|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 7, 2008 21:01:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Apr 7, 2008 21:04:44 GMT
Sadly nothing new there. Makes you sick though.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Apr 7, 2008 21:20:15 GMT
Aye. And this is supposed to be a labour govt. Wiping out the 10% tax band should have led to the LEL being raised by several K to compensate. Instead it's a measely 200 quid.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Apr 7, 2008 21:40:12 GMT
To be honest it is pretty much par from the course from whatever government is in power. Hitting the lower end of the income range seems to be perrenially popular. Probably because that group doesn't have the ready access to the levers of power that the high earners do.
Karl
|
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Apr 7, 2008 23:59:37 GMT
I think what boggles my mind the most is (as usual) the comments section of that article- the number of people declaring that they have sworn off Labour and will be voting tory in future instead, with no hint of how that would improve the situation except for teaching Labour a lesson. Since the Liberal Democrats seem to be back in the limbo position of "most people won't vote for us because they don't think we can win" there doesn't seem to be much left. I knew I should have voted for the yogic fliers back in '99.
-Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 8, 2008 6:58:35 GMT
A spokesperson implied on the radio this morning that young-ish low-earners without kids could take the higher taxes because they are generally upwardly mobile and will soon naturally pull themselves up out of that bracket by their own efforts. That being in the low-earner bracket is generally only a temporary state of affairs if you don't have kids.
Hmmm...
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by karla on Apr 8, 2008 7:50:24 GMT
maybe thats the career path I should choose, single mum of 5, sponge off the goverment  work is for fools! |
|
chrisl
Empty
I still think its the 1990s - when I joined TMUK
Posts: 1,054
|
Post by chrisl on Apr 8, 2008 8:13:15 GMT
A spokesperson implied on the radio this morning that young-ish low-earners without kids could take the higher taxes because they are generally upwardly mobile and will soon naturally pull themselves up out of that bracket by their own efforts. That being in the low-earner bracket is generally only a temporary state of affairs if you don't have kids. That sounds pretty easy for them to say while they go back to their 40K+ a year job, nice house and flash car. The fact is that people in this bracket CAN'T take the higher taxes and end up resorting to living on credit or taking any job that comes to them because they need money to survive. Once you're in a wage bracket it's almost impossible to progress unless you're "one of the boys" - no matter how well qualified you are. "Gordon Brown - Livin' the dream of the rich by mortgaging the future of the young since 1997" I won't be voting at the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 8, 2008 9:03:42 GMT
A spokesperson implied on the radio this morning that young-ish low-earners without kids could take the higher taxes because they are generally upwardly mobile and will soon naturally pull themselves up out of that bracket by their own efforts. That being in the low-earner bracket is generally only a temporary state of affairs if you don't have kids. Hmmm... Martin Biggest load of bollocks I've heard in quite some time. Spokesperson is a twat. -Ralph, single, young-ish |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Apr 8, 2008 12:35:10 GMT
In overall terms the numbers we're talking about are quite smaller - the largest ammount of extra tax someone will pay is £223 pa. But that would be for someone on a taxeable income of £2230 (+PA which is £5435 this year....) So £7665 earning pa or aprox £150 per week. But with these sort of numbers they will be the people it will bite for.
Incidentally both Liz and I will be slightly worse off under the new rules.
I can't remember who brought the 10p tax bracket in - it's been in my working lifetime (so probably not most of yours) I have a feeling it was the last Tory govt - but would need to check.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Apr 8, 2008 13:14:30 GMT
So it boils down to the minumum wagers doing about 30 hours a week at every supermarket in the country losing almost two extra weeks earnings to tax.
Andy
|
|
rurudyne
Spark
Smileycon
Obstructicons ... merge to form BUREAUCRATICUS!
Posts: 115 
|
Post by rurudyne on Apr 8, 2008 15:01:19 GMT
Question: the original article did not mention if tax exemptions — which I must assume exist — have been addressed. Have they raised threshold for lowest monies earned that will be taxed?
Of course, that all assumes the first so-much earned are exempted from your income tax system.
EDIT: never mind, payres answered it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Apr 8, 2008 15:46:54 GMT
FYI the increase on both the earnings threshold and the break between the 20/40 tax bands have both increased in line with inflation at about 4%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 18:15:42 GMT
As someone who is working for a pittance I can tell you that it takes the piss. I can't afford a car or even the upkeep of one so I haven't bothered to learn how to drive and also I can't afford my own place so here I am still living with my father. As a result of not having a car I am severely limited on where I can work and also what job I can do. I can only work in an area that has a bus service running from my village to the workplace and/or a place that is within easy cycling distance. Because I don't have a car I have been turned down numerous times for jobs before in the past because the people who run those workplaces expect every one of their employees to drive to work and not come by bus or bike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 8, 2008 19:12:01 GMT
Because I don't have a car I have been turned down numerous times for jobs before in the past because the people who run those workplaces expect every one of their employees to drive to work and not come by bus or bike. Ooh, that can't be legal.  If I ran a business I'd only employ people who didn't drive to work... Martin |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Apr 8, 2008 21:08:22 GMT
If I ran a business I'd only employ people who didn't drive to work... Martin so I'd be ok then, seeing as I take the train to my employment...... I can't imagine driving to work - being in control of a car is a significant responsibility that requires one to be fully alert and aware given the significant possibility of a mistake causing injury or death to self or others. I'm not at my best first thing in the morning so I wouldn't want to be starting my day with that responsibility on my shoulders. Much happier being able to doze, or read on the way in to work I have to say. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by mewshkin on Apr 9, 2008 9:20:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2008 18:58:32 GMT
oh, that can't be legal. Whether it is or not companies actually do this method of selective employment just to retain their sparkling image. I had a job interview at a shop that was just opening once and I was treated like absolute dirt at the interview up to a point where the interviewer (the manager of the store in this case) actually told me it would be in my best interests to stay on the dole. Naturally I was shocked at this comment and but still wondered why he had treated me in such a way. When the store finally opened I realised why he didn't want me working at his store. The entire staff consisted entirely of young, good-looking females who hadn't got a clue how to work in a shop. Because the manager also ran another shop a few miles away he couldn't manage the store himself and so he hired his inexperienced daughter as the store manager. I had the last laugh however when the store closed down after about a year and the building was brought up by the Co-op. As part of the deal the Co-op had to hire the managers daughter as a member of their management team for the store which they did before showing her the door about six months later. ;D |
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Apr 9, 2008 19:13:23 GMT
maybe thats the career path I should choose, single mum of 5, sponge off the goverment work is for fools! This was a pretty common attitude on the BBC site as well. The only benefits I've ever claimed has been Jobseeker's allowance and that was barely enough to keep me clothed, fed and bus-fared. Is Child Tax Credit really the goldmine so many people see it as? I've never seen any concrete figures apart from the odd Daily Mail headline that I'm sure was exhaustively researched and free from bias. -Nick |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 9, 2008 19:56:28 GMT
Part of the last five years of my working life was spent helping people to secure benefits. To cut to the chase: benefits are small and hard to get. Getting them, keeping them and being able to have any quality of life on them is difficult. The benefits system is also a shambles: overcomplicated and depersonalised. Also (strangely under-reported in the media) millions of benefits are unclaimed as folk don't know they can get them. It doesn't help that many staff working in the benefits service are very poorly paid, understaffed and undertrained.
It's a very real possibility I may need to go on to benefits for a while between leaving Uni and being able to get a job that pays the rent. Knowing how the system works, the idea fills me with horror.
And don't start me on the Daily Mail!
EDIT: Oh, and officially, the UK does not have a poverty line. The Government does not recognise the concept.
-Ralph
|
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Apr 9, 2008 21:20:11 GMT
I remember one of the reasons trotted out for the loss of the 10% rate being A-OK was that people who needed the money could claim some of it back via tax credits. I figured this was a bit like banks cashing cheques- they could just give you your money straight away but they keep it in their own system for a few days so they can enjoy the interest on the millions of cheques paid in every year rather than the person who actually owns the money.
Add that to the number of people who don't know how to claim, refuse to claim because they feel humiliated by it or are scared to claim in case they cock it up and end up with the nice folks at the DWP emptying their bank accounts without notice as they've done the last couple of years to people who've been overpaid by accident or miscalculation. A pretty nasty state of affairs, really.
-Nick
|
|
rurudyne
Spark
Smileycon
Obstructicons ... merge to form BUREAUCRATICUS!
Posts: 115
|
Post by rurudyne on Apr 9, 2008 22:25:30 GMT
EDIT: Oh, and officially, the UK does not have a poverty line. The Government does not recognise the concept. -Ralph Then you obviously pay your top bureaucrats too much money. I'm sure if you paid them a lot less they would recognize a poverty line.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 10, 2008 9:33:42 GMT
I would gladly pay them a lot less. Especially as it's becoming clearer how much in the way of free expenses politicians get for which they are not held accountable/have to provide receipts for, etc.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Apr 10, 2008 11:06:12 GMT
I can't imagine driving to work - being in control of a car is a significant responsibility that requires one to be fully alert and aware given the significant possibility of a mistake causing injury or death to self or others. I'm not at my best first thing in the morning so I wouldn't want to be starting my day with that responsibility on my shoulders. Much happier being able to doze, or read on the way in to work I have to say. Karl You get used to driving to work. I got a 30 - 40 min drive to work. Not good driving home after a busy night shift, but I've gotta used to it. Gods, wish I could walk to work. As you correctly say, Karl, driving is an huge responsibility, and unfortunatley the vast majority of drivers don't realise that. And alot of the time it's the innocents that get it worst. Anyway, on subject, yeah, it stinks. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 20, 2008 20:12:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Apr 20, 2008 20:41:52 GMT
Congratulations - we are now passed the point of no return. The Conservatives will be in power come the next general election.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Apr 20, 2008 21:20:19 GMT
I suspect that thought doesnt please many on here but at this point I will welcome any change. With my own experience of madness from both labour and lib dems at the local level Im quite happy for it to be conservatives. Not that my vote for them will EVER be worth anything in this area.
Really any system that takes loads of money away only to allow people to reclaim it later isnt designed to help, the hope is people cant be bothered or dont understand how to get it back.
And surely this will just create a new layer of bureaucracy. If more people can claim or want to find out if they can thats just creating more application that need checking, more interviews, more letters being sent out. Its not going to make the tax system smaller or easier.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Apr 20, 2008 21:29:18 GMT
As someone who lives in Scotland and hails from there I am almost genetically pre-disposed to oppose the Conservatives based on the treatment of our country under the previous tory regime.
Change for changes sake is not the answer. That's how the SNP got in up here. People saying they just wanted a change. That's as big a waste of a vote as there is and I just despair when I confront a lot of co-workers about this and they don't seem to understand what I mean.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on May 13, 2008 16:36:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on May 13, 2008 19:12:19 GMT
Otherwise know as "here have this money, aren't we nice people. Be sure and vote for us next time there is an election". A lovely example of the public purse being deployed for party political interests. (Yes, I know that governments do that almost continually, but this feels like a particularly blatant example). Karl |
|
work is for fools!
