessary scrutiny in these trying financial times.
It comes across as pure self-interest on the part of wealthy parents when they cry poverty when contemplating the loss of up to £2,400. Of course, nobody wants to receive less than their entitlement, but when families living on under £30,000 as a combined income are bringing up two or three children, they do not, no question about it, believe middle class parents demanding that their life choices are being rubbished by the government. As Nick Robinson said in his interview with Mr. Cameron this afternoon, 'the people at home are calculating their budgets', or something similar. This, it should be noted, does not wash with the general public. As far as most are concerned, those earning over £44,000 are not strapped for cash, so to speak, and if they are, then it is considered that they have made poor financial choices. In short, it is felt that £44,000 should go far enough to bring up a child, or indeed two, without aid from the state. There are no qualms about this policy within the working classes, who consider it a fair measure and a reasonable test of the coalition's mettle.
Speaking personally, I also watched Philip Schofield (on a competitor's channel) speaking on this matter. He expressed dismay that this benefit was being cut, as, as he put it, many families, such as his own, banked the child benefit and put it into trust for their children in order to put them through university, etc. This is the problem. If you can afford to bank your child benefit for your kid's future, you don't need it! Fact! There are families that need child benefit desperately, and spend the money on shoes and other clothes, etc - here, it actually makes all the difference. It does appear that those who voted Conservative at the election need to realise that their government is now doing what it was elected to do, and are not going to hide from interfering in 'vested interests'. If we expect all classes to accept the pain ahead, then it must be shared. The rich must pay more it is true, and the poor will not get away either (though they must be protected too), but in that case, so must middle England stump up, especially where the benefits system seems to deviate to ludicrous extremes.
Complain about this comment
82 m-j
As this pigs ear of a child benefit change will bring in only 1bn a year one almost wishes the govt ran tesco, 1,6bn profit in this half year.
I know the govt used to run the pubs in and around Carlisle, the bottles are now highly collectable, but Ted Heath sold em off. And they made a tidy profit.
Complain about this comment
#82 M-J
Votes.
Fa/Cb might have come about to chime with a post-war thrust for renewal and advancement. To make growing families a 'worthwhile' thing, so to speak.
"tailors their spending to the limits"
Let us not forget the idea of a home as an investment. Thus maxing your spending in line with your income may be in the hope that each penny spent on the higher mortgage creates more wealth in and for the future. For those with disposable income, that is.
The universality of it, then as now, is to garner votes.
Yes there will be far better ways to deal with this, but what would be the impact on the Tory voter?
It will again all come down to votes.
Complain about this comment
75 Susan
Putting our differences to one side for a moment, I take on the point raised by both you and Xtun about the benefits of the CB being paid to the mother.
If you wanted to keep universal child benefits and had to generate the tax by an alternative method lowering the threshold at which the higher rate of tax is payable would help fund the CB without burdening the lower paid taxpayers and has the benefit of being related to the ability to pay.
I don't particularly like tax credits but it seems like an anachronism to have both CB and tax credits.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and as far as the question of downsizing due to budgetry constraints on families goes, please realise that there are people in the country living in real economic poverty. Is downsizing really a bad idea? Especially when compared to the welfare of your children? What would you prefer? A big house or a stable future for your child? There are some in this country who have rather sterner choices to make than this one. Middle England MUST gain some sense of perspective, or the rest of the public won't forgive them. Everyone must pay their share, which means, often, that the affluent must pay marginally more too. And if people belive £44,000 is not enough to live on, then please look around you at the rest of society, who would give a number of their limbs to earn that kind of money and provide a descent future for their children.
Complain about this comment
Susan
We are slightly going off topic with this one so I'll try to remain on topic, where possible.
"Why should I pay for benefits for others when I have never been on benefits myself."
I sort of look at it this way. There by the grace of God go I. You never know when, if and why but should the occassion arise where I have been in receipt of benefits I would like to know that there are people like you and I around to help me out. So, if you like, I've got a bit of credit it the bank.
Same as the NHS. When I needed it, it was there, I contributed to the NHS before I was ill and now after.
"However you say a degree of fairness can be achieved by a higher than 50% tax rate for high earners."
I remeber this having been discussed in detail a while back over on NR's, and I confess to wanting to see a higher rate of 65%.
"My question therefore is how will you get growth in the economy when you have achieved this fairness as you see it?, on higher rate tax payers. Already higher rate tax payers have lost their personal tax allowance, seen increased NIC and will have their pensions contributions taxed both employer contributions and their own contributions, plus the 50p tax rate. Rhetoric is all very well, but you must explain, when companies and those of enterprize are leaving the Country because of Britains uncompetitve tax regime already, how you will achieve growth in the economy. Also how you will encourage Business to come to the UK in the first place under these circumstances.
You have to attain the wealth in the first place to pay for any kind of benefit, how will you do this?"
Now you have a very valid argument but this is where we go off topic. However, this is a topic where you and I have shown a great deal of concern.
Firstly, if we are in this together, then we are or we're not. The only way to hight the very rich is to raise the higher rate of tax. CB and the like just does not wash.
I think you have mentioned recently about the number of bankers leaving the UK to go Switzerland, (if it was not you thaen I apologise) Others have mentioned Countries with lower, high rate taxes than the UK eg. Russia.
We could all go to Saudia Arabia and work Tax Free but again I'm not sure they will want all 70m of us.
Now I didn't think we should be held to ransom by the unions back in the 1970's and I certainly do not think we should be held to ransom by a few bankers now. So if they want to go and go quickly.
No player should be bigger than than the team and everyone yes even Fred the Shred was replaceable and in his case was replaced.
Before all the bankers run off to switzerland, remember there's only 7m people living in Switzerland and those people working in Zurich won't be giving up their positions to a load of migrants who don't speak Swiss.
How do get oversea's companies to invest. Well some will and some won't. Some will look at the UK as growth areas (just as the likes of Tesco have seen opportunities in the USA and Asia), but more importantly, we need to start looking inwards. Look to see how we grow our own companies and when we do, ensure that we safeguard our businesses from oversea's competition (takeovers) by legislation if necessary.
Back on topic, I'm confident that we will get through this but we can expect to burden the responsibility on those who do not have the means to pay, or on the middle income groups. We have to ask the higher earners to cough up and by gummy that's going to be a real tough cookie, do you not agree?
Complain about this comment
"What would you prefer? A big house or a stable future for your child?"
I'm not sure you'd like middle England's answer to that. I know Saga wouldnt. Mind you, if he had his way, Middle England would be exterminated.
Complain about this comment
Do I want want a return of the Poor Laws? AKA a purely needs based system. Nah, clearly not the progressive option. Where would it stop?
We can only provide universal services or benefits if we pool our resources. There has to be some notion that as well as paying in to the pool we are entitled to claim such benefits as are provided in specified circumstances.
You could, quite legitimately, argue that child benefit should not be paid (from now for new births). We no longer need it. You could argue that supporting the upbringing of children should be restricted to a certain number of children. You could argue that it should be increased, decreased or the actual amounts payable for each child should change. However, what you can't argue IMO is that it should be paid to some claimants but not others on the basis of their income (leaving aside all the anomalies created by incompetence). Once you do this you have created a child based supplement for the poor and needy. Of course the same reasoning should be applied to state pensions, heating allowances, etc, resulting in similar needs based, poor relief reformulations.
Even more worringly the same reasoning can be applied to a universal service such as health or education. Everyone on higher rate tax has to pay fees. Should the economy fail to grow sufficiently we might need everyone on above average salary to pay fees.
Strikes me it would be easier to pay a little extra income tax/NI to ensure a universal, high quality service and to ensure that benefits conceived as universal stay that way (unless we decided to end them).
Welfare isn't the root of the problem. It's our ability to delude ourselves that we can have the best at a discount price.
Complain about this comment
Wonder if some children will end up being taken out of private schools as a direct consequence of the Child Benefit change?
Quite a thought.
Complain about this comment
IDB,
You could draw a distinction between public services (e.g. health and education) and cash or quasi cash benefits; payments received from the state - child benefit, tax credits, winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, tv licence, pension, housing benefit, incapacity, JSA, income support, council tax relief etc.
Both public services and benefits to be funded out of general taxation (with income tax scale steepened, e.g. running from 10% to 75%, and NI scrapped).
Higher minimum wage and personal allowance - such that a full time job always pays higher (net) than the maximum benefit payment. Exception for special needs - e.g. disability - where the benefit cap doesn't apply.
Increase the rewards of work rather than decrease benefits. Carrot not stick.
Replace the individual benefits with a single (means tested) payment. Means testing takes into account personal circumstances. Maximum payment received by a person with dependents.
We then get:
- nobody who's working receives benefits.
- nobody is better off on benefits than working.
- part time work? - tricky.
- pensions? - also tricky.
- care for the elderly? - interesting aspect of the whole issue.
Brave New World ... maybe.
Complain about this comment
Now hearing that the money saved via the child benefit change will be wiped out by the cost of bringing back the married couple's tax allowance.
Politics of the madhouse, if true.
Complain about this comment
hi Andrew - enjoy your work, god help us when you reach 60 and retire!
I have a different view of this child benefit removal.
Why announce a 1 billion drop in the ocean measure 3 years in advance? Propaganda of course - "look it will cost the middle classes aswell", before you decimate the public services who with pay freezes are losing 5% this year, and will lose more next year.
Try this.
1. Top rate tax payers are unlikely to defect to Labour whatever you do.
2. The double income households who each do not make the high tax rate brackets are considered aspirational - they may switch votes according to who supports them. This measure doesn't punish them and so protects tory votes.
It also discourages pay rises - the tories will use unemployment to hold down lower class workers, and this might temper the aspirational classes wage claims.
3. Remember this audience is going to get the £1million IHT allowance asap. So its a "just go with it guys for a year or two, you'll be getting up to a cool million when we give you IHT threshold increases, and we might get away with giving the benefit back to you in the following parliament anyway, or at least reduce the 50% tax rate".
Complain about this comment
# 79 saga
"Yes - you and I agree on something for a change"
Bound to happen sooner or later!
Complain about this comment
91. At 9:56pm on 05 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
Wonder if some children will end up being taken out of private schools as a direct consequence of the Child Benefit change?
Quite a thought.
Every cloud...
Complain about this comment
Saga@92
Possible ammendments.
Merge winter fuel into universal pension. TV concession+free bus pass remain as is. Child benefit - open to persuasion re keeping/ending/ammending for all. I'm assuming tax figures are illustrative pending running them through a treasury type model but broadly ok. Merging NI and income tax obvious. What happens to Employers NI?
Are we talking Osborne cap circa 26k with a higher minimum wage? Hmmmmm
Simplification fine as long as time taken.
Worries. Prices would rise considerably due to high min wage? What consequences would this have?
There are times when I feel genuine sympathy for IDS.
Complain about this comment
93. sagamix
'Now hearing that the money saved via the child benefit change will be wiped out by the cost of bringing back the married couple's tax allowance.
Politics of the madhouse, if true.'
It is starting to look that way.
Complain about this comment
mrnaughty22 88
Like many before you, you pick out the piece you choose to use and not the full sentence by me which was:-
Ok you believe there is no fairness in the tax system. I can agree with that, in so much as why should I, not having any children myself, pay for other peoples children. Why should I pay for benefits for others when I have never been on benefits myself.
It was indeed yourself who brought up the lack of fairness in the tax system, not me, with regard to high earners. I merely pointed out I could say the same thing, but in a different way.
Like a lot of people in Britain you seem to have a total obsession with bankers. I did not mention bankers in my post. I have already accepted, that if Britain continues in the way it is towards banking, it will lose its financial sector. You really did not address the question I asked.
Business people in Britain have done nothing wrong, they have merely over 13 years of Labour paid their high taxes, put up with having mountains of red tape put on them by Government and under difficult circumstances contributed to Britains wealth pool to pay for the bloated public sector.
Business not banks, are already leaving Britain as are people of skill, the recent brain drain, because the UK has now become uncompetitive because of high taxation for high earners.
However, you still want tax to go up further for high earners, my question was, how then will you achieve growth in the private sector under these circumstances. How will you grow the economy which is the only possible way out of this financial crisis.
How will you get business people to invest in Britain when they know they will lose so much money in tax and could do much better in other Countries. It certainly will not be Britains skilled workers that will encourage them to come, because this pool of workers in Britain is very small. The UK has far too many unskilled workers.
As to business in Britian, what there is of it, certainly Texco is not a good example. There are good reasons, for the UK economy, in fact to oppose Texcos massive rise. Monopolies are never good in any economy. Business in Britian cannot expand or grow because of restraints in the UK economy, tax being one of the main ones. There is not enough home grown business anyway to build a base that would be large enough to help the UK economy out of the economic mess. Furthermore a lot of business in Britain relies on Companies abroad for it existence. If they decide Britain is not a good and profitable trading partner, this could see the demise of these businesses as well.
You suggest legislating to protect business in Britain, if the UK as a Country even attempts protectionism, it would find itself much worse off. As other Countries would decide to do likewise, and as already mentioned Britain relies much more on other Countries for its business than they do on the UK. Furthermore this would not be allowed under EU rules.
Another point is under high taxation for not only high earners, but those of wealth how will you stop these people leaving Britain. Wealthy people pay taxation as well, they also increase the capital base of the Country. What will you do to prevent this happening.
So please provide a proper answer, how will you achieve growth in Britains economy, now it is deemed a high taxation Country. How will you attract business to come to Britain in the first place. Growth in the private sector, is the only possible way out of this financial crisis, how will you achieve this without lowering taxation for high earners.
You see rhetoric such as yours is all very well, encouraging the politics of envy is all very well, but you have to have the answers to what happens when you achieve your idea of fairness. As yet you have not provided this, and I will wait for your answer as to how you will do it.
Complain about this comment
Susan 99
Noted your comments and will return later, when time allows.
Have a good day.
Complain about this comment
Blame 98
Politics of the madhouse, if true.'
------------------------------------------
Not really, it is about politics but not of the madhouse, I believe. It is a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing. The Lib/Dems forced, perhaps not Cameron, but certainly Osborne into this rob the middle classes act of child benefit, to be seen to be fair to all members of society. However what they had not realised was that it would have much more far reaching effects than just the loss of money, and it was something that occurred to me as well. It was indeed another reason why I opposed it.
Take the situation of a lone parent who is entitled to working credits and child tax credits. If she then begins to cohabit, the families entitlement to tax credits will fall because of the extra income. It is deemed under Britains system that living alone costs more etc.
Now it has been proved over time that this situation encourages people to stay apart rather than live together. It has also been proved that this situation tends to be bad for children. One of the Conservatives core values is for couples to be married for the childrens sake. Now with the withdrawal of the child benefit, you would have the same situation visited on the middle classes.
Now to try to repair the damage they will introduce married couples allowance which will cost much more.
It was a stupid idea from the start, if they wanted to deal with this particular benefit and raise more income. They should have lowered the benefit for all, stopped paying any over 16 years old and only payments for the first 2 children. They could have made up the income of low earners in another way if they needed to. This would also have done away with people having large families in a lot of incidences and thus in turn, lower Britains population.
This is the price you play for playing politics.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
I have been listening to the 'experts' on benefits, and the tax system, and pensions. Now my point is that there is no real debate about linking pensions to CPI rather than RPI, now I can understand the reasoning for this in the state system, but not in the private sector, with occuptaional pensions.
There are proposals to allow pension funds to change their articles to allow them to be altered to allow the pensions to be linked to CPI rather than RPI. Now having retained my original and subsequent terms and conditions associated with my pension then I would point out that the word 'guaranteed' is used, and I would hope that any government legislation protects those who have such guarantees.
There is not enough debate about this very important issue, and the various groups should be up in arms about linking pensions to wages, this will prove to be not the correct action at this time. I can see price rises, I can see inflation, but I do not trust the figures in respect of wages, and whose wages are they going to be linked to, now if it was the directors, executives, and finance directors, then I will accept such a link, but not to the lower groups, and why wages, I was salaried, not waged! Beware the dreaded Phillips Curve, these economists still trust it.
Complain about this comment
Coats 86
Firstly let me make my personal position very clear. When I write about issues, it may not be my own personal view. It is a view I give which will help Britain. That to me is what politics should really be about. Personally I am sick and tired of hearing British people whinge about everything, and to some extent, I am more in tune with Chaos, who I have have grown fond of through his posts, for telling it like it is. It would do British people a World of good to visit other Countries and see how they go about dealing with business and related issues, they might learn something. The British consume and spend until the money runs out and then look around for someone else other than themselves to blame. They vote in corrupt Governments in order to keep their spending going and ignore all the moral issues. Not all people, of course, there are still some sensible people around, but they are becoming a much more rare breed. The Brits allow their children to run wild and then wonder why they end up with little monsters running around causing problems for everyone. A great deal of the population in Britain want something for nothing and are lazy compared to other nations. That is why the polish do so well in the UK with their work ethic. Rant over.
I do not believe in high taxation for any working people, it kills aspiration and Governments waste the money they receive. People should be allowed to keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit, not as the state sees fit. Particularly for high earners tax is too high, as I want to keep all the wealth possible in Britain not going abroad.
If you want to raise money, by withdrawal of child benefit, either abolish it altogether and make up lower income families money in another way. There would be plenty of money to do so if you abolish child benefit altogether. Or do what I suggested and lower the amount paid, pay only for the first two childen and nothing for those over 16. This would raise more income and would be far more sensible.
However in this day and age of over population, it really is debatable whether Britain should be paying people to have children in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#101 susan
It might be premature to draw too many conclusions from the child benefit saga - for example concerning tax credits, single parents, and so on. It appears that there are more - maybe many more - changes in the pipeline and it would be advisable to wait and judge the total package before basing arguments on the status quo. Osborne might have slipped up only in announcing it too early.
Incidentally, the suggestion put forward by IdBi in #97 re merging the fuel allowance into the pension seems a good idea. It would be easy and cheap to keep it as lump sum, but just treat it for tax purposes as an increase in the state pension.
Complain about this comment
Politicians will make a rod for their own backs by keeping on about fairness. Life isn't fair. All that will happen is that every example of alleged unfairness will be laid at their door. As for the Child Benefit decision it seems a very sensible, straightforward and uncontroversial. No one who has pointed out various anomolies has suggested a better solution. The tax system is full of anomolies. Here's another; people from say Poland working in Britain claim child benefit and send the money home where it has a greater value. British pensioners living in Cyprus, Costa del Sol etc get the winter fuel allowance, and so on ad infinitum. I can't help feeling that political commentators are getting far more exercised about this that the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
The single, plain and stark reasoning behind the announcement of the 'cuts' to Child-Benefit; Is as a smokescreen of fairness before the axe falls on the poor come the 20th.
"We are all in this together." But, some will be more in it than others by the end of this month.
Complain about this comment
101.Susan-Croft:
'madhouse'... saga's colorful phrase, not to be taken too literally, S_C.
We'll have to wait and see whether the CB announcement was more down to politics or incompetency, as the full tranche of cuts is revealed. Probably a fair amount of both, as the latest hastily announced proposals on marriage tax allowance seemed to indicate.
While I agree in principle with the CB cuts, rather than tinker with the arrangement, do away with it altogether and pass the savings on progressively by other means.
Complain about this comment
I guess I would be counted amongst the "high" earning public sector workers as a senoir nurse on £44,000, I'm also a single parent with a 4 year old and 10 year old. With fulltime childcare costs at £900 per month and a large mortgage on an overpiced house, the child benefit I receive pays towards essential food costs and bills.
Maybe I should count my blessings that I even have a job and accomodation and I do, but when your disposable income is squeezed to a couple of hundred a month, an extra loss of £134 a month is going to hit hard. I do not expect any sympathy but when you work and live anywhere near london rent or mortgage costs are over £1000 per month unless you bought over 5 years ago. Am I the only working mum that feels this way?
Complain about this comment
What on earth is Andrew Neil's obsession with child benefit. Everytime I tune in to The Daily Politics he is ranting about it.
I guess that most media typs fall into the category of higher rate tax payers and will therefore be effected by this new policy but let's face it, the vast majority of "ordinary" people will think that this is a very sensible policy.
Come on Andrew, lets get real.
Complain about this comment
108 helen75
Thank you for bring some reality to this debate. And you deserve praise not sympathy for your efforts.
I dont know if all those cheering Geoge on think 44k is a fat bankers pay, they now know exactly who this dogs breakfast of a benefit change could affect and have some real expenditure figues to see the hardship it could cause.
I am more convinced that barring incompetency by ministers and civil servants these no real detail announcements are just testing the waters.
The Child Benefit test is already proving a bit too warm with garbled changes to the tax system to compensate being offered already.
Perhaps Tom Austin 106 above is right that this attack on middle England was a smoke screen to cover the attacks to come to the lesser mortals.
I like mrnaughty2's comment at 69 above the best so far; "You cannot have both, a Tory led government and a proper funded Welfare State". I think he is right.
Complain about this comment
109 staggered
Not sure how you define "ordinary" . If you mean those earning less who wont be affected then that seems a selfish outlook.
Post 108 above shows how this illconsidered change will affect real people.
Be glad that Andrew is banging on about it and pray he bangs on when George comes for you and me.
Complain about this comment
107 Blame
Instead of robbing the kids lets go for the bankers etc who are a main cause of the mess we are in yet still live the life of Reilly.
Current city bonusues are reported at 7bn. Confiscate them. At one blow that is seven times the amount saved from robbing the kids. Confiscate 50% and its three and a half times what robbing the kids will save.
Issue them with compensatory Post Recession Tax Credits reclaimable when their house is in order and all our finances are restored. Something similar happened during the war when on top of income tax 10% or so of pay was take as post war tax credits.
I must declare I am not a banker or city operative so I am in the easy position of suggesting a remedy that will not hurt me.
Complain about this comment
To show they are different from the spin and "party line" of labour they need to simply say "there is an anomaly in the Child Benefit cuts which we will address in the interests of fairness'. I resent being accused of whingeing because its "rich people loosing benefit". This is about a genuine unfairness.
The old tax break promise was originally aimed at Basic Rate Tax Payers, who were married. So that doesn't help. The amount in question was about £150 per year so that doesn't help. And surprisingly enough its allegedly timed for 2015. That wouldn't be just before the next election would it? So the alienated middle class vote can be bought back? Nice try, but as T Blair will tell you the mums don't forgive or forget.
Complain about this comment
"91. At 9:56pm on 05 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
Wonder if some children will end up being taken out of private schools as a direct consequence of the Child Benefit change?
Quite a thought."
No darling, we'll just take advantage of the free places labour forced the independent sector to make available.
Complain about this comment
114 Milly
Oh Milly you are naughty winding Saga up like that.
Funny tho!
Complain about this comment
112. xT
Confiscating bonuses... easier said than done.
More realistically, how about looking at tax rates for offshore or capital gains, income shifting, the use of corporate entities, etc., etc.?
Complain about this comment
Helen @ 108
I dare say that you are doing your best but the fact remains that your salary is way above the norm and many families are having to exist on much smaller incomes. Do you really expect people on much smaller incomes to pay tax and make sacrifices to pay for your mortgage, when they themselves may be living in very modest accomodation?
I am sorry if that sounds harsh but everyone is going to have to makes sacrifices and ultimately you will benefit from the investment in your mortgage.
Complain about this comment
Susan
I think that to a certain extent we have to find common ground.
So lets start at the beginning. If I accept (which I don't) that we have to deal with the deficit on the same basis as the coalition, then we have to look at the consequences of doing just that.
So therefore to deal with the deficit you have to put growth to one side.
Many businesses up and down the Country big and small have put growth to one side with the aim of paying off debt.
So lets stop there and you can either agree or disagree.
btw. Please try to accept that I'm not trying to play tricks or start some sort of silly game.
Complain about this comment
TBG 116
"Confiscating bonuses... easier said than done.
More realistically, how about looking at tax rates for offshore or capital gains, income shifting, the use of corporate entities, etc., etc.?"
----------------------------------------------------
Ain't that the truth. Forgoing their bonuses would nice and would show they have a conscience. Do you think they have one of those?
We certainly could look at the things you mention. Perhaps have a commission. If we can find a suitable patch of long grass that is.
Complain about this comment
117 Coats
That's a bit parochial for you Sir. What about th big picture ?
I assume Londoners want their hospitals staffed by appropriate nurses and the going rate for that down there is 44k. Part of this being the high cost of property down there.
Helen65 cant live in a 25k terrrace in some Welsh valley and provide her nursing skills in London.
Whilst we have tremendous variations in property values up and down the country people have to pay the going rate in their area.
It is disingenous to suggest she is being subsidised by the likes of me
so she can buy a capital asset that will appreciate in value.
If she wants to work down there , and the hospitals want staff, then that is what she has to pay for accommodation, renting is no cheaper, and that is the salary the hospitals have to pay. No options for either party.
In all the expenses furore I never looked at, say Camerons, properties and thought I have to live in my little pad so he can have two places. Its twisted logic.
The whole child benefit thing is dissolving into chaos anyway as it appears HMRC dont know who lives with who and who if anyone is claiming child benefit. So how the over 44k families ever get the CB stopped is going to be interesting, if it ever happens, which I doubt.
Complain about this comment
meninwhitecoats
I completely understand that alot of families survive on small salaries and I am better off than many (on paper). I was just pointing out that a single salary in London for a working single parent should not be classed as a "high earner". Our public services require people to live in and around london and I would class my 2 bed damp house as "modest" accomodation.
It would seem alot fairer to me if couples earning £80,000 would have to pay too? Or maybe I should be punished for being divorced!
Complain about this comment
116 Blame.
Yes my tongue was slightly in my cheek when I suggested confiscation but as you say there are ways of trawling in lots of this way way over reasonable returns dosh.
Picking on Child Benefit first has done nobody any favours.
I still want to know what I have to do to get this 500 quid a week benefit. No blooming details from the George man just soundbites that have bitten him back so far.
Complain about this comment
Helen/Xtun
The bigger picture is in the provision of more affordable housing in London, possibly more shared ownership etc.
I agree the initial proposal takes inadequate notice of the anomaly of dual income families and may be unfair on individuals like Helen in comparison to other high earning couples. I stand firm in saying it is equally unfair to expect others who may be lower paid to subsidise the mortgages of others, when they have no hope of aspiring to owning such long term assets. I assume in Helen's case the tax credit system is of some assistance and would be very surprised if adjustments were not made in the long term to partly compensate her.
Let us not forget how many low income families there are.
Helen I meant no offence and apologise , if any was taken.
Complain about this comment
naughty 118
We have found no common ground because you have provided no answers.
As you have addressed none of my points at 99, I will assume from this that you are playing games. I have stated my case which you cannot argue against, therefore any rhetoric on this subject, from you, is not to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
125I
"just think that - when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that - that - when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it."
Warren Buffett
65% Tax!
Complain about this comment
meninwhitecoats
No offence taken, this has been fascinating and my first blog posting ever! I guess that proves us "middle classes" or "high earners" or whatever I'm supposed to be are getting angry enough to protest - and that's always a good thing..
Complain about this comment
mrN @125
Common sense.
If you really don't want to take from the poor then then the 73- 23% split is a non starter. Go where the money is. Get as close to 50-50 as you can.
Wouldn't go as high as 65% tax. Wouldn't want to scare them away. Offer a deal - temporary rise until financial situation improves. Would also favour a modest rise in 20% band - you've got to be fair, spread the burden. Dave said so.
Complain about this comment
Speaking of backlashes, watched Part 2 of 'Secret Iraq' tonight. (Beeb, should be on iPlayer tomorrow)
If there was any doubt whether Blair, Straw and the rest of their cronies should be put before a proper jury then that documentary surely put it to bed. There can be no doubt that the liberation of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam was never a prime motivator for invading Iraq.
Even contained a clip showing Blair giving blatant misinformation to Marr, live, on camera. Not sure why we needed Chilcot. It's all available in recorded interviews. Easy to put the pieces together.
And let's have some truth on the current situation with regard to Al Qaeda and its true manifestation.
Complain about this comment
112. At 1:35pm on 06 Oct 2010, xTunbridge wrote:
107 Blame
Instead of robbing the kids lets go for the bankers etc who are a main cause of the mess we are in yet still live the life of Reilly.
Current city bonusues are reported at 7bn. Confiscate them. At one blow that is seven times the amount saved from robbing the kids. Confiscate 50% and its three and a half times what robbing the kids will save.
Issue them with compensatory Post Recession Tax Credits reclaimable when their house is in order and all our finances are restored. Something similar happened during the war when on top of income tax 10% or so of pay was take as post war tax credits.
I must declare I am not a banker or city operative so I am in the easy position of suggesting a remedy that will not hurt me.
I think you'll find HMRC already "confiscate" 50% by way of the tax system, so good for the exchequer, eh?
Complain about this comment
Helen
It can be a bit rowdy here at times but new blood widens the horizon of the debate. Look forward to your next contribution.
Complain about this comment
129 JohninKent
I recall this 50% tax being mooted, just didnt believe it.
So are you saying this half year the exchequer will get 3.5bn ?
So why do they need to crucify anyone else ?
Complain about this comment
JohninK, xTun
Bonuses all round, I think. Debt problem solved?
Complain about this comment
naughty 125
No wonder you could not answer my post at 99 you really are a total noodle arn't you?
Warren Buffet is an American with too much money and time on his hands. He has spent his whole life dreaming up schemes to avoid tax, through property deals and small businesses. Now in his old age he has suddenly decided he would like to get close to the seat of power, through Obama, money obviously is not enough sometimes. Thus his ridiculous statements just lately. He could always give some of his money away you know, he does not have to be taxed. America like Britain is in a right economic mess under Obama. The top 10% of high earners in America already pay 70% of the income tax collected. The rest of the tax payers take more from the Government than they actually pay in taxation. This serious imbalance in their economy is causing lack of investment, an economy in serious trouble and debt which will be almost impossible to pay off, unless serious measures are taken. In the form of massive cuts and tax rises for everyone except the highest earners.
This is nothing like Britains economy where all working people in Britain are paying far too much tax. It is the bloated public sector and welfare that has caused Britains economy to be out of balance and the lack of growth in the private sector. You remember the question you could not answer, how will you achieve growth, if you tax higher earners more. Britains whole economy relies mostly on taxation of some kind now, there is very little coming from anywhere else. If you believe it is 15% of GDP you are living on another planet.
From your posts I guess you are, it could be sharing brains with Sagamix which is causing your confusion.
Complain about this comment
Idont Believeit 132
You are someone else that makes a lot of noise and never answers a question, another one brain sharing. It would help if the one brain was a good one.
Complain about this comment
I would scrap CB entirely as it is merely a state bribe paid to people to over populate our already over congested planet with yet more unwanted children - literally a cash bonus that was paid to anyone to do the exactly the wrong thing!
However, it has been absolutely hilarious hearing the moneyed classes on £44,000 a year and their self-pitying moans of losing £20 per week Child Benefit. This has brought a great deal of joy to me over the last few days.
Presumably this is the very same middle-class that thinks nothing of spending £300,000+ on buying a new house just so they can send their child to a state school of their choice but wouldn't dream of paying the £10,000 a year for a private school.
Their collective squeals of anguish has been delightful.
It seems that nanny-state socialism is perfectly OK after all just as long as you're upper middle-class! I guess that is what they mean when they say:
"Socialism for the Rich. Capitalism for the Poor."
Complain about this comment
john in Kent 129
How are you going to do that when most banks are private enterprises? What legislation would you put in place without effecting other private Companies? How would you then stop banks relocating to another Country who would welcome them with open arms?
Complain about this comment
helen75 108
Helen that is heck of a salary for a senor nurse, you must be pretty special. If senior nurses are paid this in the NHS, though I have never come across it before, no wonder the NHS has problems.
Anyway working out roughly what you claim you pay out, taking tax out etc I wonder how you manage at all. Maybe a less ambitious housing arrangement would help.
Complain about this comment
Susan
You may well be surprised - Helen is towards the top end of the payscale, so as you say must be something special.
This may be of interest to you
http://www.healthjobsuk.com
Complain about this comment
coats 138
No, it is of no interest to me, sorry, it tells you nothing. Practical knowledge of the NHS is much more useful.
However thanks for posting more, when normally you are too busy to answer questions, let alone come to the defence of others so quickly, it has helped me make an assessment.
Complain about this comment
"No wonder you could not answer my post at 99 you really are a total noodle arn't you?"
Susan Croft
Not quite in the same league as Warren Buffett, but nevertheless a quote.
btw - Two tt's in Bufett.
Complain about this comment
mrnaughty2
Coats
IDBi
Whatever happened to scolds bridles ?
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 141
Thats more like it Tunbridge now were seeing the real you. Never one to use your intellect to challenge were you?.
Scolds bridles became obsolete a long time ago, like dinosaurs such as yourself, but you probably did not know that, living in the past as you do.
Another one from the same brain.
Complain about this comment
141
I look forward to my daily telling off - it's the highlight of the day!
Guess the pub will be empty tonight then?
Complain about this comment
142 Croftie
A less polite person than myself would perhaps suggest you have spotted a cap, or bridle, that fits.You have of course, no flys on you.
I do not know what has happened to you but you have crossed from sharp/ robust to abusive/insulting. I have seriously wondered if you were now assosciated with our old friend Electric Hermit and his style was rubbing off on you.
Your posts 136 and 137 taken together are beyond the pale. Defend the parasitic bankers and imply that their working arrangements exempt them from HMRC's tender ministrations is novel. To the best of my knowledge banks are public limited companies with owners and employees subject to the same attentions of the tax man as the rest of us.If the govt wish to make the 7bn bonuses subject to a windfall tax then so be it.
If you are correct ,I do not profess to be the sole arbiter of what is,perhaps Andy555C if he is still around can tell us all how to arrange our affairs to place them beyond HMRC.
But to defend the bankers and then have the temerity to tell Helen75 that she should look at changing her housing arrangemnts. That beggars belief.Not to mention your post 137 blaming Helen75 for the problems of the NHS.
Using my desert island test who would be most useful a nurse or a banker ?
This old dinosaur would go for the former.
A cracking record by Jethro Tull was Living in The Past.
Try Weekend Players follow the sun, real chillin' sound.
Off to do the horses. The sun is shining and all is Tickety- boo.
Complain about this comment
So now we're sharing brains as well as usernames!
I'll have some of whatever you're on S-C.
Complain about this comment
Xtun
Out of interest I went on the NHS pensions website and did some trial examples and it is true that the rank and file pensions even after long service are not exactly gold plated.
It all gets distorted by the recent top heavy structure - guess the same has happened to councils?
Complain about this comment
146 Coats
Indeed Sir. But the bosses always have better pay and, ipso facto, better pensions
I was puzzled by Lord Hutton's contradictory statements re his report on public sector pensions.
In one breath he says that the pensions are unfair and must end and in another that the average pension is only 7,800 a year!
I also think his idea of calculating using a career average is unfair. One retires having to pay todays prices not prices calculated including those charged 30 or 40 years ago.
Thank goodness the majority of councils are ok as their pensions are funded. Others such as the police are not but they pay a whacking 10% contribution already and the scheme conditions have only recently been made much less generous.
Picked up on interesting stat out of this, 23 out of 28 in the cabinet are millionaires. Bet the the other 5 soon catch up.
Complain about this comment
Susan
Difficult to come up with a complete answer to your 99 Post.
Results so far
Y = A K0.3 L0.7
The problem I have is that GO is putting growth to one side and concentrating entiely on the deficit.
This is in the long term not a bad policy. Once you have reduced the deficit, hopefully growth will follow naturally. In other words it's a a good long term business model.
Any doubts you or I may have, then all we have to do is listen to the speeches both he and DC gave at this weeks Tory conference.
As it happens, I could be persuaded to support this policy. But lets be under no illussions, to get where GO wants us to be, means that the Cuts will be extreamly deep and government income needs to be increased.
To get to GO wants to be i.e. more than halve the deficit within the term of this Government we need (as DC says, supported by Warren Buffett and the likes) to get the richer to shoulder their fair share. What better way than to increase their taxes to 65% albeit maybe only in the short term.
Now back to "Growth". We have come to expect that you can only be sucessful if you are seem to be growing. I would agree with you but Grwoth is vanity, Net Profit is reality. Many companies have been very sucessful in reducing their Turnover (Growth) but increasing their Net Profits. eg. WH Smiths. Long term you need to increase Turnover to survive but short term UK needs to concentrate on it's bottom line profit.
Now you ask about Companies coming and Leaving the UK. Yes and I have seen the news but I'm a bit more optimistic as is GO. GO say's the UK is open for business. Large organisations just don't set up in different countries on a song and a prayer. It take's time for companies to decide where and when they want to be situated and they unsurpisingly take the long term view rather than the sort term view. If Companies see that the UK is going in the right direction, you bet they will want to come here and more importantly stay. Nissen, fine example.
Companies moving abroad, should be worried Yes! Worried sick No! And don't forget where one company moves out the market it's another opportunity for a compititor to move in.
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/comment/2216638/companies-leaving-uk-lose
I hope this goes someway in responding to your 99.
btw- Just as a matter of interest, as a small business we have had approximately 20 calls in the last two weeks from all sorts of banks offerring to lend us money. So maybe, just maybe, the message to banks is getting through. Rates of interest still far to high above base and therefore still unattractive but nevertheless, a step in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
"I think you'll find HMRC already "confiscate" 50% by way of the tax system, so good for the exchequer, eh?" - 129
You mean "tax", John, not confiscate.
If you create nothing and "earn" £1m gross, £500k net, you're still a cool half mill ahead of the game. Increase tax to 75% and your winnings diminish to a quarter.
Complain about this comment
Hi Susan,
Shouldn't really do you these favours (since you won't even buy me a milk shake) but just to let you know ... "The Wealth Creators" airing on UK Gold tonight. Moore and Curtis.
Loads of trickle down.
Complain about this comment
149 Saga
John's use of ther word "confiscate" was down to me. He was replying to my only slightly tongue in cheek suggestion that the whole 7bn should be confiscsated and would bring in 7 times the theft of child benefit would.
I had heard that there were proposals to tax city bonuses at 50% but did not hear it had been activated. I hope it has.
As we are at war with the global financial mess I see no reason why a scheme similar to the wartime post war credits shouldnt be considered. Munitions workers etc had to pay an extra levy on top of normal tax, repayable after the war. Although I believe some still is owing !
Complain about this comment
"Picked up on interesting stat out of this, 23 out of 28 in the cabinet are millionaires. Bet the the other 5 soon catch up."
So what mate? So long as they didnt do it at your personal expense, isnt it better that they come INTO a cabinet as millionaires than LEAVE cabinet being MADE millionaires through the use of public funds?
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 152
Again - the view that if you make your money in the private sector, it can't be at the expense of others.
Really is the most arrant nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Xtun 147
I would favour a cap on public sector pensions so that the rank & file are unaffected but those who have talked their way to the top cannot milk the system. Cap pensions @£35K, nothing punitive but get rid of the excesses that drag the system down and generate the most controversy. After all if you are earning £120K + you can afford to put a bit aside for the future.
Complain about this comment
154 Coats
Hutton seems to be going down your lines. I hope it isnt mangled once it gets to the decision makes.
It looks to have a degre of fairness about it.
Complain about this comment
152 Fubar
153 Saga
Odd how I can agree with both of you !
Will watch the 5 "poor" members with interest.
Complain about this comment
147. At 5:17pm on 07 Oct 2010, xTunbridge wrote:
In one breath he says that the pensions are unfair and must end and in another that the average pension is only 7,800 a year!
That's the problem with statistics in general and averages in particular. I beleive the unions use this figure too. It, of course, includes employees who have only worked for a few years, or less than the 40, and therefore reduces the average!
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 147
You seem to be under the illusion that I pick sides. I don't, that is a problem for people like you and others who share one brain. You just do not think for yourself. If is politically correct to say how wonderful a nurse is, that is what you will do. There are as many bad nurses, and I have seen this for myself, as there are bad bankers. The point about Helens story was it was not true, but I guess that went over your head. For the more naive people on here, answering to bogus stories is very unfair, it gives an unfair view of the discussion. The same as people who use more than one name on the same blog, it wastes the time of others and gives an unfair advantage. If the only way an argument can be won is by cheating, there is no point to the discussion. Furthermore the honest ones are fighting against something that does not exist.
Then there is the ever present write a load of nonsense, and when challenged run away. You all use sound-bites, and to be frank most of the time do not know what you are talking about.
Furthermore not one of you, in your little group, comes from a proper working class background, like I said to lefty, you sound like a rich mans think tank, I notice he/she never answered that one. You people live in a bubble of no thought at all. You need to get out more.
You live in a World where you think everyone has to belong to one club or another. If you say this you must be Labour, if you say that you must be Conservative, you are so narrow minded. Some people genuinely work out what the real problems are, especially for working class people. If you addressed the issue, instead of the person, you might learn something. However if you play games, even though there is only one of me, you will get as back as much as you give.
Anything I say does not represent any particular political point of view because frankly I do not care that much either way. Britain is doomed to keep repeating the same old problems over and over again. With people like you and others, it always will. I will say one thing, from being on the blogs, the right as you call it, put over much more reasonable and logical arguments than the left. The left tends just to make statements, based on no evidence at all, and attack the person not the argument.
The bankers are not to blame for Britains problems, in fact some banks did nothing wrong at all. Britain would have entered recession anyway, eventually, because of a Labour Government that spent too much, a public that spent and consumed too much and lack of growth in the private sector. Britain had been living beyond its means for years. The expansion of the Welare state and the public sector being the main problems, and then not earning the money as a Country to pay for it. The banking crisis was a side issue to Britains problems. The Labour Government much encouraged the problems of the UK financial system by poor regulation and their need to keep the taxation flowing in. That is the economic truth. The public and the Government should stop using banks as a scapegoat for a much deeper problem. You see the harm done by spreading ignorance about banks, does not effect the top bankers, it effects the ordinary person working on a till all day just doing their job. The public abuse them for earning big bonus payments, which they do not, they speak down to them and treat them badly. I know this because I have seen it, and they have told me themselves. How would you like to be an ordinary working person who happens to work for a sector that is despised because of propaganda. The blame culture in Britain is one just one of its many problems. Blame anyone but themselves. No I do not work for a bank.
Why I bother, I don't know.
Complain about this comment
153#
Oh God, spare me that bleeding heart exploited workers bulldust Saga, I dont buy it for a second. Never have, never will.
I'm sure you're flaggelating yourself every single day about the plight of the impoverished and overworked labourers that were used to build that very pleasant abode of your mother's in Hampstead (that you probably live in rent free) and the slum-like, disease ravaged conditions they had to exist in and those environmental conditions no doubt shortened their lives.
You're not going to get any audience here for your self loathing guilt trip apart from that fellow useful idiot, lefty10. I'm really not in the mood for that fake proselytizing crap this morning.
Complain about this comment
naughty 148
With respect that was not the question I asked you. You said you wanted to see higher taxation on high earners. As most of the tax collected now comes from income tax, NIC, VAT etc and not from business, this will be unsustainable when the cuts come and the tax take comes down. People in the public sector will be losing their jobs. How will you get growth in the British economy, the only possible solution to the financial crisis, to make up the tax lose and replace the jobs lost in the public sector. Britain is now uncompetitve in the World because of high tax rates, as you wish to see this higher, you must explain how you will achieve growth in the economy without lower taxation for business and high earners. Bearing in mind some business is leaving Britain already and the brain drain has began. Also take into account there is a lack of skilled workers for business, in Britain, to contend with as well.
Complain about this comment
Wow.
This is one seriously stinging rebuke. Delivered from the left as well. Dunno who Tony Wood is, but... blimey.
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2830
Complain about this comment
Interesting.... wonder if there will be the usual defeaning silence from usual champions of ‘equality’ and protestors of ‘violence against women’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-news/8049022/Margaret-Thatcher-refused-apology-by-the-National-Theatre.html
Complain about this comment
158 Croftie
Nothing like a diatribe to set me up for the day.
You always come up trumps.
Complain about this comment
162 fubar
I bet he was pleased to get that weight of his shoulders. Never good for anyone to keep that amount of bitterness within.
Complain about this comment
158. Susan-Croft
Judging from The QT audience last night the 'Bankers are to Blame' propaganda is more believed than the 'It's all Labour's fault' propaganda. Certainly in that neck of the woods.
161. Fubar_Saunders
I think he's the deputy editor F_S. Obviously a mole. :)
Complain about this comment
164#
Very much so, MrN, very much so. :o)
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 163
Nothing like living up to what is written about you, as you have just done.
Complain about this comment
Another interesting snippet. Thanks to Guido for the steer....
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/10/teacher-who-spoke-at-tory-conference.html
Complain about this comment
165#
They probably harvested half the audience from the constituency that elected that cuckolded proto-fossilised political eunuch Dromey.
Christ, no wonder my maternal grandmother scarpered from Brum as fast as she could.
Complain about this comment
naughty
I am still waiting for an answer to both post 99 and 160. Otherwise it has to be assumed you do not have one, and cannot, therefore, mention higher taxation again for high earners, without looking foolish.
Remember you challenged my post and I came up with goods at 99. Therefore it is up to you to do likewise.
So I would like a proper answer please, not fudge.
Complain about this comment
168
And a chance for the new Shadow Cabinet Education Minister to come out and either condem or support the decision. Nothing like being thrust into the deep end.
Complain about this comment
Blame 165
Proves my point then, however, it will end in tears for the public not bankers.
Britains problems are mostly Labour's fault and it is not propaganda. Or was someone else over spending all the Government money, someone else regulating the banks, someone else relying on just the financial sector for taxation, someone else expanding the public sector to unsustainable levels, someone else ignoring the drop in private sector output and still spending. In fact was someone else looking after the economy for 13 years.
If so, please tell me.
Complain about this comment
165#
It just struck me as being refreshingly honest, devoid of sycophancy and most importantly, spin-free and objective without wallowing in the old tribalism.
Now that kind of left wing thinking, I can quite happily say, I am open to reading more of. Looking at some of the other articles on the site, it does appear that this is a conscious decision to write in this fashion.
Pity we cant see more of it elsewhere. I'm inclined to think that few things turn voters off and do more to breed cynicism than spin and tribalism.
Well written, Mr Wood.
Complain about this comment
168#
Indeed. Wonder who is going to get the gig?
Complain about this comment
Susan
Very simply. Don't get hang on growth it isn't going to happen.
GO is working on the basis that the economy is not growing and has asked all his departments to do like wise.
Also remember that Growth is not the only tool at GO's disposal and also that Growth in the economy can lead to boom and bust.
Probably goes no where near satisfying your requirements but there you are.
We will both see how GO deals with the issue over the coming months and years and can only guess what the economy will look like in 4/5 years from now when he hands over to Yvette Cooper.
I will only be to happy for you to have the last word on the subject, so please do so.
Complain about this comment
172. Susan-Croft
Susan, without getting into percentages of blame, yes, the collapse happened under Labour's watch, just as all governments around the world watched their economies suffer. Some were better placed to withstand it than others. Our reliance on the financial sector was damaging, no question.
The simplification of the causes by Labour, i.e. 'the bankers were to blame' is disingenuous but understandable. It's a simple message that's easily digested. Just as saying it was ALL Labour's fault is oversimplifying the complexities of the causes. The scale of US mortgage market and the irresponsible sub-prime lending of US banks dwarfed anything the UK market was experiencing, although we had our own mini-me versions like Northern Rock. And it's unlikely that anyone over here understood the size of the problem. Tory and LibDems did question Brown on the sustainability of our credit fuelled economy and the housing bubble, but even they weren't aware of what was to come.
Complain about this comment
174
Who would I choose, to put up against Mr Gove's. Difficult one this for all sort of reasons.
Wouldn't want to put up the most talented, that would just be considered wasteful. So maybe a rookie? But there again It's Education and not something to be taken lightly, as we all know from this here blog.
Decisions, decisions... Caroline Flint. There you go. Appointment made! Pass me the phone and I'll give her the good news.
Complain about this comment
177
Mr, N., please. No.
The same woman who said of someone "they talk human". Entrusted with Education?
I'll bet she can't even speak Latin.
Complain about this comment
Who'dya think is going to get Defence, MrN?
Complain about this comment
No problem there Fubar. A future Leadership contender.
Sadiq Khan
Of course, he will be following Bob Ainsworth, so big boots to fill!
Complain about this comment
Shame Hazel Blairs not nominated. Could have done with her talents in the Foreign office.
So Alan Johnson at the FO and Ed Balls at the HO.
So what to do with Liam Bryne?
Chief of Security at the Tower of London?
Complain about this comment
naughty2 175
It is not about having the last word, although you would like to close it down that way.
Growth in the private sector of the right sort does not lead to boom and bust. However I will not go into to what leads to boom and bust, because I doubt it would make much difference.
George Osborne has not given up on growth, indeed his Conference speech was built around how to get growth in the economy. The only reason they cannot lower tax for high earners, which I am pretty sure the Conservatives would like to do, is because of the Lib/Dems and how the public would view this. However it will cost them in the end.
Don't challenge posts and try to mock them, unless you are prepared to give proper answers yourself. You do far too much of that and it is not clever and it is not nice. I am not just talking about towards me either.
I do not know why you feel the mention of Yvette Cooper would bother me. If she gets to run the UK economy it is you that should worry, I won't be here.
Complain about this comment
Fubar 161
Just got chance to read the article, thank you.
There is plenty of these articles and proper belief from left-wing people out in the Country, especially in poor areas. That is what I was saying to lefty10 he/she does not represent the true left-wing. Most of these very honest people despise the Labour elite and genuinely care about their Country.
It makes me very angry indeed to hear people like Sagamix, left10, outrage and the others discribe themselves as left-wing people, they are not, they are Labour activists.
Complain about this comment
167 Croftie
Written by you.
Do I care. Noooooooooooo.
If it makes you happy to vent your spleen, go ahead, sticks and stones etc . Mind you PC was a bit below the belt. A first for me ! Sexist, racist I have had hurled at me by up tight PC types over things like chairman and black coffee but never been called that before.
I did quite like dinosaur tho. They ruled the earth for 160 million yeras whereas we have only been aroubf for 200k max more like 40k in our present form. When our "civilisation" goes belly up then it is the dinosaurs amongst us who will know how to survive hence my appreciation of your defining me as one.
Keep it up, havnt had such good entertainment since my old Trade Union days. Real cut and thrust that was. Not girly foot stamping.
PS You are electric hermit and I claim my five pounds. (Acknowledgements to whoever regularly uses that on here)
Complain about this comment
Susan
Well the news is that it's not to be Yvette Coopper - Instead it's to be Alan Johnson, so we can all stay here and rejoice!
Complain about this comment
So Ed Miliband decided to play it safe with Johnson as Chancellor. Looks as if he wants to stick to Darling's line on the economy. The rest seem to have been shuffled around rather haphazardly.
It's getting a bit perplexing at the top of the party with the Miliband brothers (one temporarily sidelined), the Eagle twins, and the Balls-Cooper family. How long before we have the Harman-Dromey pair - just a thought to make everyone's hair stand on end.
Complain about this comment
182. At 2:02pm on 08 Oct 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:
"George Osborne has not given up on growth, indeed his Conference speech was built around how to get growth in the economy."
So why has the treasury failed to understand that deep cuts to the £6bn reserch budget would inflict long lasting damage to economic growth.
Sir Paul Nurse and seven other Nobel laureates protested in a letter to "the Times" yesterday regarding the strict curbs on work visa's form outside the European Union "would damage our ability to recruit the brightest young talent as well as distinguished scientists into our universities and industries".
Sir Paul, goes on to say that "clearly the Treasury does not fully understand how economic growth is stimulated".
The story was followed up on Channel 4 News last night.
Not entirely, sure how you can be so confident that GO is interested in stimulating the economy. I say he's more interested in saving £6bn but the I would, wouldn't I!
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge or whatever 184
Oh do be quiet, no matter how many posts you write after my post to cover up, mine still remains at 183, you are Labour activists and not of the proper left-wing. Who think nothing like you, the same as Idont Believeit, who is trying to cover his tracks on the new AN blog, by his sudden conversion to disliking the Labour party of Blair etc.
Do I care not a bit, but stop claiming you are something you are not. It is disrespectful to those that have a true belief in the left of politics.
Complain about this comment
naughty 187
Well I agree with Paul Nurse if that is what he has said, and I have said this myself. However it seems that this is not true, because the report on immigration is not complete, it is still up for consultation. Britain has such a skills gap due to poor education, that we need these people.
I am however in agreement with the cuts to research, why, because in other Countries this money has been used wisely, in Britain it has been used very badly. Vast amounts of Research money in Britain has been used to come up with answers like, how quickly you can drink a pint and how can you learn to dance well etc. This is the budget being cut and rightly so.
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 159
What a ridiculous post. Seem to be choking half to death on your own off-topic bile.
The point I'm making (and it's important so I'll make it again here) is that just because a person makes their money in the private sector, it doesn't follow that it's of no valid concern to others (i) what they are doing, and (ii) what they're paid for doing it.
A person would require a Herculian belief in right wing, free market dogma in order to have lived through recent events, yet still not recognise the truth of this.
Complain about this comment
#187 mrn
I was puzzled by the Times letter. How many bright young prospects and distinguished scientists would normally be admitted - hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? I'm not convinced that a reasonable number of such people would not be allowed to work in Britain. As far as I can make out, the present policy is to eventually cut down the number of 'immigrants' to 'tens of thousands' and to significantly curb the current hundreds of thousands of students arriving, many of them not studying and many more overstaying their visas.
Complain about this comment
"It makes me very angry indeed to hear people like Sagamix describe themselves as left-wing people, they are not" - susan @ 183
So these authentic (working class) left wingers - all these genuine "salt of the earth" people you supposedly know and love - they'd be mad keen to protect City bonuses and slash taxes on high earners and the wealthy, would they?
Maybe ask a few of them, see what they say, and report back.
Complain about this comment
187#
I understand what you're saying but playing devils advocate - do we need to import the rest of the world's best? Dont we have enough of our own? Considering the developments and advances that we have given the world, even in recent history?
Or did they all leave? Or arent we educating, training and developing the worlds best any more?
Complain about this comment
"You are electric hermit and I claim my five pounds." - xt @ 184
Considerable difference in IQ. To put it mildly.
Complain about this comment
188 Croftie
Who died and made you in charge of who speaks on this blog ?
You are too fond of insulting all and sundry by telling them what they are and what they are not as though you have infallibility.
I do not speak for others but in my case I know who I am, what I am, what I have done, where I have been and I am more or less content with journeying in my shoes.
I do not know why you have become so bitter in your responses and I hope whatever ails you soon dissipates.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
196 Sorry Mods, pressed the wrong button. It's my age.
Complain about this comment
"192. At 6:10pm on 08 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
"It makes me very angry indeed to hear people like Sagamix describe themselves as left-wing people, they are not" - susan @ 183
"So these authentic (working class) left wingers - all these genuine "salt of the earth" people you supposedly know and love -"
-and upon whose backs you and your chums ride upon Saga -
"they'd be mad keen to protect City bonuses and slash taxes on high earners and the wealthy, would they? Maybe ask a few of them, see what they say, and report back."
That'd be more than what you've ever done! You tell them what to think because they are not capable of it themselves, remember? The salt of the earth types, you abandoned to the BNP until you needed their votes!
Complain about this comment
Mike and Susan
Yes and yes.
There does appear from what we have read that a lot of money is/has been wasted on answers like how quickly you drink a pint etc (btw just for the purposes of my research, as quickly is it Susan?) and I have always hoped this was sort in between doing some proper research, sort of lunch breaks or late Friday afternoon stuff, but it appears not.
And so on that basis I agree that some of the £6bn can be cut. But here we go again. Proper research costs money and is good for the economy. None of us have the answers until later in the month. It will be interesting to see how much of the £6bn goes.
As none of us know the figure, shall we put a % as how much GO will cut.
I'll start by suggesting 50%.
No rights of wrongs. The answer as Susan correctly points out will be provided to us shortly.
With regards students over staying their visa's. We again agree. If you are going to tackle immigration you've got to make a start somewhere. To stop visa's being in the first place is regressive to stop these visa's being used for anything other than studying progressive.
Now what's all this about AJ. I haven't visited NR blog but I guess there's lots of poitives being said that we can all concur with?
Complain about this comment
194 Saga
I wouldnt disagree with that but there is lately a similarity of style, quite perplexing in a way.
Been told I am sham left wing now. Dont recall ever claiming to be left wing. Left of centre is probably more like it but it can veer either way. Never been a slave to an ideology.
My group used to control the balance of power in my Trade Union days and we were hated equally by the right and left. If a policy was good we supported it whoever had suggested it. This meant it was carried.
Anyway off out now mate, bit complicated tonight , taking my pet rabbit with me.
Have a good not too apoplectic evening.
Complain about this comment
193 Fubar
We have some of the worlds best research universities and attract the best talent from all over the world, only this week two Russian born scientist at Manchester have been awarded the nobel prize.
We sadly encourage young people to follow less academic routes & collect multiple qualifications but without the hard academic rigour required at the top level.
Our research facilities are something we can truly be proud of as a nation - where we fail is in the exploitation of our findings.
Complain about this comment
"Anyway off out now mate, bit complicated tonight, taking my pet rabbit with me." - xtun @ 2C
Making this sound unusual, can't think why - never go anywhere without mine.
Complain about this comment
#200 xT, #202 saga
Is Harvey still around and breeding?
Complain about this comment
201#
I see no reason to disagree with any of that, coats. Thing is, its got to the point where something has to be done and I guess that this is a case of an imperfect solution enacted too quickly. I guess it just means that so far as the immigration cap is concerned, whoever is doing the sponsoring is going to have to make choices and be far more choosy about who it sponsors and why, until there is either a U-turn or until the policy is revised/finessed.
Complain about this comment
Mine is called Che, Mike. Very progressive, he is ... for a rabbit.
Complain about this comment
#204 FS
It is supposed to be a cap, not a ban, and tens of thousands - maybe more, in practice - will still be admitted, and the theory is that relevant companies and organisations will be consulted in advance as to their requirements. I'm not sure whether the 'top class' research people (students? post-grads? experienced scientists?) come under the heading of 'immigrants' or some other category. But I fail to see how it can become a serious problem. Ways are always found.
I also agree with the sentiments of your #193. Surely, if the government intends to shift the emphasis away from the financial and service sectors, as they claim, they will need to do something about encouraging home-grown excellence in the relevant fields?
Complain about this comment
202 Saga
203 m-j
Harvey, the rabbit in the play. Gosh he even got a mention in the Archers many moons ago.
Saga. Do you take yours with you all the time ?
Just took mine for safekeeping tonight.
Complain about this comment
xT: did he enjoy the pub, the nibbles etc?
Complain about this comment
208 John-i-k
Crisps were his favourite.They really should have a doe barmaid.
Complain about this comment
206#
Concur, Mj. Concur completely.
Complain about this comment
Well I don't concur - not even completely. Or maybe I do, depends what you're saying. I don't think we should go in for rigid and highly restrictive "caps" on non EU immigration. Neither do I believe in a free for all; would prefer something between these two extremes.
Complain about this comment
We are clearly looking for the application of common sense, which in the hands of government alas often goes awry.
Restricting talent from the UK will only be to our detriment.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
212 mwc
That's a good idea, restrict talent from the UK. If anyone shows any signs of talent send them to America, China, anywhere, but not here. Then we'd all be equally useless. And other counties could send there no hopers here, and pay our welfare and look after everything on the basis that we keep away from the rest of the world. Comparative advantage, that's what it is. After all there's not much here but hospitals anyway which are working vastly undercapacity anyway, due to adminstrative failures that clog it up. Those hopeless admin people could go on to welfare.
Marvellous. I support it.
Complain about this comment
211 Saggy
'Well I don't concur, not even completely. Or maybe I do, it depends on what you're saying.'
Confused? You will be.
Complain about this comment
211. Saggy
Sag, u have fallen into the trap of confusing oneself. U managed to do this by at the end of the sentence saying 'it depends what you're saying' which suddenly makes it seem reasonable. But it isn't. Of course it depends on what they're saying. It goes without saying!
Reverse the sentence and start with 'it depends what you're saying', then what would your response be?
Otherwise you'll be going round in meaningless circles with no answers - as u can see in that sentence previously quoted - for a very long time.
And I think you ought to know Harvey is not a pet.
Complain about this comment
Are there really children out there earning £50K and thus devoiding themselves of the right to child benefit? Doesn't say much for the parents. It isn't for the mother, it's for the child.
Complain about this comment
213. Bonjour bonjour. Vous n'aimez pas Francaise? Ou est le whiskey?
Complain about this comment
It's impossible to decide for or against this child benefit thing when you don't know how it will work.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I don't think it's allowable to means test child benefit which is why they've chosen the course they have. From what is written in the piece above the GO doesn't understand this.
Complain about this comment
It filters out things in French!!!
Complain about this comment
"If anyone shows any signs of talent send them to America, China, anywhere, but not here." - L @ 214
Mmm - the "Gamu" doctrine. Counter intuitive but maybe it will work.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
222 Leuctrid
As your 213 was alive and well I responded, en Francais, to your concern in 222. Also asking if the French have child benefit.
This has been referred for further consideration. An organisation as pc as the BBC bans French ????????????????
Is that legal ?
Complain about this comment
Well as there was not a stampede to answer my question be it in French or English I have been looking myself. And it is very interesting.
French Child Benefit is not means tested. It is 125 Euros a month for 2 kids and 160 Euros for each additional child. Payable to age 20. With some kind of compensatory payment to ease the reduction when a child reaches 20 !!!!
There are birth and adoption payments of up to 1,800 Euros and back to school payments payable each September of about 300 euros for each child tho all these appear means tested. Even our Income Support claimants dont get help with school expenses.There is also a house moving allowance of about 1000 Euros.
All benefits are subject to a half percent tax.
The French benefits seem much more generous than ours and George wants to cut ours .
Complain about this comment
226 XT It doesn't seem VASTLY different apart from the age 20 thing. There is help with school meals, unifrom, travel for low income families. I have a vague memory the French school/college system is different, but perhaps with so many going onto higher education in Uk we should have something similar here.
How did u find that out??
Complain about this comment
223 Sag I don't think you ought to watch Dr Who anymore.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
227 Leuctrid
In my 225 I did of course meen 218 not 213 and your French 218 survives still, mine is still awaiting the Sages to pronounce.
Where did I get the French info? From a link of an ex pats site.
http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_3.html
It is an English language French Social Security Guide. Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
The more I look at the French benefits the more I think we are being shortchanged.
Basic State Retirement pension uk for a couple 8,119.80 .
French minimum pension payment for couple over 65; 12,030.74 GBP (13,765 Euros).
A pity all our pensioners only on SRP cant move as the French top up.
Complain about this comment
211#
Well, you wouldnt, would you?
Complain about this comment
Xtun
Yes but the French are more accustomed to a high tax economy - something we are loathe to follow.
You cannot have services without paying for them
Complain about this comment
I guess I must be the only one alarmed by the article in the back inside page of the Telegraph on Saturday about the EU/India Free Trade Deal?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8051349/India-trade-deal-with-EU-will-allow-thousands-of-immigrants-into-Britain.html
If this gets ratified without a murmur from the Coalition, I predict stormy waters ahead. Very stormy.
Complain about this comment
In simple terms, the business of the right is business with people coming second; the business of the left is people with business coming second. As the infamous Alan Clark once said in an interview (on the success of his party in the 80's & 90's) was that the Conservatives knew that without power all was idle posturing and fancy, and hence would do whatever it took to get elected - no holds barred - whereas Labour singularly failed to understand that, and remained in the wilderness. Hence New Labour.
Can anyone be surprised if the Tories "adjust" their position on a number of key pre-election pledges once in power? After all - BUSINESS IS BUSINESS!
Complain about this comment
"the business of the left is people with business coming second."
Thats tenuous. To call it simple terms is understating it somewhat.
Its what it may purport to being, but in reality...
Complain about this comment
The tax take in France (as % of GDP) is significantly higher than here. This allows them to fund benefits which are more generous than ours. They have a wealth tax, interestingly.
They also have (as compared to the UK):
- higher statutory minimum wage.
- better wages for lower paid jobs (above the SMW)*
- less tax at the bottom end of the income scale.
- lower housing costs.
* due to more regulation, greater worker militancy, stronger trade unions.
Perhaps this is why, despite the higher benefits, they don't have the "trap" problem on anything like the scale we do.
They have a serious unemployment issue, though, as do most western countries at present.
Complain about this comment
Well my 224 eventually got the boot for having words or phrases in a non English language !!!!!
I ask again is that legal ? Is it a form of racism ?
Not to mention that the "English" language contains words from almost every language under the sun. Especially French. Why for example is a road with a dead end called an end-of-bag almost frightened to put cul-de-sac.
No concorde on this one obviously.
Complain about this comment
238#
They have a slightly different attitude as well when it comes to who gets those benefits as well and after how long, similar to the Belgians. That might also go some way towards explaining the lack of the trap in both countries, compared to the UK's free for all.
Complain about this comment
233 Coats
237 Saga
Is there a lesson to be learned from the French.
Ok they pay more, but more fairly distributed payment than our tax system.
Also the natives know how to fight when the govt tries to mess with them.
Ah the Champs-Elysees ( Mods French taken from the Greek for Place of the Blessed Dead, hence the tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arc de Triumph)ah yes there in 1968 when the cobbles flew through the air.
That our poorest pensioners could be better off living in France is an indictment of our system.
Complain about this comment
"Also the natives know how to fight when the govt tries to mess with them."
Pity they didnt know how to fight when the panzers came rolling in....
Complain about this comment
Xtun
You just have to make a choice about which sort of economy you want - we tend to have a phobia about taxes and the Mail/Telegraph would slaughter any government that tried to change it.
I guess we are all hypocrites when it comes to honesty about tax and services. I want to see well run services but that does not equate with just throwing money at them - that tends to result in higher wages but not necessarily better services.
Complain about this comment
241 Fubar
Well the French Army was a rag tag and bobtail effort in WWW1 and 2.
And dont mention Petain and the Vichy lot.
But again the ordinary French folk came up trumps with the Maquis or Resistance as we call it.
De Gaulle was another ungrateful wretch.
Complain about this comment
http://www.expatforum.com/articles/cost-of-living/cost-of-living-in-france.html
All sounds quite tempting. Or so I thought until I scrolled down and found Mark Huttons take on it all.
Complain about this comment
xT#
Short but very apt summary.
Complain about this comment
244 Naughty
Quite a mix in that lot, some love it some hate it.
I have a friend who lives out there and he loves it. No pubs tho. Bars yes but they aint the same.
Complain about this comment
XT
Like everywhere else in the world, some good and some bad. Holidays are one thing. To go anywhere and have to make a living, something quite different.
There do appear to be a lot of people that do like the idea of retiring abroad and then at the first sign of illness run home to "their own" NHS, which I guess has to be taken into account when considering your 240.
It always seem odd that we believe that people want to come to Britain because of our benefits system and to use the NHS but they are not considered in the same light when we Brits think about moving abroad.
Complain about this comment
247 Naughty
Yes and nothing seems to nark us more than someone living here who dont speak English.
Then we get upset when the French do vice versa.
Its folk.
Complain about this comment
I see four British banks stand accused of helping African politicians launder ill gotten gains.
It appears the banks are supposed to be more vigilant when dealing with "politically exposed persons". ( They are considered more likely to be corrupt!).
Cant wait for any new rules that mean all our lot have to account for every penny they take to the bank.
Thanks to moneylandering rules, that obviously dont apply to the influential , yet, I have an awful time banking cheques made out to my known name which is not my first name. Banks cannot cope with this. I am reduced to asking would they argue with Paul McCartney, first name James, or Rupert Murdoch, first name Keith. Could do without the hassle.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS