| Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum. New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join The Arab League! If you're already a member please log in: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What don't you have?; that makes you feel excluded. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 1 2010, 06:48 PM (1,263 Views) | |
| whatsthatonyourback | Oct 5 2010, 09:47 AM Post #16 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Anyone in particular you're thinking about? |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Oct 5 2010, 09:56 AM Post #17 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think got to look at the numbers it would affect. If the altenative is setting a limit of say £65k combined, it'd might affect more people than the current way. In in favour either way. Of course it's going to be missed, but so's anything being taken away. I've never understood why it's given to everyone anyway. I don't buy the 'it's everyone's scheme we're investing in' argument. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Oct 5 2010, 10:28 AM Post #18 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm quite happy about this change. Sure, ideally it would take into account the combined income, but as has been stated by the govt, this adds a huge amount of bureaucratic complexity which would defray much of the financial benefit. In reality, the people that will suffer will be single-income households who earn £45-47k, which will be a pretty small proportion of the population. How it will probably work is that most employers who are on the verge of booting someone's pay above £45k will bump it beyond the level where the loss of child benefit has a negative impact. Once people are in the >40k wage bracket, a couple of grand here or there seems to be much less jealously guarded by employers than for those earning much less. |
![]() |
|
| Ivan | Oct 5 2010, 10:33 AM Post #19 |
|
F*cking plebs.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not really, no. Or did you assume this was an opinion motivated by self interest? Sorry to disappoint. This is a move which is arbitrary, unfair and will be unpopular (particularly amongst traditional Conservative supporters). It's neither ideologically motivated, nor politically pragmatic. Most peculiar for a government desperately seeking to prove its worth. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Oct 5 2010, 10:47 AM Post #20 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't realise you were so concerned about how Tory policy impacts natural Tory voters. I'm not sure they're trying to prove their worth so much as save money. Lots of money. I find this change somehow admirable. It's a quick, cheap way of fixing something that everyone has wanted fixed for a long time. It might not be perfect, but it gets most of the way there very easily. The people it will annoy most are well-paid single-income professional families, who are either highly likely to support the Tories, or will likely be your "articulate, confident, middle-class" lefties who would be monstrously hypocritical to criticise something they've probably been calling for. In short, it's not going to please anyone affected by it - who ever is delighted to be paid less? - and it can only hurt their own supporters while strengthening the people who vote against them. There's something quite dignified and principled in that - doing the right thing while knowing you'll get no thanks for it. Anyway - let's get this thread back on topic - new thread on cuts arriving shortly. |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Oct 5 2010, 11:23 AM Post #21 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't have Whatsthat's rapier-like wit, which makes me feel excluded sometimes
|
![]() |
|
| Ivan | Oct 5 2010, 12:59 PM Post #22 |
|
F*cking plebs.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually the confident, articulate bunch I was thinking of were natural tories. Not every position I take is partisan you know, I think you've mistaken me for Yazoo/Calico. My objection to the policy is that it is arbitrary and inequitable. That it manages to piss off the natural supporters of the party in power* only adds to the sense that they don't know what they're doing. I note that the tories are already talking about tax breaks to compensate some of the losers in this scenario. Make of that what you will. * Yes, coalition, whatever.
Except taking a grand a year from a family on £45k but not from a family on £85k is not the right thing. That's where the analysis falls on its arse. By all means be hard but be fair. |
![]() |
|
| findus | Oct 5 2010, 02:00 PM Post #23 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() How do you microwave hamsters if you've no microwave?
|
![]() |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





4:37 PM Jul 13