MSE News: The hidden Budget benefits cut at £25,000

worldwheeler

divastrop wrote: »

The current government aren't the ones who let it get to this point, but neither was it the last government. Thatcher did some bad things, but basically the conservatives support a system which is flawed and taking money from those on benefits or low incomes is not going to help the economy. The Lib Dems seemed to have the right idea, but I think they have been swallowed by the conservatives now and will never be seen again.

Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem..... they are all pawns on the same side of a chess set. The other side of the chess set is the public..unfortunately the public chess pieces have diverters, manipulators and dividers in the form of media, TV, newspapers etc. who provide enhancement to the smoke and mirrors clouding and covering the board so the public do not see the movements, planning and strategic positioning the other chess side is making.

ILW

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Precisely, look even at the wars, WHO benefits? Not us, not Afghanis or Iraqis, not soldiers. So WHO? So far it's been the major oil companies, and consortiums of various groups of contractors who have billion dollar contracts. Dig a little deeper and see whose friends their lobbyists are. Even Karzai himself was reported to be the intermediatary between the Taliban and the US Oil consortium who were originally reaching a deal to pipe out the gas via Afghanistan from the Caspian region. (No need to point out that George Bush's friends were happily dining the Taliban just a couple of months before the invasion, in the hope of getting their hands on their gas that way). The Taliban broke off the deal, then the US invades, and shock horror, the gas is safe in the hands of western corporate interests again. So we have US troops strategically places protecting about 5bn cubic feet of Natural Gas.

Meanwhile thousands of working-class people: British and Nato soldiers, and thousands more Afghanis are dead.

Exxon Mobile and BP are raking it in in Iraq with $50 billion oil deals the norm. Before the invasion on Iraq, they couldn't get their hands on Saddaams oil, it was the Russians who had the greater interest in Iraq (Iraq just so happens to be stting on the second biggest supply of Oil reserves discovered on Earth).

Pretend we are liberating them, whilst simultanously installing puppets who want to legalise marital rape.

Then they create enough smokescreens so the rest of the working classes are so busy bickering about single moms and low income families on a pittance needing benefit assistance, these people are literally getting away with murder.

Time to wake up people.

Who are these working classes that you keep banging on about?

meher

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Precisely, look even at the wars, WHO benefits? Not us, not Afghanis or Iraqis, not soldiers. So WHO? So far it's been the major oil companies, and consortiums of various groups of contractors who have billion dollar contracts. Dig a little deeper and see whose friends their lobbyists are. Even Karzai himself was reported to be the intermediatary between the Taliban and the US Oil consortium who were originally reaching a deal to pipe out the gas via Afghanistan from the Caspian region. (No need to point out that George Bush's friends were happily dining the Taliban just a couple of months before the invasion, in the hope of getting their hands on their gas that way). The Taliban broke off the deal, then the US invades, and shock horror, the gas is safe in the hands of western corporate interests again. So we have US troops strategically places protecting about 5bn cubic feet of Natural Gas.

Meanwhile thousands of working-class people: British and Nato soldiers, and thousands more Afghanis are dead.

Exxon Mobile and BP are raking it in in Iraq with $50 billion oil deals the norm. Before the invasion on Iraq, they couldn't get their hands on Saddaams oil, it was the Russians who had the greater interest in Iraq (Iraq just so happens to be stting on the second biggest supply of Oil reserves discovered on Earth).

Pretend we are liberating them, whilst simultanously installing puppets who want to legalise marital rape.

All this rhetorical hocus pocus is rather tedious and the truth submerged somewhere as always the case. It is propagandist stuff as these sort which emites lots of heat and no light, that actually make people apathetic to the real crisis because that is what it is - everyone has self interests; the Aghanis, Iraqis, not only their governments but also their freedom fighters, as well as the allied nations parked there - they create situations for one another's survival. Every other analysis is reduced to conspiracy theories and tell tales unless you recognise their symbiotic relationship. Unfortunately we have a bunch of illinformed people who trot out these unthinkingly. Back up what you say, and if it is relevant to the discussion, through recent and authoritative articles. Not something from the jihadist websites please, as we're well versed in all that having indulged it when it suited and given the [STRIKE]propagandists[/STRIKE] supporters mission, thanks in advance.

Back on topic, I for one don't believe in cuts and would have been interested to see improving the welfare system instead. When we focus on poverty vocabulary, the social ills that actually need attention, is lost in the plot. Hopefully by the end of their term, the conservatives would have got people out of this dependency culture that was once created and nurtured since.

Deepmistrust

meher wrote: »

All this rhetorical hocus pocus is rather tedious and the truth submerged somewhere as always the case. It is propagandist stuff as these sort which emites lots of heat and no light, that actually make people apathetic to the real crisis because that is what it is - everyone has self interests; the Aghanis, Iraqis, not only their governments but also their freedom fighters, as well as the allied nations parked there - they create situations for one another's survival. Every other analysis is reduced to conspiracy theories and tell tales unless you recognise their symbiotic relationship. Unfortunately we have a bunch of illinformed people who trot out these unthinkingly. Back up what you say, and if it is relevant to the discussion, through recent and authoritative articles. Not something from the jihadist websites please, as we're well versed in all that having indulged it when it suited and given the [STRIKE]propagandists[/STRIKE] supporters mission, thanks in advance.

Back on topic, I for one don't believe in cuts and would have been interested to see improving the welfare system instead. When we focus on poverty vocabulary, the social ills that actually need attention, is lost in the plot. Hopefully by the end of their term, the conservatives would have got people out of this dependency culture that was once created and nurtured since.

I've more than backed up what I say, there are a whole long list of organisations that have and are continuing to profit from these invasions. Invasions which British soldiers are dying for. For someone elses greed.

If you have never heard of any of these deals such as Exxon Mobiles 50bn Oil field deal (West Qurna Oil Field). Or Unocal pipeline deals in Texas with the Taliban, never mind plans by the Afghani puppet government to legalise marital rape, or even read into the background of the shady Afghani government, such as Karzai and his thug Dostrum, all supported by the coalition - yes supported by your taxes - then I can't be held accountable for your utter laziness to accept like a good little citizen what you have been told needs to happen.

Whether you want to pigeon hole the slaughter of soldiers and civilians for profit as a "conspiracy theory" is meaningless rhetoric. Anything organised but denied could be classed as a "conspiracy theory", and it's people like you that guffaw at the facts that allow such attrocities to continue to happen.

50Twuncle

DX2 wrote: »

So in theory what about £7.08 per week.

No - a drop of £85 per year of money that they don't deserve anyway - thats a drop of £1.63 per week - hardly a huge amount !!!

scott_lithgows

Put people off having kids then make them work 5-10 more years to make up for the fact that 20 years later theres no kids paying into pension schemes!
Expect this of the tories but blame the Libdems for supporting them,hope to see them removed from the Scottish parliament next year.Will be voting against PR in the referendum as well.

meher

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I've more than backed up what I say,

I don't dispute that you've backed up; I'm only saying that it isn't properly sourced, it's just nicely parroted. Also an incomplete picture or partisan views don't amount to facts for me. I intend to leave it here because I can't see the relevance of these conspiracy theories in this discussion although I don't mind appreciating that you do.

Deepmistrust

meher wrote: »

I don't dispute that you've backed up; I'm only saying that it isn't properly sourced, it's just nicely parroted. Also an incomplete picture or partisan views don't amount to facts for me. I intend to leave it here because I can't see the relevance of these conspiracy theories in this discussion although I don't mind appreciating that you do.

Again, your failure to take on board the comment about "conspriacy theory" (that in that case, anything planned can be denied and called "conspiracy theory"). The irony here, is you parroting the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to block discussion about attrocities commited for profit.

It's hardly scientific refutal to just wheel out that phrase at everything you can't comprehend.

flashnazia

zoelikesjam wrote: »

I know someone who has asked for a pay cut at work to reduce her earnings from £25,299 down to £24,999 just so she'll be elegible(hate that word) for around 7k in working taxes...remove that 300quid and shes much better off.
I disagree with this, but i can see why shes done it.

I don't understand this. I thought tax credits reduced gradually by about 33p for every pound earned? Its not cut completely at a simple cut off point like £24999?

divastrop

flashnazia wrote: »

I don't understand this. I thought tax credits reduced gradually by about 33p for every pound earned? Its not cut completely at a simple cut off point like £24999?

I would quite like to understand how tax credits work actually, so Im looking forward to a reply :T

Family credit was pretty simple from what I recall, some was deducted for every pound you earned over a certain amount or something. tax credits continue to baffle me.