Child Benefit fiasco: cuts 'unravelling' already...

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

carolt wrote: »

I think Labour failed massively in how it dealt with the economy initially, which is partly why these cuts are needed.

You didn't vote Labour, ergo, you brought it on yourself.

Alan_Cross

carolt wrote: »

Yes, but we didn't need to bail out the bankers - that was Labour's decision.

The bankers may have been the beneficiaries, but they couldn't have done it without Labour's say-so.

Pardon?

So you would have been happy for the financial system to go under, complete with all of your and everyone else's accounts, would you..?

What a load of shlock. It was an absolute imperative and any government would have had to do the same.

The situation we are in is virtually all down to the banking crisis and the global recession sparked by it. Very little of that can be laid at the British Labour Government's door.

It's the bankers.

Graham_Devon

To all labour party fanatacists...

You have been given a gift. Just take it and enjoy it. Don't ruin it by taking it far to far!!!

Labour would have done exactly the same. They would have faced the same choices, regardless of what they say in opposition, to other party fanatacists, or at elections.

If labour can lie about a war, I'm sure they won't have an issue with reverting what they said they would od on a few tax cuts. They would have cut just as deep....just as the lib dems have found out now they are getting a go in the driving seat in some respects. Everything they promised is out of the window. Same !!!!!!, differnt party.

Edit: see, even Alan agress with me...all parties would have done the same if anyone attacks the beloved labour party!

carolt

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Many people who have kids might have to seriously consider turning down a pay rise as they approach the higher rate tax band - it would now have to be a fairly hefty pay rise to make it worthwhile, taking into account the loss of child benefit and the higher rate tax.

Certainly.

Or working at all, if they currently have children and pay rent.

Coalitions maximum benefits package = 26K.

Someone earning 44K after tax - take home of £32,270.40.

So that's 6K a year benefit for a full week's work. Or actually less, once you factor in all the non-financial benefits you'd get if still on benefits - free school meals, free prescriptions, free dental and eye care, etc Uniform grants? Reduced cost or free children's activities? (Don't know if they're universal - certainly widespread round here.)

Plus you have to factor in transport costs to work, work clothes and any childcare costs.

Oooh look - not much left of the £500/month - for example - my OH's transport bill to work is c £250/month - not at all unusual in commuterland...

So you can do a full year's work, and be - ooh, maybe £100 a month better off.

Big incentive to work. Not.

dopester

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You didn't vote Labour, ergo, you brought it on yourself.

Labour, if they were back in power, would have had to take similar unpopular measures as well you do realise.

They did everything to avoid cuts up to the election, but they would have had to get real too with decisions which might be unpopular and not "vote-winners".

carolt

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Pardon?

So you would have been happy for the financial system to go under, complete with all of your and everyone else's accounts, would you..?

What a load of shlock. It was an absolute imperative and any government would have had to do the same.

The situation we are in is virtually all down to the banking crisis and the global recession sparked by it. Very little of that can be laid at the British Labour Government's door.

It's the bankers.

Disagree that action needed to be taken as it was. Far more regulation of the banks could have been introduced etc.

Frankly when even the Americans are tougher on our bankers than we are, then you know that our supposedly 'left wing' govt has lost the plot...

Let's just say I certainly didn't fail to vote Labour because they were too left-wing; I failed to vote Labour because they were not left-wing enough. I voted with my conscience.

GeneHunt_2

dopester wrote: »

Labour, if they were back in power, would have had to take similar unpopular measures as well you do realise.

They did everything to avoid cuts up to the election, but they would have had to get real too with decisions which might be unpopular and not "vote-winners".

Carp. AD and GB would never have done anything as dumb as this!

GeneHunt_2

By the way - I did notice on the 10 o'clock news that all the men thought it was a great idea and all the women thought it was awful!

Just an observation.

triticale

purch wrote: »

Seeing as HMRC can't run the Tax Credits system efficiently and correctly, and require taxpayers to tell them how much they earn, then I find it hard to believe that with a benefit that in most cases is paid to the wife, or mother, and which requires no other information to be provided, they will be able to work out who qualifies and who doesn't

Unless they make some exceptions to the public sector cuts/recruitment bans etc and if HMRC are continually expected to do 'more with less', then I find it hard to believe that HMRC will be able to effectively run anything before long. :eek:

FTBFun

carolt wrote: »

Yes, but we didn't need to bail out the bankers - that was Labour's decision.

The bankers may have been the beneficiaries, but they couldn't have done it without Labour's say-so.

The Tories would have done exactly the same. Hell - the Republicans did it in the US and they make the Tories look like a bunch of Guardian-eating-tofu-wearing-sandal-reading lefties.