Hood Robin

Fyldewhite said:
So Granny and Grandad who bought their large suburban semi for £20,000 in 1962 and pass it on in their will at a current value of £700,000 today have paid tax on the extra £680,000 have they? This policy will reward mostly those now in their mid 50's with well off parents....mostly in the south east of England. Still, nothing more than I expected tbh. Giveaway for the rich while the poorer end get hammered. Still, it's fair because we all have same chance of climbing the social ladder don't we?
Click to expand...

You are sooooo wrong there.






A suburban semi cost around £10,000 in 1962.:lol:
My brothers first Edinburgh flat cost £2,000 in 1968. Probably worth £250,000 now.
 
Last edited:
Fyldewhite said:
So Granny and Grandad who bought their large suburban semi for £20,000 in 1962 and pass it on in their will at a current value of £700,000 today have paid tax on the extra £680,000 have they? This policy will reward mostly those now in their mid 50's with well off parents....mostly in the south east of England. Still, nothing more than I expected tbh. Giveaway for the rich while the poorer end get hammered. Still, it's fair because we all have same chance of climbing the social ladder don't we?
Click to expand...

Why should they pay tax on it ? Do you have any comprehension what £20,000 was worth in 1962, the average wage was around £800 a year and people worked damed hard for it, they never had the luxuries we have now either.

It's easy to blame the Old rather than take responsibility for your own life. "The poor get hammered still" have you ever been really hard up? I doubt it as you sound like an armchair socialist to me.
 
c1973 said:
Agreed, if you must have a dose of weans then bloody well pay for them yourself!

Not sure about the budget, I haven't had a proper look at it yet, but it's refreshing to see a living wage (higher than that promised by other parties btw) going up. I'd like to see it higher, but it's a start.

As for the welfare...... I don't like the fact under 25s will suffer (no living wage etc) while pensioners who are, let's face it, more of a financial burden on the welfare state still get their free telly licence, free buses, inflation linked pensions, heating allowance etc whether they actually need it or not. No problem with those that do need it though.
Perhaps the young uns need to make their voice heard to avoid constantly getting shafted?
Click to expand...

As a pensioner myself, I should point out that I worked hard and paid all my taxes and National Insurance contributions, and paid into a pension scheme for many years, so that I could have a comfortable retirement, like my father had before me. I think that with the way things are, many golf clubs would close down if pensioner benefits were cut. Having said that, I feel sorry about the way young people are treated these days, particularly in having to fund their own educations! :(
 
Last edited:
I was never happy with the concept of Working Tax Credits, because they are effectively a subsidy for unscrupulous employers who will pay their employees the minimum wages they can get away with, whilst penalising companies who properly reward their staff. Likewise, why should people be allowed to have a more comfortable life on benefits than they can by working? I don't like George Osbourne, but to some extent I have to agree with his reforms. It was that mad Socialist Gordon Brown who messed this country up.
 
SocketRocket said:
Why should they pay tax on it ? Do you have any comprehension what £20,000 was worth in 1962, the average wage was around £800 a year and people worked damed hard for it, they never had the luxuries we have now either.

It's easy to blame the Old rather than take responsibility for your own life. "The poor get hammered still" have you ever been really hard up? I doubt it as you sound like an armchair socialist to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have as it happens, and I was grateful for the extra money that I got when I started work in a low paid job with a new baby to look after.....taking responsibility for my own life you could say. I'm not blaming the old.....don't know where you got that from tbh. Just questioning a tax policy that will mostly benefit the middle aged children of wealthy parents in the south east of England. Personally, from my armchair, I believe there were bigger priorities. That's all.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
It's a fair budget given the warped idea of fairness in the minds of the tories and their acolytes.
Click to expand...

And not a fair budget in the warped mind of the cuddly lefties? Note, question mark. Both sides of the political divide think they're right and the other side wrong.

If there was enough money in the economy to fund the cuddly policies I'd be all for it. Alternatively, with the level of debt and gdp we have we could have chosen the Greek method of head in the sand and spend even more in the naive hope of being able to stimulate the economy whilst continuing to spend huge amounts on Gordon Brown's welfare explosion.

Switch on BBC's World news and listen to the politicians from Greece and the rest of the Eurozone.
 
Hobbit said:
And not a fair budget in the warped mind of the cuddly lefties? Note, question mark. Both sides of the political divide think they're right and the other side wrong.

If there was enough money in the economy to fund the cuddly policies I'd be all for it. Alternatively, with the level of debt and gdp we have we could have chosen the Greek method of head in the sand and spend even more in the naive hope of being able to stimulate the economy whilst continuing to spend huge amounts on Gordon Brown's welfare explosion.

Switch on BBC's World news and listen to the politicians from Greece and the rest of the Eurozone.
Click to expand...

An outcome that results in the poorest working families losing more income than any other group (according to Institute of Fiscal Studies after taking into account increases in the minimum wage) is many things but it is not fair. Fairness across economic groups would result in all groups losing out the same - indeed that that would mean a greater ££ impact for the higher earning family for the impact to be equivalent. But no - the poorest economic groups take the greatest hit - and many think that that is 'fair'?

It may be unavoidable; it may be unfortunate; it may be politically expedient; it may be 'the only way' - it is most certainly not 'fair'.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
An outcome that results in the poorest working families losing more income than any other group (according to Institute of Fiscal Studies after taking into account increases in the minimum wage) is many things but it is not fair. Fairness across economic groups would result in all groups losing out the same - indeed that that would mean a greater ££ impact for the higher earning family for the impact to be equivalent. But no - the poorest economic groups take the greatest hit - and many think that that is 'fair'?

It may be unavoidable; it may be unfortunate; it may be politically expedient; it may be 'the only way' - it is most certainly not 'fair'.
Click to expand...

Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.
 
SocketRocket said:
Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.
Click to expand...

Remember that guy called Philpott who lived off State Benefits by having 17 children by 3 different women? He basically used his kids as cash cows!
 
SocketRocket said:
Whats 'not fair' is the imposition of Tax Credits as a means to subsidise poor wages and also being rewarded for having large families that you cant afford without state subsidies.

The freezing of tax credits will also hopefully create less of a draw to immigrants who use them to boost their low wages and support children in their home countries.
Click to expand...

I might not disagree with you on these - but I'm not for this budget being called 'fair' when the hardest hit are the poorest, and the rest of us get away with what in truth are relatively inconsequential hits on our disposable income.

I thought that we were all in it together. Well we may well be but some of us are in the shallow end - and the poorest are in the deep.
 
CheltenhamHacker said:
Mistakes do happen. But would less "mistakes" happen if people didn't have the fall back of child support?

Also, if mistakes happen fine, child support for the first child. more than one mistake and maybe you need to be a LOT more careful.......
Click to expand...

It's all very well criticising folks having more children than they might be able to support themselves - and then limiting benefit to say the first two children - but given that folks will have children - we do seem to be content to let the children of large families grow up in relative poverty - as they will - through no fault of their own.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
It's all very well criticising folks having more children than they might be able to support themselves - and then limiting benefit to say the first two children - but given that folks will have children - we do seem to be content to let the children of large families grow up in relative poverty - as they will - through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

If that's the worry, I can appreciate that, then something needs to be done. There needs to be some disincentive not to have more children that you can afford. Whether this is the restriction of child benefits, or having the children taken off families that cannot support them, I don't know the final answer. I do appreciate it should be on a case by case effort though, blanket rules don't work.
 
CheltenhamHacker said:
If that's the worry, I can appreciate that, then something needs to be done. There needs to be some disincentive not to have more children that you can afford. Whether this is the restriction of child benefits, or having the children taken off families that cannot support them, I don't know the final answer. I do appreciate it should be on a case by case effort though, blanket rules don't work.
Click to expand...

Easy, if you currently have two kids and are on benefits, you get sterilized. Both parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mudball
Slat walls & improving acoustic .. any suggestions
Replies
0
Views
316
Mudball
Mudball
Norrin Radd
The Robin Hood tree
Replies
18
Views
2K
GreiginFife
GreiginFife
C
Wtd Powakaddy hood
Replies
9
Views
5K
bobmac
bobmac
Lucifer MorningStar
AI Golf Lessons - KnappGPT
Replies
14
Views
472
Canfordhacker
Canfordhacker
harpo_72
Pump drill practice
Replies
9
Views
1K
harpo_72
harpo_72
Top