Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
What don't you have?; that makes you feel excluded.
Topic Started: Oct 1 2010, 06:48 PM (1,263 Views)
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 08:16 AM
That's just not fair and the people who will suffer are likely to be articulate, confident, middle-class professionals. Just the sort of people who shape public opinion (for better or for worse).

Anyone in particular you're thinking about?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 08:16 AM

On the Child Benefit issue, it's an awful decision clearly thought up after one too many G&Ts. While no one would seriously argue that there are those claiming Child Benefit who could do without it, if you are going to cut it you need to do it fairly. Here we have a scenario where a two parent family with combined earnings of £85,000 will be able to claim it but the same family where only one works and has a combined income of £45,000 cannot. That's just not fair and the people who will suffer are likely to be articulate, confident, middle-class professionals. Just the sort of people who shape public opinion (for better or for worse).

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Oct 5 2010, 10:56 AM
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 08:16 AM

On the Child Benefit issue, it's an awful decision clearly thought up after one too many G&Ts. While no one would seriously argue that there are those claiming Child Benefit who could do without it, if you are going to cut it you need to do it fairly. Here we have a scenario where a two parent family with combined earnings of £85,000 will be able to claim it but the same family where only one works and has a combined income of £45,000 cannot. That's just not fair and the people who will suffer are likely to be articulate, confident, middle-class professionals. Just the sort of people who shape public opinion (for better or for worse).

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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Oct 5 2010, 10:47 AM
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 08:16 AM
That's just not fair and the people who will suffer are likely to be articulate, confident, middle-class professionals. Just the sort of people who shape public opinion (for better or for worse).

Anyone in particular you're thinking about?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 11:33 AM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Eggman
Member Avatar
Tommy McLean
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't have Whatsthat's rapier-like wit, which makes me feel excluded sometimes :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Oct 5 2010, 11:47 AM
Ivan
Oct 5 2010, 11:33 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote:
 

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.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
gordonthearab
Oct 5 2010, 04:00 PM
I haven't got a microwave.

:o

How do you microwave hamsters if you've no microwave?

:o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.