|
Title: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: StuartHopkin on June 22, 2010, 11:10:57 PM Is it just me or does today budget not fill you with the greatest confidence.
Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that. National insurance rise to take the £200 benefit from most people and purposefully moving the higher rate tax band to avoid high earners gaining. Corporation tax reduced but you cant get it out as they target the EBIT and EFRBS schemes. Increasing everyones insurance bills by 1% Its obviously going to raise money, and it seems like the cuts in spending are in the right places. Just seems theres is a lot that cancels out other changes and they could have made it a lot clearer for most people. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: erse on June 22, 2010, 11:13:25 PM Quote Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that. Probably no good for money in back pockets, but it's intended to save the govt some money as people were claiming family credits/other claims while still paying tax. It'll take some people out of that loop. Sounds sensible. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Jon MW on June 22, 2010, 11:27:38 PM Quote Giving people in the basic tax bracket £200 a year? Is this going to make much of a difference to anyone, especially when VAT goes up to 20%? Its like saying heres £200 ready for when your yearly expenses go up at least double that. Probably no good for money in back pockets, but it's intended to save the govt some money as people were claiming family credits/other claims while still paying tax. It'll take some people out of that loop. Sounds sensible. I don't think the yearly expenses would be at least double that because of the VAT rise How much VATable goods would someone in the basic tax bracket realistically get through in a year? Generally I just agreed with your post, that's why there's nothing more substantial Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: StuartHopkin on June 22, 2010, 11:31:09 PM You might be right. Obv need to spend 16k to suffer a £400 rise in your VAT.
I was just thinking out loud and interested on what people thought and who was interested. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Jon MW on June 22, 2010, 11:33:53 PM Politically I saw an interesting result for the budget.
In the local news they had the Labour council leader saying how terrible it was and how it would all end in disaster - particularly for the town. Then they took a vox pop and pretty much every answer was - it's bad, but we know it has to be done, and we know we'd have got the same with Labour. Not exactly scientific, but definitely interesting. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Delboy on June 23, 2010, 12:00:07 AM Hardly fair and equitable though is it?
Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Acidmouse on June 23, 2010, 12:02:28 AM mainly ex bankers and virtually all from the same schools ofcourse they not gonna hit the wealthy.
Welcome to Tory world. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Delboy on June 23, 2010, 12:08:46 AM "Please meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: thetank on June 23, 2010, 12:12:32 AM Then they took a vox pop and pretty much every answer was - it's bad, but we know it has to be done, and we know we'd have got the same with Labour. I'm 100% sure they weren't showing you the Scottishvox pop by mistake. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: pleno1 on June 23, 2010, 12:13:29 AM "pensions to go up with wage increases" ermmmmmmmm you just stalled them for 2 years buddy.
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Jon MW on June 23, 2010, 06:24:12 AM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: mondatoo on June 23, 2010, 09:18:47 AM I know there's a new bunch of idiots in charge but it seems a bit mad to put the VAT rate down then back to normal then up to 20% within 6 months.
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: boldie on June 23, 2010, 09:19:51 AM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits all together for anyone say earning more than £25k and those long term unemployed and I'll be a happy camper. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Jon MW on June 23, 2010, 10:02:49 AM ... I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. ... I've seen a few more people in the street being interviewed and, apart from the public workers they ask, this seems to be the prevailing view. Which is really weird because you really don't expect the general public to be quite so pragmatic. Maybe it's an indication that the government (aided by the media) fully established the expectation that this was going to be bad and it's definitely going to hurt, but we have to do it Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: StuartHopkin on June 23, 2010, 02:07:52 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: boldie on June 23, 2010, 02:50:04 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Pretty much, yes. Kids are like puppies that way IMO. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: KarmaDope on June 23, 2010, 07:38:00 PM Somebody actually turned round in work today and said that it appeared that the Budget made it look like a bad idea for 16 yr old girls to go out and get pregnant for the money.
Apart from the "WTF?" moment, surely any budget that does this can't be that bad? Personally, the budget doesn't affect me that much - I earn £15k a year, dont drink, smoke or drive and don't claim benefits. Looking at FB (not the best place, I know) a quick survey of people on my flist suggests that the main people complaining are the chavvy girls who have kids and live in a council house, don't work and both drink and smoke. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: CelticGeezeer on June 23, 2010, 07:46:29 PM They get preggers to get the council house and housing benifit. Then more kids = more money. Oh yes and when the youngest kid gets to about 16 you have to have another one and almost free rollin to pension.
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Jon MW on June 23, 2010, 08:32:22 PM Although it's simplified this is a chart showing the proportion by which 10% slices of the population will be affected
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48145000/gif/_48145928_income_group_impact_466gr.gif) That lowest band obviously does comprise the genuinely needy, but also the people mentioned above Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: EvilPie on June 23, 2010, 08:46:06 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Please don't hide under your chair when saying this mate. 100% agree. If people can't afford to support a child they shouldn't be allowed to have any. If they have one by accident it should be taken off them and they can have it back when they've saved up enough to feed it. Sponging ba**ards really piss me off!!!!! Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: The_nun on June 23, 2010, 08:48:58 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Please don't hide under your chair when saying this mate. 100% agree. If people can't afford to support a child they shouldn't be allowed to have any. If they have one by accident it should be taken off them and they can have it back when they've saved up enough to feed it. Sponging ba**ards really piss me off!!!!! MBFN to live a perfect life and make no mistakes. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: RED-DOG on June 23, 2010, 08:56:04 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Please don't hide under your chair when saying this mate. 100% agree. If people can't afford to support a child they shouldn't be allowed to have any. If they have one by accident it should be taken off them and they can have it back when they've saved up enough to feed it. Sponging ba**ards really piss me off!!!!! I can only hope you're joking Matt. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: ScottMGee on June 23, 2010, 09:05:34 PM Quote Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. I am guessed you actually mean 'allowed' one, or do you mean that quiet children are ok? However, if people only had children when they could afford them we would have a much worse demographic problem than we are already facing. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: celtic on June 23, 2010, 09:07:09 PM Can you ever afford to have a child? Obv there is a small % of the population that can, but in reality, the average couple with a normal 9-5 job each etc probably cant.
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: EvilPie on June 23, 2010, 09:13:53 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Please don't hide under your chair when saying this mate. 100% agree. If people can't afford to support a child they shouldn't be allowed to have any. If they have one by accident it should be taken off them and they can have it back when they've saved up enough to feed it. Sponging ba**ards really piss me off!!!!! MBFN to live a perfect life and make no mistakes. Unfortunately I've made a few mistakes in my time Mo. I've never asked anyone to pay for them for me though. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: boldie on June 23, 2010, 09:15:33 PM I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it :)
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: AndrewT on June 23, 2010, 09:16:30 PM I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it :) Make sure you don't have his child until you can afford it though. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: EvilPie on June 23, 2010, 09:17:36 PM Hardly fair and equitable though is it? Those on lower incomes pay a proportionatly higher amount because of VAT rise. I would have thought an increase in higher rate Income tax would have done a fairer job Is the standard view because of the proportion. But in practice, like I've suggested, if you're on a lower income you've got less of a disposable income hence you spend less on VATable goods hence a 2.5% increase isn't - in any practical way - going to make much difference. The weight is still favoured towards across the board increases like VAT being a bit biased against the lower paid, just pointing out in practice it doesn't really make that much difference to the lower paid. The obvious question is though, What would you do if you were in charge? every government measure is bound to be a bit more biased against the ones on a lower income as they are more dependent on Govt support in one way or another. I reckon they've not done too badly TBH. Now all they need to do is scrap child tax credits and child benefits including maternity pay all together. Until you can afford to support yourself you shouldnt be aloud one. ;hide; Please don't hide under your chair when saying this mate. 100% agree. If people can't afford to support a child they shouldn't be allowed to have any. If they have one by accident it should be taken off them and they can have it back when they've saved up enough to feed it. Sponging ba**ards really piss me off!!!!! I can only hope you're joking Matt. Slight over reaction maybe. An accident's fair enough but when I see people with huge families who don't even attempt to support them themselves, instead preferring to sponge off the state it sickens me. Not saying I blame the people btw, they're just taking advantage of a crap system that encourages them. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: EvilPie on June 23, 2010, 09:19:45 PM I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it :) Make sure you don't have his child until you can afford it though. This would obviously be 50% my fault so I'd send Boldie monthly maintenance as well as supporting him in any way I could. Obviously if I could prise him away from Mrs Boldie I'd just move him in to my house and we'd live happily ever after. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: The_nun on June 23, 2010, 09:26:54 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now.
Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: celtic on June 23, 2010, 09:32:31 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now. I don't think Stacey is a good example of what Matt was talking about though Mo, He was talking more about the people that get pregnant intentionally (of which there are a lot of) just so they can abuse the benefits/housing system. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: The_nun on June 23, 2010, 09:33:11 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now. I don't think Stacey is a good example of what Matt was talking about though Mo, He was talking more about the people that get pregnant intentionally (of which there are a lot of) just so they can abuse the benefits/housing system. Fair enough. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: The_nun on June 23, 2010, 09:34:29 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now. I don't think Stacey is a good example of what Matt was talking about though Mo, He was talking more about the people that get pregnant intentionally (of which there are a lot of) just so they can abuse the benefits/housing system. Although even Stacey can not get her hands on a house, she even had to pay towards her private rental out of there allowances. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: celtic on June 23, 2010, 09:37:07 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now. I don't think Stacey is a good example of what Matt was talking about though Mo, He was talking more about the people that get pregnant intentionally (of which there are a lot of) just so they can abuse the benefits/housing system. Although even Stacey can not get her hands on a house, she even had to pay towards her private rental out of there allowances. Yeah, the benefit system is all wrong, i couldn't get any help when i missed work for long peiods of time last year, whilst others are on perma benefits for no real reason.... Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Geo the Sarge on June 23, 2010, 10:16:15 PM 2 bits I can't fully understand (not neccesarily both budget points)
1. Setting a levy against the "bigger" banks, is this just the top banks? why not all. Ohh wait a minute, we (the taxpayer) own a huge portion of these banks, so in effect are we not being "taxed" even more, less returns/dividends etc. to allow the taxpayer to recover what they put in. 2. There's talk of forcing the bigger banks to be split up, couple of points on this a. They intend to disband the FSA and put regulating into the hands of the Bank of England b. It is widely known that the last government, supported by The Bank of England put pressure on Lloyds to takeover HBOS and make it the biggest banking group in the UK. How on earth can the Bank of England now support breaking this up again? If it was considered to have been the incorrect thing to do in the first place, how can they have confidence in the Bank of England as regulators? Not an anti English thing btw and I am employed within Lloyds, although a mere pensions administrator. Thoughts? Geo Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: EvilPie on June 23, 2010, 11:32:05 PM When Stacey had Reece she was young, but got pregnant, her so called long term boyfriend and Stacey both had decentish jobs, unfortunately he decided enough was enough and she had to stand on her own 2 feet. She could not possibly hold a job down with Reece permanently in hospital during early life, plus for the first few yrs he was in more than out. What employer would employ Stacey Matt? She now does charitable work as well as college but NO she can not support herself or Reece so SPONGES of us working folk. I think thats how you generalise folk right? No she doesn't like it and is trying to better herself but finds it hard right now. I don't think Stacey is a good example of what Matt was talking about though Mo, He was talking more about the people that get pregnant intentionally (of which there are a lot of) just so they can abuse the benefits/housing system. Although even Stacey can not get her hands on a house, she even had to pay towards her private rental out of there allowances. This is the problem with the system Mo. Someone like Stacey who by what you are saying is genuinely deserving of help doesn't get what she needs because the pond scum to which I originally refer suck the life out of the system. Deserving cases are swept to one side whilst the low lifes just keep spewing out more kids who themselves will probably turn out to be low lifes and add further to an ever spiralling problem. The amount of money thrown at these people is shocking. My sister is a single mother and she claims everything that she is legally entitled to. She will openly admit that it's "hardly worth going to work". If she wasn't in a well paid job she would be worse off working. She earns good money and yet still they throw money at her. Even now she only actually gets paid for about 1 day at work. If she quit the extra benefits she would get would equate to 4 days earnings anyway! WTF is that all about!?!?!? You get some fat, lazy, bone idle slob who cba to work anyway and what are they going to do? It's obvious. Having a kid or 5 is the perfect answer to prevent ever having to work again. Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Scottish Dave on June 24, 2010, 06:28:19 AM Not really read much onto the budget, and as is usually the case, you can just ask Blonde instead of looking into it yourself!!?
My story is: I'm 29, work as an Engineer for Network Rail, earn between £45,000-£50,000 per year (£47,789 last year) Missus(Janet) is 27, worked as a carer for the elderly, earned terrible wages compared to the job she did, £6,000 per year (part time 16hr per week) We have a 4 year old, and 8 months ago we had twin girls, so 3 kids total. We currently get £270 per month from child benefit's/child tax credits. Will this change for us? We have decided that Janet will give up work till the kids go to school. So the benefits would help I suppose, but with my wage we would really struggle without it. Just curious to know? Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Woodsey on June 24, 2010, 06:30:39 AM Not really read much onto the budget, and as is usually the case, you can just ask Blonde instead of looking into it yourself!!? My story is: I'm 29, work as an Engineer for Network Rail, earn between £45,000-£50,000 per year (£47,789 last year) Missus(Janet) is 27, worked as a carer for the elderly, earned terrible wages compared to the job she did, £6,000 per year (part time 16hr per week) We have a 4 year old, and 8 months ago we had twin girls, so 3 kids total. We currently get £270 per month from child benefit's/child tax credits. Will this change for us? We have decided that Janet will give up work till the kids go to school. So the benefits would help I suppose, but with my wage we would really struggle without it. Just curious to know? Yep, you will deffo lose some child tax credit, any family earning over 40k will. Dunno how much though Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Woodsey on June 24, 2010, 06:33:00 AM This might help you out
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/budgetcalculator Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: Scottish Dave on June 25, 2010, 11:14:27 AM Not really read much onto the budget, and as is usually the case, you can just ask Blonde instead of looking into it yourself!!? My story is: I'm 29, work as an Engineer for Network Rail, earn between £45,000-£50,000 per year (£47,789 last year) Missus(Janet) is 27, worked as a carer for the elderly, earned terrible wages compared to the job she did, £6,000 per year (part time 16hr per week) We have a 4 year old, and 8 months ago we had twin girls, so 3 kids total. We currently get £270 per month from child benefit's/child tax credits. Will this change for us? We have decided that Janet will give up work till the kids go to school. So the benefits would help I suppose, but with my wage we wouldn't really struggle without it. Just curious to know? incase anyone thinks im a sponger, i mistyped the statement above, i meant to say 'With my wage i WOULDN'T really struggle without it' but thanks for that budget calculator mate, it says ill lose the child tax credits completely, but that was only £80 p/m anyway, so whatever. still get £190 p/m from the benefit's, which will no doubt go towards my beer fund!! ;-) any contradictions in the post above?? Title: Re: Emergency Budget 2010 Post by: thetank on July 04, 2010, 01:42:21 PM lol, I read your first post about struggling without it and was like, gtfo Dave, your gambling problem can't be that bad. :)
|