Bolitics The New Condem Government

[kidlewis]

Do either of you earn over the threshold for the 40% tax band?

no, wish one of us did though, would make things a lot easier.

And you/your other half receive(s) child benefit?

we do at the moment.

You still will, won't you (unless I've read your circumstances incorrectly)?

Yet you exhort those who may be on a lower level of household income than you (and who will cease to receive it) to 'man up big time'? :?

yes because they have chosen to stay at home and have a household on one income.

that choice is a much better lifestyle to have, but if you can't afford to lose £80 per month there is always something called working if you are that bothered.

I'd rather our household be on £44k, lose child benefit and have to try and save £80 a month than be in a situation on being on £53k and having a child where costs of maintenance, insurance increases mean we have to save near £200 extra a month.

families who are managing up until this removal of benefit to live on one wage are very lucky. so yes they can man up.

[drat01]

The problem is, the tories are simplifying an issue that is far more complex. As a result they have an ill-thought policy which I suspect is only a tactic too dominate the headlines whilst the other policies are pushed through relatively unnoticed, then they'll go back and readdress the child benefit issue once the public has calmed down.

Again a big nodding yes to the man from N. Ireland

[Demitri_C]

snowy i appreciate what your saying maybe i didnt post it accurately enough but i wasnt refering to each person as everyones circumstances are different. in addition yes that alone wont make us like greece but that iis one of a series of things that CAN make us like greece. the deficint is **** huge. we could get our rating down graded then we would really be in the shits

[chrisp65]

my understanding of the child benefit cut off was a desire for a crudely simple system. Yes, there were 'cleverer' ways of adopting a cut off with phasing and means testing etc but the ethos was to keep it simple stupid. To be fair, there is an arguement for a tax that tries not to cost money to impose.

Then today we are told that uni tuition fees are going to be allowed to be raised by varying amounts, when you re pay is triggered by when you earn £21k, the interest rate you pay back at may depend on your circumstances, there will be more loans and grants available to the poorer students. Well fook me! What happened to keep it simple from last week?

[snowychap]

yes because they have chosen to stay at home and have a household on one income.

that choice is a much better lifestyle to have, but if you can't afford to lose £80 per month there is always something called working if you are that bothered.

Because working is only about being 'bovvered', isn't it?

I'd rather our household be on £44k, lose child benefit and have to try and save £80 a month than be in a situation on being on £53k and having a child where costs of maintenance, insurance increases mean we have to save near £200 extra a month.

You have a point about costs of child care otherwise I'm not sure what point you are making because the figures (unsurprisingly) are failing to add up.

I think all of this says more about you than the group that you are condemning.

[snowychap]

that iis one of a series of things that CAN make us like greece.

Not unless we're living in some wonderland.

the deficint is **** huge.

It is large. It is a result of a number of things

we could get our rating down graded then we would really be in the shits

From what I have been reading, that's a bit of scaremonging, Dem.

Our debt portfolio bears little resemblance to Greece/Ireland, &c..

Were we to be downgraded to junk status then there might be an argument but that's not going to happen tomorrow because of 'giving money to the undeserving poor'.

If we get to that position then, I'd suggest, everyone is ****, everywhere.

Edit: Poor spelling and, hopefully, a little clarity.

[snowychap]

my understanding of the child benefit cut off was a desire for a crudely simple system. Yes, there were 'cleverer' ways of adopting a cut off with phasing and means testing etc but the ethos was to keep it simple stupid. To be fair, there is an arguement for a tax that tries not to cost money to impose.

Then today we are told that uni tuition fees are going to be allowed to be raised by varying amounts, when you re pay is triggered by when you earn £21k, the interest rate you pay back at may depend on your circumstances, there will be more loans and grants available to the poorer students. Well fook me! What happened to keep it simple from last week?

Last week's keeping it simple wasn't the same as this week's keeping it simple, 'stooopid'.

[kidlewis]

yes because they have chosen to stay at home and have a household on one income.

that choice is a much better lifestyle to have, but if you can't afford to lose £80 per month there is always something called working if you are that bothered.

Because working is only about being 'bovvered', isn't it?

I'd rather our household be on £44k, lose child benefit and have to try and save £80 a month than be in a situation on being on £53k and having a child where costs of maintenance, insurance increases mean we have to save near £200 extra a month.

You have a point about costs of child care otherwise I'm not sure what point you are making because the figures (unsurprisingly) are failing to add up.

I think all of this says more about you than the group that you are condemning.

i'm saying i'd rather be in a situation of having a household seemingly coping on a single wage of £44k and having to save £80 a month than be on £53k a year with two wages having to save £200 a month.

the salaries make no difference, saving £80pm is easier than £200pm, especially when you have someone who could potentially work part time at the very least.

my mum looked after me and my dad worked as the sole provider, when they split up, she had to go full time working to pay for us, lets see the whingers moaning about £80 a month try that shit out.

[snowychap]

i'm saying i'd rather be in a situation of having a household seemingly coping on a single wage of £44k and having to save £80 a month than be on £53k a year with two wages having to save £200 a month.

Actually, you aren't. What you are saying is: "We've got child benefit, you haven't; ya boo: 'man up big time', I've got the cash, you haven't, ya da da da la la...."

the salaries make no difference, saving £80pm is easier than £200pm, especially when you have someone who could potentially work part time at the very least.

I think, in the 'dragon' vernacular, I have to declare myself 'out'. because it appears that figures (and actually thinking about figures) are not your strong point.

...lets see the whingers moaning about £80 a month....

Why, so you can tell them that you (on a higher household income than them) are doing okay?

Do you need child benefit, kidlewis?

[kidlewis]

i'm saying i'd rather be in a situation of having a household seemingly coping on a single wage of £44k and having to save £80 a month than be on £53k a year with two wages having to save £200 a month.

Actually, you aren't. What you are saying is: "We've got child benefit, you haven't; ya boo: 'man up big time', I've got the cash, you haven't, ya da da da la la...."

the salaries make no difference, saving £80pm is easier than £200pm, especially when you have someone who could potentially work part time at the very least.

I think, in the 'dragon' vernacular, I have to declare myself 'out'. because it appears that figures (and actually thinking about figures) are not your strong point.

...lets see the whingers moaning about £80 a month....

Why, so you can tell them that you (on a higher household income than them) are doing okay?

Do you need child benefit, kidlewis?

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

and you have a family who earn less, but only one person works and they have to save £80 a week, then it's much easier for the family on a single income to achieve a saving or earning more than the family in the first paragraph because they have more room to do so, less to save and more options open to them.

there is no debating that fact, end of discussion.

and I am not saying boo hoo, at the moment we need that £80 a week, but if we lost it, then we'd find a way around it. it would then result in needing to save towards £300 a month of our current living costs.

at the moment my partner is looking to leave her job in London, take a lower salary job to save the train costs it's costing her to get down there. not only that we are cancelling Sky, reducing mobile bills etc.

so for people to say they can't cope or manage with losing £80 a month where 1 person in the family works, is quite frankly bollocks.

[drat01]

Claire Raynor died today.

According to Twitter her last words were

RIP wonderful Claire Rayner: Her last words? "Tell David Cameron that if he screws up my beloved NHS I'll come back and bloody haunt him."

[Risso]

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

If only it were that simple. My wife has wanted to go back to work for a while, but the costs involved, ie childcare and travel would mean that we'd be actually worse off as a family, and of course the kids wouldn't be at home with mum.

[Jon]

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

If only it were that simple. My wife has wanted to go back to work for a while, but the costs involved, ie childcare and travel would mean that we'd be actually worse off as a family, and of course the kids wouldn't be at home with mum.

I thought the IOM was like one big extended family? :winkold:

[kidlewis]

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

If only it were that simple. My wife has wanted to go back to work for a while, but the costs involved, ie childcare and travel would mean that we'd be actually worse off as a family, and of course the kids wouldn't be at home with mum.

well that is the case and whilst it maybe the situation people in that situation are losing £80 a week, they do need to realise that they are fortunate they don't have to work full time in the first place and can spend much more time with their children.

I'd love my partner to be in the position where we could survive on one wage, even if it was way more of a struggle than it is now.

[Jon]

they do need to realise that they are fortunate they don't have to work full time in the first place and can spend much more time with their children.

Indeed. That is often a privilege not all can afford, sadly.

Also, it will teach Mart not to move away from your extended family, and all the babysitting advantages that come with it, to that godforsaken IOM!

[Risso]

That's one of the reasons we moved over Jon!

[drat01]

But I thought that a Tory doctrine was to "get on your bike" and the importance of "family - especially marriage"?

Considering the disgraceful news this morning re tuition fees, maybe the idea now is that people wont have kids as the costs for having them are increasing?

[Jon]

That's one of the reasons we moved over Jon!

You have family there? :shock:

My 6 toes gag may heve been closer to the truth than I thought!! :winkold:

[Risso]

That's one of the reasons we moved over Jon!

You have family there? :shock:

My 6 toes gag may heve been closer to the truth than I thought!! :winkold:

No, to get away from the family over there! (Anyway, back on topic please Jonners!)

[snowychap]

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

and you have a family who earn less, but only one person works and they have to save £80 a week, then it's much easier for the family on a single income to achieve a saving or earning more than the family in the first paragraph because they have more room to do so, less to save and more options open to them.

there is no debating that fact, end of discussion.

'That fact'?

There doesn't appear to be a fact, there. There seem to be a lot of assumptions (two of which are that jobs grow on trees and that the non-working partner is only working because they are not 'bothered').

I'm also a little lost on this saving more/saving less business? The comparison is between two different families where one is losing some income and another is keeping it.

and I am not saying boo hoo, at the moment we need that £80 a week

so for people to say they can't cope or manage with losing £80 a month where 1 person in the family works, is quite frankly bollocks.

I'm not sure a lot of people are saying that (though I wouldn't be surprised if there are situations where it makes things quite difficult - especially with one parent families). What people have remarked upon is the apparent unfairness - something which you appear to be okay with as you fall on the right side of the divide.

You are saying ya boo. You are saying that in your situation you need the money but that other families in a different situation (who may well be worse off) should shut up as, in your opinion, they don't.