Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 Brilliantly funny interview between Paxman and Boris on newsnight tonight. Both on really top form and worth a look if you can get to see it. Call it a hunch, but I bet you think Jeremy Clarkson is a visionary and a people's man too. No, he strikes me as one of those that plays the part of man of the people but is probably quite a snobbish prick in real life. He goes into my Alan Robson off night owls category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 Brilliantly funny interview between Paxman and Boris on newsnight tonight. Both on really top form and worth a look if you can get to see it. I spotted the deranged fucker on his bike last week heading into Liverpool St station - first "celeb" I've seen in London for ages. Surely most people love Boris? He is after all one of the true characters in Polotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15365 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Brilliantly funny interview between Paxman and Boris on newsnight tonight. Both on really top form and worth a look if you can get to see it. I spotted the deranged fucker on his bike last week heading into Liverpool St station - first "celeb" I've seen in London for ages. Surely most people love Boris? He is after all one of the true characters in Polotics. From: Tyne & Wear There we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I think Boris is an affected, stuck-up cunt fwiw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15365 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 None of which necessarily precludes a person from being a good politician, FWIW. Unfortunately, as in Boris's case, it doesn't guarantee it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3925 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 So if I understand this child benefit situation correctly - child benefit is for families with one or both parents in work in effect a tax break for children. Family allowance as it used to be known in the same way that there is a married persons allowance. The goverment has therefore decided to raise the tax burden on families with children, whilst not raising it on families without children. If people earning over the high tax rate can afford to be £1000 - £2400 quid a year worse off when they have children surely if "we are all in it together" everybody else earning over the higher taxable band should have to pay this much more tax aswell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) I don't think it's a tax break, it's a payment as far as I'm aware. In principle it's a good idea to do away with it for high earners, however, the execution looks as if it's going to be unsurprisingly botched. Edited October 5, 2010 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4365 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 A lot of the criticism (joint thing aside) seems to be that it will disengage the well-off from the welfare state with the view that if people feel "part of the system" it enhances community or something - there may be something to this but I'm not convinced. If this is true I could see this as a deliberate attempt to do just that - to again demonize everyone on benefits so you can't use the "well you're happy to get CB" view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3925 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. I think about it a different way - it should remain universal -the same way as the married allowance works -but everybody earning over the boundary should pay an extra £1200 a year in tax. As I said if people with children earning over 44000 can afford to have £1k a year less then shirley people without kids can The tories are always bleating on about supporting the family - funny way of showing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. As with all handouts of any description which is why this move towards a single benefit seems a good idea. While a lot of these things are nice to have and obviously get used so are "useful / needed", I still think the government hands out far too much dosh. Tax people less rather than taking it with one hand and then giving it back with the other as they do with tax credits. The only one imo that should be universal is the winter fuel allowance. The case that if means tested, lots of needy pensioners would not apply is too strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. I think about it a different way - it should remain universal -the same way as the married allowance works -but everybody earning over the boundary should pay an extra £1200 a year in tax. As I said if people with children earning over 44000 can afford to have £1k a year less then shirley people without kids can The tories are always bleating on about supporting the family - funny way of showing it The people with kids are being taxed the same as those without. I have a problem a couple earning 80 grand getting an extra £2.5k a year because they chose to have three kids, it just doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Wrong again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21229 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21229 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. As with all handouts of any description which is why this move towards a single benefit seems a good idea. While a lot of these things are nice to have and obviously get used so are "useful / needed", I still think the government hands out far too much dosh. Tax people less rather than taking it with one hand and then giving it back with the other as they do with tax credits. The only one imo that should be universal is the winter fuel allowance. The case that if means tested, lots of needy pensioners would not apply is too strong. So basically you believe in reducing progressive taxation then, i.e. you don't believe in wealth redistribution. Typical tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3925 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. I think about it a different way - it should remain universal -the same way as the married allowance works -but everybody earning over the boundary should pay an extra £1200 a year in tax. As I said if people with children earning over 44000 can afford to have £1k a year less then shirley people without kids can The tories are always bleating on about supporting the family - funny way of showing it The people with kids are being taxed the same as those without. I have a problem a couple earning 80 grand getting an extra £2.5k a year because they chose to have three kids, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't have a problem with the tax system allowing some sort of tax break for children, in fact as children are beneficial/necesary to society existing- I think it is more than sensible for it to happen. I just think if you are going to penalise earners over 44k you should penalise all of them - not just the ones with kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. I think about it a different way - it should remain universal -the same way as the married allowance works -but everybody earning over the boundary should pay an extra £1200 a year in tax. As I said if people with children earning over 44000 can afford to have £1k a year less then shirley people without kids can The tories are always bleating on about supporting the family - funny way of showing it The people with kids are being taxed the same as those without. I have a problem a couple earning 80 grand getting an extra £2.5k a year because they chose to have three kids, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't have a problem with the tax system allowing some sort of tax break for children, in fact as children are beneficial/necesary to society existing- I think it is more than sensible for it to happen. I just think if you are going to penalise earners over 44k you should penalise all of them - not just the ones with kids. But they're not being penalised, it's just being reduced to a level playing field. And people will still be having kids regardless of whether they get child benefit or not, I just don't want to pay for them, maybe that's me being a bit selfish but it's how I feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21229 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I've no problem with contributing towards child benefits, I'm less convinced by the trust fund which I think is a complete waste of money and a bit of a piss take if I'm honest. Besides, I pay far more towards childrens' education in council tax - again no problem with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3925 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. I think about it a different way - it should remain universal -the same way as the married allowance works -but everybody earning over the boundary should pay an extra £1200 a year in tax. As I said if people with children earning over 44000 can afford to have £1k a year less then shirley people without kids can The tories are always bleating on about supporting the family - funny way of showing it The people with kids are being taxed the same as those without. I have a problem a couple earning 80 grand getting an extra £2.5k a year because they chose to have three kids, it just doesn't make any sense. I don't have a problem with the tax system allowing some sort of tax break for children, in fact as children are beneficial/necesary to society existing- I think it is more than sensible for it to happen. I just think if you are going to penalise earners over 44k you should penalise all of them - not just the ones with kids. But they're not being penalised, it's just being reduced to a level playing field. And people will still be having kids regardless of whether they get child benefit or not, I just don't want to pay for them, maybe that's me being a bit selfish but it's how I feel. They self evidently are being penalised though- if you were earning 45k and receiving 2.4k child benefit you will be losing a heft chunk of your income. Now I dont object to people in the higher band paying a chunk of more tax - I just think they all should Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 They self evidently are being penalised though- if you were earning 45k and receiving 2.4k child benefit you will be losing a heft chunk of your income. Now I dont object to people in the higher band paying a chunk of more tax - I just think they all should And they do pay more tax, I just don't think high earners need that extra 2.4k. A good social welfare system should see money directed to those in need, the old child benefit system didn't do that and this new proposal seems to direct it towards those that are easiest to identify, it's a half arsed way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Wrong again Probably will be by 2013 though, eh? You should make the previous post your sig btw. Edited October 5, 2010 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4679 Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 It should be cut so that only people who really need it and even then it should be capped to 2/3 kids. As with all handouts of any description which is why this move towards a single benefit seems a good idea. While a lot of these things are nice to have and obviously get used so are "useful / needed", I still think the government hands out far too much dosh. Tax people less rather than taking it with one hand and then giving it back with the other as they do with tax credits. The only one imo that should be universal is the winter fuel allowance. The case that if means tested, lots of needy pensioners would not apply is too strong. So basically you believe in reducing progressive taxation then, i.e. you don't believe in wealth redistribution. Typical tory. Surely stopping handouts to rich people is wealth redistribution? Typical commie tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30221 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I bet CT's kids are too old to get it now btw. Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. What about those with a household income of 80k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now