The Next Conservative Budget
Discussion
Negative Creep said:
Can't believe the amount of people on 30k+ outraged they will actually have to pay full rent for their council house. I for one am rather glad that my taxes will no longer be paying for the rent of people who earn double my salary (although not sure if the 30k is going to be net or gross)
Ahh, the politics of envy..... oh hang on....One area of the budget which if you're one of 400,000 or so who work in the oil and gas industry will have noticed is that Osborne has done very little to help that sector. The industry was asking for Norwegian style exploration allowances to try to kickstart new projects. It didn't get it. With well over 5-6000 jobs lost now due to the low oil price the situation can only get worse.
A Scotsman said:
One area of the budget which if you're one of 400,000 or so who work in the oil and gas industry will have noticed is that Osborne has done very little to help that sector. The industry was asking for Norwegian style exploration allowances to try to kickstart new projects. It didn't get it. With well over 5-6000 jobs lost now due to the low oil price the situation can only get worse.
What's the point? At $60 a barrel you barely break even! Makes more sense to keep until the Saudis stop taking the pi55 and actually make a profit on it no?No doubt an inflammatory comment but:
1. A significant amount of people agree the welfare system is bloated so surely it's no surprise that any changes will reduce the amount of money some people get - that was the plan no?
2. Before now the 'marketing' has been getting people to want to work and off the welfare system. Again reducing what they get is an effective way to motivate people to change (I know that could have been worded more delicately and there are poeple unfortunate that they will always rely on benefits)
3. Why the uproar about two people earning similar in social housing but paying different rents? It's not really any different to the long standing problem regards social housing for life when you get two people earning the same but one in social housing and one in private.
4. Is one of the hopes not that people who have to pay full market rent fill the coffers but move into the private sector freeing up social housing for those more in need of it?
Just off to start a sweepstake on how long it is before I'm flamed or branded far right (which I'm not).
1. A significant amount of people agree the welfare system is bloated so surely it's no surprise that any changes will reduce the amount of money some people get - that was the plan no?
2. Before now the 'marketing' has been getting people to want to work and off the welfare system. Again reducing what they get is an effective way to motivate people to change (I know that could have been worded more delicately and there are poeple unfortunate that they will always rely on benefits)
3. Why the uproar about two people earning similar in social housing but paying different rents? It's not really any different to the long standing problem regards social housing for life when you get two people earning the same but one in social housing and one in private.
4. Is one of the hopes not that people who have to pay full market rent fill the coffers but move into the private sector freeing up social housing for those more in need of it?
Just off to start a sweepstake on how long it is before I'm flamed or branded far right (which I'm not).
Edited by gjackson on Friday 10th July 12:48
Edited by gjackson on Friday 10th July 12:49
gjackson said:
No doubt an inflammatory comment but:
1. A significant amount of people agree the welfare system is bloated so surely it's no surprise that any changes will reduce the amount of money some people get - that was the plan no?
2. Before now the 'marketing' has been getting people to want to work and off the welfare system. Again reducing what they get is an effective way to motivate people to change (I know that could have been worded more delicately and there are poeple unfortunate that they will always rely on benefits)
3. Why the uproar about two people earning similar in social housing but paying different rents? It's not really any different to the long standing problem regards social housing for life when you get two people earning the same but one in social housing and one in private.
4. Is one of the hopes not that people who have to pay full market rent fill the coffers but move into the private sector freeing up social housing for those more in need of it?
Just off to start a sweepstake on how long it is before I'm flamed or branded far right (which I'm not).
4. A good point, but won't it actually just make it even more likely people will exercies their 'right to buy', taking that council house off the market forever?1. A significant amount of people agree the welfare system is bloated so surely it's no surprise that any changes will reduce the amount of money some people get - that was the plan no?
2. Before now the 'marketing' has been getting people to want to work and off the welfare system. Again reducing what they get is an effective way to motivate people to change (I know that could have been worded more delicately and there are poeple unfortunate that they will always rely on benefits)
3. Why the uproar about two people earning similar in social housing but paying different rents? It's not really any different to the long standing problem regards social housing for life when you get two people earning the same but one in social housing and one in private.
4. Is one of the hopes not that people who have to pay full market rent fill the coffers but move into the private sector freeing up social housing for those more in need of it?
Just off to start a sweepstake on how long it is before I'm flamed or branded far right (which I'm not).
Edited by varsas on Friday 10th July 13:48
A Scotsman said:
One area of the budget which if you're one of 400,000 or so who work in the oil and gas industry will have noticed is that Osborne has done very little to help that sector. The industry was asking for Norwegian style exploration allowances to try to kickstart new projects. It didn't get it. With well over 5-6000 jobs lost now due to the low oil price the situation can only get worse.
He didn't announce any specific measures this time, but there was something about extending allowances for non-capital expenditure, and expanding sector allowances. Whether this covers the likes of exploratory drilling and will make it more attractive, is unclear as yet..Anything the government can do in the form of rate reductions (i.e. subsidy) is only really tinkering at the edges at this stage - they cannot change the fundamental viability of a basin against the current / trend oil price. The industry itself has to change (and I'm seeing this as someone who works in it). Profits and therefore tax take this year will be miniscule already (much to the head-scratching of Scot Nats who were predicting a bonanza), and you can't get any less than zero..
otolith said:
she has the "golden ticket".....kids nobody is going to evict her whilst she has children.It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.
otolith said:
She gets the equivalent of roughly a £35k annual salary, 38% above the average, but can't afford £548 a month for rent, which about £350 below the average!Maybe she should have learnt how to keep her knickers on...
These people really are clueless about how much the average family lives on.
wst said:
If I was working a waged job that paid me 29,999 per year (however that works out per hour) and I was quarter hour late clocking out one day (due to making sure I was doing the work properly)... just once... I'd end up with less money in the bank.
I've just been doing some sums on this based on my area. It seems that a household earning £35k at the moment on a social rent discounted to a rate of 60% would likely not be entitled to housing benefit. When you push their rent up to 100% pretty much all of that increase would be covered by their entitlement to housing benefit!otolith said:
There are no violins small enough.
Looking at the £1000 a year worse off bit it may not be as bad as expected.
From the BBC.
"A low-earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
When I worked in retail we always had loads of staff who did 16-20 hours a week and would not do any more due to losing benefit's. Take that limit away and now they can do overtime at a pretty reasonable rate. 2 hours a week to pay for the loss and a few more for an extra £30 in the pocket. Over a 5 day week it's an hour a day. Plus they can also do extra at Christmas to pay for the uplift in crimbo spending.
With the extra free childcare it shouldnt be to hard.
On another note if you have 1 child then go for a second but end up dropping twins should you get the 3rd child benefit.
From the BBC.
"A low-earning single parent with one child, working 20 hours a week at £9.35 an hour, will be £1,000 a year worse off."
When I worked in retail we always had loads of staff who did 16-20 hours a week and would not do any more due to losing benefit's. Take that limit away and now they can do overtime at a pretty reasonable rate. 2 hours a week to pay for the loss and a few more for an extra £30 in the pocket. Over a 5 day week it's an hour a day. Plus they can also do extra at Christmas to pay for the uplift in crimbo spending.
With the extra free childcare it shouldnt be to hard.
On another note if you have 1 child then go for a second but end up dropping twins should you get the 3rd child benefit.
my wife works at asda - most part-time staff there are crying out for more hours but can't get them. Today the store manager was asking people if they wanted to go home early or take unpaid leave because they are overspent on wages. This is not the first time it has happened - it even happened at xmas. She's lucky as she's been there for 13 years and is contracted for 24hours per week but nearly all new staff below manager level are on zero or 4-8 hour contracts. Her friend who works at a nearby Morrisons says it is the same there. I have similar stories from others. That's pretty much how retail is these days.
desolate said:
I may have missed it and if so I am sorry"
anyone upset at the 3.5% hike in insurance?
Seems like it has gone under the radar to me.
To be fair it has hardly gone up in 15 years (1% increase to 6% in 2011).anyone upset at the 3.5% hike in insurance?
Seems like it has gone under the radar to me.
We should count ourselves lucky the monkeys that got voted in didn't just whack it up to match the VAT rate.
Guam said:
Jimmyarm said:
To be fair it has hardly gone up in 15 years (1% increase to 6% in 2011).
We should count ourselves lucky the monkeys that got voted in didn't just whack it up to match the VAT rate.
Would be better if they just lobbed Vat onWe should count ourselves lucky the monkeys that got voted in didn't just whack it up to match the VAT rate.
It could be claimed back then
VAT is a crude tax as it impacts heavily on the poorest people.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff