MSE News: Hung parliament - how will it affect your finances?

dizzie

carolt wrote: »

No - the 10K personal tax allowance applies to everyone whether they earn 100K or 10K; obviously it's more pronounced to those whose gross income is 10K, but everyone will benefit - except those who currently pay no tax or who don't work.

This won't happen - the country can't afford it. I think it's a great idea to increase the personal allowance to £10k. There are some people on benefits who can work, but who will be financially worse off if they take a job, which to me seems ludicrous. Work should always provide a financial incentive and raising the personal allowance would help to do this.

But, they will either have to reduce higher rate tax threshold or increase the rate of basic or higher rate tax to fund it. In other words, if it happens, then it will not be everyone who benefits - it will just have to be those on very low incomes...unless someone magically finds a pot of gold elsewhere which isn't likely:o

dizzie

Before the election results were announced - whatever the outcome, I knew my finances were going to be worse off. However angry I am with greedy bankers who took outrageous financial risks and however keen I am to see some action taken to protect us all in future, we can't change what has happened. We are now in massive debt and belts will have to be pulled in. I accept that fact.

As for Hung Parliament - I guess it depends how the parties approach it. If they can talk to each other, build on their common ground and compromise over their differences then we may get some reasonable and tempered decisions. That won't change the fact that I will be worse off.

If they can't and they spend time squabbling and trying to get the upper hand then we'll get very few decisions - reasonable or not. This might result in protecting my finances in the short term - but I don't regard that as a good thing. The longer we put off dealing with the deficit, the harder it is going to be to bring it under control in future. I am not in favour of short term gain (or maintaining the status quo at any rate) if it leads to long term pain and more severe and drastic cuts later.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

carolt wrote: »

I'm not fighting, just stating simple facts. You appear to have a problem with accepting that bailing out people in your situation has had a huge economic cost for the country, and that other people are footing the bill.

Not surprising you don't wish to discuss the matter.

If you posted on here more regularly, you'd know I'm no troll - I do, however, have very strong feelings, as someone who rents, re the huge handouts given by all taxpayers, to bolster the ailing housing market, AND IT MAKES ME VERY CROSS.

If you can justify why people like me, who are priced out of the housing market, should continue to support people like you, who already own, then I'm listening, I really am.

The reason I didn't wish to discuss the matter is because
1) without knowing anything about me, you stated that you were subsidising me
2) you used terms such as "people like you" "people like me".

That indicates to me that you are probably polarising the positions and looking for confrontation before any meaningful responses can be made. When someone does this it is generally a fair bet that reasonable discussion is not going to happen. It also indicates to me that you have probably stereotyped me and compartmentalised the type of person you believe me to be.
Apart from all that, you have absolutely no idea why my debts are the way they are. Not all, but a fair bit of my debt came about keeping myself alive when the state (partly) and the nitpicking insurance companies (fully) failed me as I was not prepared to sleep rough while undergoing a form of chemotherapy. Therefore, I needed cash from my credit cards to keep the roof over my head as I was too ill to work.
I suppose if I had slept rough while undergoing treatment you would have complained about the state coughing up for my paupers funeral. I doubt I could have lived through sleeping rough while going through such intense stuff.
However, I am well these days and I have rebuilt my small business to something much better than it was and am repaying my debts. I have never asked you to repay them for me and indeed, some days, I even managed to struggle in to work part time while on chemo so you didn't even have to subsidise any sick pay for me.
The only times in my life I have claimed benefits were for two brief spells of unemployment in the deep recession of 1990/1991. I got off my !!!! and started cleaning peoples windows during a pretty cold winter - the business that I still have nearly twenty years on. I admit also that I cost the state money for my medical treatment a few years ago but I figure that I have paid plenty of NI as I have worked almost solidly since 1973. I have never had any children so effectively I pay for other peoples children to be educated, child benefits, and other peoples tax credits as I don't receive any of these things.
However, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about this and graciously accept that as a single person earning more than benefit and credits levels, I have a responsibility if I choose to live in a society that has a semblance of compassion. In fact Carol, I wouldn't even begrudge you those things .
I do acknowledge that because there seem to be more borrowers than savers during a time of economic difficulty, interest rates have been pushed exceptionally low. I suppose it could be argued that savers are subsidising borrowers in such circumstances. There is also a case that due to these low interest rates, housing prices are being kept afloat at a level that would not have otherwise been possible. I assume that these two items are the ones about which you have an issue.
However, if interest rates were to start climbing appreciably, this would probably cause unemployment to rise again (perhaps your job would go). Although this might depress house prices, maybe you wouldn't have a job to pay the mortgage anyway.

As for subsidies. Our society is full of cross subsidising. I'm happy to pay my taxes to help avoid a generation of semi-literate children - even though I have no children. I'm happy to pay in a bit extra so that 30,000 old people don't die each winter from the cold. I'm happy to repay my debts (some at high interest rates) so that other people don't have to pay even higher rates. There are probably other ways that I subsidise other members of society. I'm sure you do too but perhaps in different ways to me.
So we live in a society where a lot of us subsidise parts of each others lives. I don't agree with it all either but I acknowledge that if people weren't given benefits, they might be breaking into homes. Perhaps even you or I would do so if we hadn't eaten for a week.
I've no idea how you have me typecast but although I am a home owner and a business owner, it's also true that I am a sole trader at window cleaning who lives in a very modest flat in the middle of a council estate. It seems quite comical to me that under some definitions I would be classified as being middle class because I certainly don't feel that way.

There. I answered with good grace without biting once. I didn't stereotype you either :kisses3:

Deep_In_Debt

treliac wrote: »

I like the idea of raising the personal tax threshold, especially as neither of us is getting a pay rise this year (and barely got one last year and probably same again next time).

I think that would go down well with 'hardworking British families.'

It would also go down well with hardworking single people too.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

No - the 10K personal tax allowance applies to everyone whether they earn 100K or 10K; obviously it's more pronounced to those whose gross income is 10K, but everyone will benefit - except those who currently pay no tax or who don't work.

I agree that economic stability affects us all long-term; personally, I don't see it as personally likely to affect me that much in the short term, though - esp as it may mean higher interest rates which = lower house prices.

I did not look in to it but how could they afford it? If everyone end up with extra money in their take home the government end up with less tax income. (reason I did not look in to it as I just thought it was a gimmick/hook)

Surely they have to put up taxes elsewhere or make even deeper cuts to make up for the fall in tax incomes.

Bullfighter

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

The reason I didn't wish to discuss the matter is because
1) without knowing anything about me, you stated that you were subsidising me
2) you used terms such as "people like you" "people like me".

That indicates to me that you are probably polarising the positions and looking for confrontation before any meaningful responses can be made. When someone does this it is generally a fair bet that reasonable discussion is not going to happen. It also indicates to me that you have probably stereotyped me and compartmentalised the type of person you believe me to be.
Apart from all that, you have absolutely no idea why my debts are the way they are. Not all, but a fair bit of my debt came about keeping myself alive when the state (partly) and the nitpicking insurance companies (fully) failed me as I was not prepared to sleep rough while undergoing a form of chemotherapy. Therefore, I needed cash from my credit cards to keep the roof over my head as I was too ill to work.
I suppose if I had slept rough while undergoing treatment you would have complained about the state coughing up for my paupers funeral. I doubt I could have lived through sleeping rough while going through such intense stuff.
However, I am well these days and I have rebuilt my small business to something much better than it was and am repaying my debts. I have never asked you to repay them for me and indeed, some days, I even managed to struggle in to work part time while on chemo so you didn't even have to subsidise any sick pay for me.
The only times in my life I have claimed benefits were for two brief spells of unemployment in the deep recession of 1990/1991. I got off my !!!! and started cleaning peoples windows during a pretty cold winter - the business that I still have nearly twenty years on. I admit also that I cost the state money for my medical treatment a few years ago but I figure that I have paid plenty of NI as I have worked almost solidly since 1973. I have never had any children so effectively I pay for other peoples children to be educated, child benefits, and other peoples tax credits as I don't receive any of these things.
However, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about this and graciously accept that as a single person earning more than benefit and credits levels, I have a responsibility if I choose to live in a society that has a semblance of compassion. In fact Carol, I wouldn't even begrudge you those things .
I do acknowledge that because there seem to be more borrowers than savers during a time of economic difficulty, interest rates have been pushed exceptionally low. I suppose it could be argued that savers are subsidising borrowers in such circumstances. There is also a case that due to these low interest rates, housing prices are being kept afloat at a level that would not have otherwise been possible. I assume that these two items are the ones about which you have an issue.
However, if interest rates were to start climbing appreciably, this would probably cause unemployment to rise again (perhaps your job would go). Although this might depress house prices, maybe you wouldn't have a job to pay the mortgage anyway.

As for subsidies. Our society is full of cross subsidising. I'm happy to pay my taxes to help avoid a generation of semi-literate children - even though I have no children. I'm happy to pay in a bit extra so that 30,000 old people don't die each winter from the cold. I'm happy to repay my debts (some at high interest rates) so that other people don't have to pay even higher rates. There are probably other ways that I subsidise other members of society. I'm sure you do too but perhaps in different ways to me.
So we live in a society where a lot of us subsidise parts of each others lives. I don't agree with it all either but I acknowledge that if people weren't given benefits, they might be breaking into homes. Perhaps even you or I would do so if we hadn't eaten for a week.
I've no idea how you have me typecast but although I am a home owner and a business owner, it's also true that I am a sole trader at window cleaning who lives in a very modest flat in the middle of a council estate. It seems quite comical to me that under some definitions I would be classified as being middle class because I certainly don't feel that way.

There. I answered with good grace without biting once. I didn't stereotype you either :kisses3:

Savers are being bent over and reamed just to keep those with debt from feeling the real pain.

Nothing personal.

Titus_R._Soules

Bullfighter wrote: »

Savers are being bent over and reamed just to keep those with debt from feeling the real pain.

Nothing personal.

Lots of Tory MPs pay good money for that sort of thing :eek:

Titus_R._Soules

carolt wrote: »

If you can justify why people like me, who are priced out of the housing market, should continue to support people like you, who already own, then I'm listening, I really am.

It comes as news to at least one "people like you" that I already own my own home.

All these years I had thought that it was owned by Northern Rock, and I had been paying them the equivilent of "rent" once a month.

Not THE Carolt by any chance?

If so, is there any truth in the rumour that your mother has changed her name by deed poll?

She has adopted one of her many old nicknames and will, from now on, be known as Evelyn Carnate.

carolt

Ha ha.

No, not THAT CarolT. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

What a terrifying thought.

I have been called Mrs T on here before, which upset me even more...

Paulgonnabedebtfree

Titus_R._Soules wrote: »

Not THE Carolt by any chance?

You swine. I was saving that one for the coup de grace .