It is tough NOW. So how are we coping

ceridwen

mardatha wrote: »

I'm broken hearted I'm UPSET! I'm a truss ! I cant go on!
I need emergency sweetie parcels to stop me going into a decline !
I am bad

Well - your teeth might be Mardatha - ie bad that is - courtesy of all emergency sweetie rations heading your way:rotfl::rotfl:

I hope you have a good dentist:)

Charis

Chins up ladies and gents. Even the finest in the land are having their state benefits frozen http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10391693.stm

Charis

kidcat

Charis wrote: »

Chins up ladies and gents. Even the finest in the land are having their state benefits frozen http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10391693.stm

Charis

Have just had a quick read through the link, can anyone clarify that it says what I think - that the Queen gets £7.9m per year every year - but as there was a budget surplus in 1990-2000 of £35m, the £7.9m hasnt gone up in the last ten years. But the Queen is allowed to use the £35m from surplus of previous years. And that she has used most of that up in the last ten years??

Which leads me to several conclusions
1) The Queen is not living within her means
2) There have been no cuts in expenditure in line with the rest of the country
3) As a country we are going to have to find another £35m to stump up to cover the deficit that will occur now there is no surplus left

At this point in time when we have all been trying to cut back and cope with pay freezes, cuts, layoffs etc I find that I am speechless.

ceridwen

Been having a further gander at the Budget today - to get some of the "finer details":

Looks like (from my readings - and please excuse if I've got it wrong....):

- Those on benefit in rented accommodation will have to have a rent level thats in the lowest third of rents charged in their area in order to have all their rent paid (rather than the average rent level for their area). (In other words there is likely to be a "race to the bottom" on rent levels chargeable - as individual landlords try and protect their rental income by reducing it from average level to "bottom third" level if the tenants they attract/take are claimants - and so does their "next door neighbour" landlord and theirs etc ad infinitum). Knock-on beneficial effect on house prices possibly - as buy-to-lets become less beneficial????

- I spotted some mention of a time limit on how long the rent gets covered for housing benefit claimants - couldnt find any details....

- Child Tax Credit will (as from 2 years time) be payable only to those with less than approx £23,000 pa household income.

- Looks like those women in the age group transitioning over to 65 as the State Pension Age remain unaffected by any proposed increase in State Pension Age.

- The cut in benefits generally will be courtesy of the annual uprating being based on Consumer Price Index (right title??) - rather than Retail Prices Index as it is currently (ie it will be a lower cost-of-living rise p.a. than currently - as this other index apparently doesnt take account of rises in electric/gas bills?)

- Women who are single parents told to swop over from Income Support to J.S.A. once their youngest child reaches 5 years old. Knock-on effect = men needing to be a bit wary of being involved with women in that position with the youngest child coming up to 5 years old - in case they decide to get pregnant again in order to ensure they remain in the "child under 5" category for another 5 years:mad:. Some of them will....some of them will.....:mad: - thus demonstrating the "Law of Unintended Consequences" ......

ceridwen

kidcat wrote: »

Have just had a quick read through the link, can anyone clarify that it says what I think - that the Queen gets £7.9m per year every year - but as there was a budget surplus in 1990-2000 of £35m, the £7.9m hasnt gone up in the last ten years. But the Queen is allowed to use the £35m from surplus of previous years. And that she has used most of that up in the last ten years??

Which leads me to several conclusions
1) The Queen is not living within her means
2) There have been no cuts in expenditure in line with the rest of the country
3) As a country we are going to have to find another £35m to stump up to cover the deficit that will occur now there is no surplus left

At this point in time when we have all been trying to cut back and cope with pay freezes, cuts, layoffs etc I find that I am speechless.

Well - she found money recently to bail out her profligate mother - and Charles still seems to spend money like its going out of fashion as far as I can see
(everyone now takes a guess as to whether ceridwen is a royalist or no....:rotfl:).

floss2

kidcat wrote: »

Have just had a quick read through the link, can anyone clarify that it says what I think - that the Queen gets £7.9m per year every year - but as there was a budget surplus in 1990-2000 of £35m, the £7.9m hasnt gone up in the last ten years. But the Queen is allowed to use the £35m from surplus of previous years. And that she has used most of that up in the last ten years??

Which leads me to several conclusions
1) The Queen is not living within her means
2) There have been no cuts in expenditure in line with the rest of the country
3) As a country we are going to have to find another £35m to stump up to cover the deficit that will occur now there is no surplus left

At this point in time when we have all been trying to cut back and cope with pay freezes, cuts, layoffs etc I find that I am speechless.

Maybe she should consider reducing her outgoings like the rest of us?

ceridwen wrote: »

...Charles still seems to spend money like its going out of fashion as far as I can see...

But give him his due, he's self-financing so it's his own money to spend, as Duke of Cornwall & probably sole shareholder of Duchy Originals he does not receive any monies from the Civil List (to my knowledge).

kidcat

floss2 wrote: »

Maybe she should consider reducing her outgoings like the rest of us?



But give him his due, he's self-financing so it's his own money to spend, as Duke of Cornwall & probably sole shareholder of Duchy Originals he does not receive any monies from the Civil List (to my knowledge).

Thats my point exactly, surely as we are all having to cut back and tighten our belts that should apply to the Queen too.

I believe that Charles doesnt recieve civil list money either and if thats true hats off to him. I think he also now pays income tax too but I could be wrong there.

Gigervamp

ceridwen wrote: »

Been having a further gander at the Budget today - to get some of the "finer details":

- I spotted some mention of a time limit on how long the rent gets covered for housing benefit claimants - couldnt find any details....

Hmm, I'll have to look into this. My mum is on the basic state pension, lives in London and gets housing benefit. Although her rent is several hundred pounds cheaper than the other identical flats around her due to some sort of protected rent thingy, it's still almost £700 a month. There's no way she'd be able to pay that if the HB was stopped.

Gigervamp

Wasn't Duchy Originals sold to Waitrose recently?

floss2

kidcat wrote: »

... I think he also now pays income tax too but I could be wrong there.

I thought both he & Queenie did...?

Gigervamp wrote: »

Wasn't Duchy Originals sold to Waitrose recently?

Well he can WELL afford to be self financing now, if it was!!