blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 21, 2025, 11:23:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2262359 Posts in 66606 Topics by 16991 Members
Latest Member: nolankerwin
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  Emergency Budget 2010
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Emergency Budget 2010  (Read 4768 times)
boldie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22392


Don't make me mad


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 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.

 


Pretty much, yes. Kids are like puppies that way IMO.
Logged

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
KarmaDope
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9281


View Profile
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
CelticGeezeer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 909


Viva la Quinta Brigada


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 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.
Logged

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6202



View Profile
« Reply #18 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




That lowest band obviously does comprise the genuinely needy, but also the people mentioned above
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14241



View Profile
« Reply #19 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.

 

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!!!!!
Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
The_nun
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8478


http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk


View Profile
« Reply #20 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.

 

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.
Logged

RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 47395



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 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.

 

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.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
ScottMGee
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



View Profile
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
celtic
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19178



View Profile
« Reply #23 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.
Logged

Keefy is back Smiley But for how long?
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14241



View Profile
« Reply #24 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.

 

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.
Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
boldie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22392


Don't make me mad


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2010, 09:15:33 PM »

I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it Smiley

Logged

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
AndrewT
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15483



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2010, 09:16:30 PM »

I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it Smiley

Make sure you don't have his child until you can afford it though.
Logged
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14241



View Profile
« Reply #27 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.

 

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.

Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14241



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 23, 2010, 09:19:45 PM »

I love Matt, and I don't care who knows it Smiley

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.
Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
The_nun
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8478


http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk


View Profile
« Reply #29 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.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.211 seconds with 20 queries.