[arista]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

Yes Charlie
Good points


They can Downsize.



Life In The Fast Lane

[Marc]

Charlie a lot of your views are not backed by facts and you can't try to sell them to us as correct if you don't have the facts. It sort of comes across ignorant

[Benjamin]

I actually think this is one of the best budgets to happen for a while. Everyone has been effected, and it is for the greater good. I'm glad the rich have not been hit harder like some want. Just because they earn more does not mean that the budget should penalise them more than the rest. It's not their fault England got into debt, just a few elitists fault. Also, as a smoker, I have no issue with the mass increase in price as I already cut down, this just gives me a reason to cut down further.

[Marc]

I think the main idea behind the increase in the cost of cigarettes is a good thing, people should cut down because it is unhealthy for them. Thats proven. I know it's an addiction and upping the price will make a lot of people either spend more than they usually do or force them to quit.

They should quit. For their own health

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Marc

I think the main idea behind the increase in the cost of cigarettes is a good thing, people should cut down because it is unhealthy for them. Thats proven. I know it's an addiction and upping the price will make a lot of people either spend more than they usually do or force them to quit.

They should quit. For their own health

Indeed, I don't even know why I smoke tbh. It's more habit than enjoyment.

On the child allowance subject (I am not very knowledgeable with that area) but somebody I was speaking too was annoyed that their child benefits would be cut, despite them earning over the 60k barrier. I agree it should be cut. They earn enough and why should they be given money because they decided to have children? They don't need it. It's like me, I'm entitled to working tax credits, but I don't take it as I don't need the money as I earn enough through my own merit. I see a lot of people in our country who expect money for nothing but are not prepared to work hard for it.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Marc

Charlie a lot of your views are not backed by facts and you can't try to sell them to us as correct if you don't have the facts. It sort of comes across ignorant

They are not backed by facts because the facts have not been gathered or published. But these days people see things as standard or necessary goods when they are in no way that sort. Food, Water, Shelter and Heating are what I would class as important but the fact is the majority of people on low incomes do not spend their money on just those things, they have TV's, iPods, Cars and many more luxury goods which they waste their money on and then they complain that they cannot afford food.

It's a typical Torie budget, strip money from the services that affect the poorest in society, but ease the burden on the top bracket.

It's a classic Reagan-esque trickle down economic budget plan. By easing the burden on the top, they make a giant assumption that all these people are in the business of job creation, and by doing so, the only thing preventing the rich from creating jobs is an unfair taxation.

This has been proved numerous times to be false. Entrepreneurs don't work like this. I have my own business, and I've taken a 50% cut in my current income, in order that I can take on 2 staff members. I've taken a short term hit to my salary, because I know in 2/3 years time, they would have paid for themselves, and I'll then me earning around 60% more (based on basic targets).

Everywhere in the country we are asking people to sacrifice, yet this government don't believe that businesses should take a short term hit. How can we take food off the poorest tables, but insist that the top can keep the most expensive caviar?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

I actually think this is one of the best budgets to happen for a while. Everyone has been effected, and it is for the greater good. I'm glad the rich have not been hit harder like some want. Just because they earn more does not mean that the budget should penalise them more than the rest. It's not their fault England got into debt, just a few elitists fault. Also, as a smoker, I have no issue with the mass increase in price as I already cut down, this just gives me a reason to cut down further.

Who wants that? Personally I don't want anyone to suffer from the outcome of the budget. It just seems strange to me that the country is in such a dire financial situation, how could the government relieve that? ...Tax, why then have they reduced the rate of tax for those earning over Ł150.000pa?
A 5% drop will cost the country millions and millions, where are they going to recover that money from?
Those on low very low incomes are fine with the rise in personal allowance, its those on a middle income earning over Ł35'000 pa I feel sorry for those on middle incomes 40% tax rate ....how can that be representative of a fair system...how is it proportional?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Who wants that?

Quite a lot of people.

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

Like what? A playstation? A fridge? A cooker?

What kind of existence asks someone to sit inside a square box? Why don't we lock up all poor people? That way, we can ensure they get 3 square meals a day, but don't have access to an x-box.

I hate this myth that all poor people are sitting on their arses just waiting for government money. Some people are like that, of course. But it's completely ludicrous to suggest that our fellow brothers and sisters are all scroungers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Supposition but it is the truth. I bet that well over 90% of low income households own at least one relatively expensive good that could be deemed unnecessary or 'luxury'.

I don't actually see anything wrong with that if they have an item/s of what could be termed luxury.

The item/s could have been acquired in better times for those concerned or even been gifts from others helping out, often for speople struggling, some people find it easier to give expensive gifts rather than financial help, they may even be items passed on from relatives as they upgrade.

If they are buying such items they will likely be paying heavy interest for them and paying weekly for them,as the only way to have them rather than buying them outright.

I certainly don't begrudge those on low incomes having some 'special' items.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Who wants that? Personally I don't want anyone to suffer from the outcome of the budget. It just seems strange to me that the country is in such a dire financial situation, how could the government relieve that? ...Tax, why then have they reduced the rate of tax for those earning over Ł150.000pa?
A 5% drop will cost the country millions and millions, where are they going to recover that money from?
Those on low very low incomes are fine with the rise in personal allowance, its those on a middle income earning over Ł35'000 pa I feel sorry for those on middle incomes 40% tax rate ....how can that be representative of a fair system...how is it proportional?

The fact is that one group will always suffer more or benefit more than the other, one decision cannot effect everyone the exact same way otherwise we could be communist.
They will have reduced the rate of tax for the higher income groups because they have the means to dramatically increase spending and cause economic growth which will create more jobs in the future. The government are doing the best they can and it is just annoying when people feel they are targeted by the government when actually all the government is trying to do is fix it for everyone in the long run.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I don't actually see anything wrong with that if they have an item/s of what could be termed luxury.

The item/s could have been acquired in better times for those concerned or even been gifts from others helping out, often for speople struggling, some people find it easier to give expensive gifts rather than financial help, they may even be items passed on from relatives as they upgrade.

If they are buying such items they will likely be paying heavy interest for them and paying weekly for them,as the only way to have them rather than buying them outright.

I certainly don't begrudge those on low incomes having some 'special' items.

Well I do when they complain about not being able to afford food. Gifts are another matter, I meant purchasing them for themselves.

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Well I do when they complain about not being able to afford food. Gifts are another matter, I meant purchasing them for themselves.

Give examples of these luxury items that the poor shouldn't have.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

Quite a lot of people.

who? I bet theres more on middle incomes want their rate lowered...It should have stayed the same. My dads words keep coming back to me, tories look after their own...the rich.
I think he is right, no matter how many years have gone by between governments their changes always benefit the richest in society, and project a Laissez Faire approach to the poorest in society.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Like what? A playstation? A fridge? A cooker?

What kind of existence asks someone to sit inside a square box? Why don't we lock up all poor people? That way, we can ensure they get 3 square meals a day, but don't have access to an x-box.

I hate this myth that all poor people are sitting on their arses just waiting for government money. Some people are like that, of course. But it's completely ludicrous to suggest that our fellow brothers and sisters are all scroungers.

A fridge and a cooker are fair enough as they could be argued both essential and luxury. But a playstation is by no means necessary and if they do not have sufficient money for food then they should not be acquiring those sorts of goods in my opinion.

People in the Uk on supposedly low incomes/benefits are extremely fortunate in comparison to people in LEDC's, who live off less than one US$ a day. Benefit receivers are so incredibly lucky that the government pays them for doing nothing and millions of people round the would would kill to get roughly Ł10 a day to live off.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

They are not backed by facts because the facts have not been gathered or published. But these days people see things as standard or necessary goods when they are in no way that sort. Food, Water, Shelter and Heating are what I would class as important but the fact is the majority of people on low incomes do not spend their money on just those things, they have TV's, iPods, Cars and many more luxury goods which they waste their money on and then they complain that they cannot afford food.

Got to say I agree with this most people i see on benefits etc are usually strolling around smoking,holding a can and using a mobile,none of which are essentials.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Give examples of these luxury items that the poor shouldn't have.

Cars (we have legs for a reason), televisions, games consoles, mobile phones, and computers. To name a few.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by kizzy

who?

Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

The fact is that one group will always suffer more or benefit more than the other, one decision cannot effect everyone the exact same way otherwise we could be communist.
They will have reduced the rate of tax for the higher income groups because they have the means to dramatically increase spending and cause economic growth which will create more jobs in the future. The government are doing the best they can and it is just annoying when people feel they are targeted by the government when actually all the government is trying to do is fix it for everyone in the long run.

What! charlie for someone so young your views really scare me.
How about suggesting they reduce the 40% tax rate to 35%?.....Give them a bit more money to spend eh?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

Again you ignore 99% of what i said... Yes go out into the street right now, ask everyone you meet if they think reducing the 50p rate was a good idea. Do you know many people who earn over Ł150,000?

Originally Posted by ukturtle

Of course there are people who believe the rich should be hit harder. People on a low income for example. Not all of them, but quite a few. Would you like me to go into the street and find actual respondents for you?

It's not just people on low income, to be fair. Many people (including myself) believe in paying our fair share.

Warren Buffet is pushing for his taxes to be raised to help ease the burden in the US.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Again you ignore 99% of what i said... Yes go out into the street right now, ask everyone you meet if they think reducing the 50p rate was a good idea. Do you know many people who earn over Ł150,000?

I'm choosing to ignore the rest of your post because I said some people want the rich hit harder, you asked who, I told you. There are clearly people who do want the rich hit harder, why you feel the need to question that when it's clear some people do.

As for the rest of your post I don't want to discuss it, I really don't have much else to say to you.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by kizzy

What! charlie for someone so young your views really scare me.
How about suggesting they reduce the 40% tax rate to 35%?.....Give them a bit more money to spend eh?

Why do they scare you?

They cannot reduce that tax rate because then we will go further into a fiscal deficit and end up like Greece and not be able to pay back our borrowing.
The people who make these decisions are incredibly qualified to do so and make the best possible decision for all. The people who complain just see a very narrow view of it and are often only concerned about the affect it has on them personally.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

It's not just people on low income, to be fair. Many people (including myself) believe in paying our fair share.

Warren Buffet is pushing for his taxes to be raised to help ease the burden in the US.

Oh, I know. I was just giving her one example.